Back to: Third Session | Draft Article 17 Comments on the draft text Download complete compilation of comments: MS Word
National Human Rights Institutions Ontario Human Rights Commission Footnote 55; Footnote 56 The Commission is of the view that this draft Article should be inclusive of all levels of education – primary, secondary and higher education, and include vocational education and other forms of training. In this regard, not all provisions of the draft Article should be limited to “children”. At the same time, certain provisions might appropriately be directed to the unique needs of children. 2.(a); Footnote 58; 3.; Footnote 61 The Commission has particular concern with the notions above. The appropriateness of integrated versus segregated settings for the education of students with disabilities fosters much debate in the Ontario context. The Supreme Court of Canada has also addressed this debate in the case of Eaton vs. Brant County Board of Education.1 According to the Court: While integration should be recognized as the norm of general application because of the benefits it generally provides, a presumption in favour of integrated schooling would work to the disadvantage of pupils who require special education in order to achieve equality .... Integration can be either a benefit or a burden depending on whether the individual can profit from the advantages that integration provides. The Commission's view is set out in its report The Opportunity to Succeed: Achieving Barrier-free Education for Students with Disabilities: Before considering placing a student in a self-contained, or specialized classroom, education providers must first consider inclusion in the regular classroom. In most cases, appropriate accommodation will be accommodation in the regular classroom with supports. However, every student with a disability is unique. In order to provide appropriate accommodation to all students with disabilities, education providers must, with the assistance of parental input, assess each student's particular strengths and needs, and consider these against a full range of placements, programs and services. Ultimately, appropriate accommodation will be decided on an individual basis. Finally, with respect to the use of the term “adequately” in paragraph
3 of draft Article 17 above, the Commission’s view is that whether a general
education system “adequately” meets the needs of students with disabilities
is more a question of the status of the progressive realization of the
right. In keeping with the notion that integration should be the norm
of general application, the Commission suggests substituting into this
paragraph the term “appropriately” to read, “States Parties shall ensure
that where the general education system does not appropriately This is one of the most important and complex areas. Therefore, before making concrete comments to the draft article, some general comments might be useful on the objectives to be achieved with this article. First and foremost, the right to education for all disabled children, youngsters and adults has to be recognised and this education has to be of the same quality as that of their non disabled peers. The most complex is the issue of mainstream and special education. Special education can be provided in special schools, but also in special classes within mainstream schools. The decision between special and mainstream education is an issue for which the level of economic development of countries needs to be taken into account. In an economically developed country, the existence of special schools is difficult to justify. An exception to this general rule is the education of deaf children who use sign language as their first language. The organisations of the deaf defend the special schools as the preferred option. All other groups consider mainstream education as the preferred option. Nevertheless, inclusion in mainstream schools can only be the best option if the adequate support is provided to the disabled child. As long as this support is not provided, special schools need to continue to exist to ensure the right for a quality education. However, the general objective to be promoted is the integration in mainstream education. Finally, meaningful choice is a key issue for the child and for the family, which plays a decisive role in the decision on which education type to choose. A reference to the key role of the parents in choosing the education of their disabled children, needs to be included. The article has to cover more clearly all stages of education and cover all persons with disabilities. Therefore the reference in the initial section of paragraph 1 should refer to persons with disabilities and not only to children with disabilities. The same applies to paragraph 1 c). In order to avoid confusion, we suggest always to refer to education and not to learning. EDF considers that the structure of the article is not very clear. In our view, the first paragraph should deal with the right to education and the right to the same quality education as the non-disabled peers. We suggest therefore that the paragraph 2c) is moved to paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 should refer to the mainstream education system and paragraph 3 to special education. EDF supports in paragraph 2b) the inclusion of a reference both to the need to have specialised support teachers as well as a general disability awareness training among all education professionals. A special reference to information and communication technologies should also be included in this paragraph. Paragraph 3d should say “continue to realise the needs of students with
disabilities”. Paragraph 5 of the article should include a non exhaustive list of assistance to be provided to persons with disabilities to ensure their participation in tertiary education and vocational training. Article 17 on education does not provide a strong basis for inclusive education with recognition of the needs of individual groups. The Salamanca Statement must be the baseline for a new Convention. Indian NGO Consultative Meeting The participants suggested addition of a new sub-para under article 17 as 17-6, which should be read as “States parties shall simultaneously promote special education system to meet the specific education needs of respective disability groups.” People with disabilities frequently find themselves forced into educational settings not of their choosing and/or often not appropriate to their actual needs, which in turn limit their opportunities to develop their full potential as individuals and to participate fully in society. It is therefore important that Draft Article 17 address the range of issues related to the education of people with disabilities. (For some examples of educational issues of relevance to people with disabilities, Cf. UN Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for People with Disabilities, Rule 6) Draft Article 17(1) specifically states that the right of all persons with disabilities to education is a right to be achieved “progressively.” Although there are other draft articles in the Working Group text subject to progressive realization, those provisions are not consistently highlighted as such. The Ad Hoc Committee may wish to consider whether it is really necessary for Draft Article 17 to be subject to such treatment. Footnote 56 notes the use of the term “children” in paragraph (1). Given that educational settings (particularly tertiary education) have relevance to adults as well, the Ad Hoc Committee may wish to examine the references to children throughout this article. Footnote 59 and paragraph 3(d) both make reference to the “needs” of students and children with disabilities. The Ad Hoc Committee may wish to consider amending this language to instead read “rights and needs.” Footnote 61 references the discussions about different options regarding mainstream vs. specialist education services. It should be noted that the expectation is that if specialist educational settings are offered, they should not be of a lower standard than the general or mainstream settings. (Cf. UN Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, Rule 6, para. 8; UNESCO Convention Against Discrimination in Education, Article 5(1)(c)) Training should be dealt with separated from education. It is necessary that we speak about education only and do not replace this word the "learning". The right to lifelong education for PWD:s on equal footing with non-disabled should be included. Education should cover children and adults on equal footing within the country. Under para 2 (a), the following words should be included (… can choose inclusive OR SPECIAL (residential) and accessible education in their own community…). Under para 2 (c), employment of teachers with disabilities should rather
be referred to in Article 22 Right to Work. Inclusive or special educational must not be seen as, either or, but rather as alternative and complementary. Full inclusion is often wrongly interpreted to mean full-scale mainstreaming of all students with disabilities in the same class-room, no matter of disability and no matter of the possibility to utilise the lessons. Students who are Deaf, Blind and Deafblind gain more benefit in schools or classes of their own, with teachers and support staffs who are qualified and skilled in sign language, Braille and tactile communication skills. Further down in footnote 61: “…individual’s ability to choose either
the general system or the specialist services.” Education is an obligation
and must not be interpreted as “specialist service”. Item 4 should be rewritten. WFD proposes that item 4 be divided so that there are separate points for Deaf education in sign language; and a point of its own for Braille and education for blind people. The World Blind Union should write the point for education of blind people. WFD would like to propose the following as the paragraph regarding education
for Deaf people, to be added to Article 17: Support for both mother tongue medium education and bilingual teachers is in “The Hague Recommendations Regarding the Education Rights of National Minorities” from the High Commissioner on National Minorities of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (see www.osce.org/hcnm/); and also the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (www.unesco.org ) Education in a Multilingual World, UNESCO Education Position Paper, 2003 and Safeguarding of Endangered Languages. Footnotes |