Daily Summary related to Draft Article 17 EDUCATION Prepared by Landmine Survivors Network
Volume 3, #6
January 12, 2004
Morning Session
Commenced: 10:19 AM
Adjourned: 1:03 PM
RIGHT TO EDUCATION
Ireland commented that this article is very focused on the right to education
of children with disabilities and may be more appropriately dealt with
under the other heading of children with disabilities. It is only the
last paragraph that deals with more general issue of people with disabilities
who are not children. This should be looked at further. There seems to
be slight terminology problem in the last paragraph where it talks about
“right to equal access.. on the basis of equality”. The difference between
these two ideas is not defined and the reason for including of both in
the same sentence is unclear. Regarding the first paragraph of the article,
note the inconsistency of language in the definition of right to education
from article 13 (ICESR). The Chair’s draft refers to the full development
of the human potential while the ICESR refers to the development of the
human personality. This kind of difference tends to lead to endless discussion
regarding the meaning and content of the right. If it is our intention
to re-define rights, we should know what we are doing.
Japan said that the general exchange between PWD and persons without
disabilities should be promoted in the article. It is important to give
children maximum opportunities to education, to provide children with
disabilities the opportunity to develop their full potential. If all children
are required to study in a general education setting, this can be counterproductive
to fully meet their needs. What is most important is to guarantee compulsory
education for all children with disabilities. We should address the need
for flexibility and variety in curriculum and character of schools to
ensure this maximum access. A general school system is not necessarily
the only answer. Japan therefore called for the deletion of the clause
“aimed at preparing students in general education system” in paragraph
2.
The Coordinator reminded the group of the relevance of Article 29 of
the CRC, in particular, 1(a), which states that “States Parties agree
that the education of the child shall be directed to the development of
the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to
their fullest potential.”
Thailand said that the paragraph 3 in the Chair’s draft favored one model
of education over another and proposed that the sentence which included
the phrase “general school system” should be deleted. The paragraph should
be rewritten so that PWD have the right to choose a general education
school or a specialized school to meet their educational needs. The article
should address quality and choice of education in this context.
Jamaica said that the article should reflect a developmental approach
in a human rights context. If PWD are to be empowered, they need social
and economic mobility which depends on education. We must ensure, ultimately,
that all schools are so designed and constructed so that they accommodate
all disabilities.
The World Blind Union said that, while the ultimate goal should be that
all forms of education be in a format to provide equally good education
for all children in a class, it is our experience that UNESCO’s promotion
of inclusive education has harmed blind children enormously. Blind children
find themselves mainstreamed in a class without support, with teachers
who can’t read Braille and lack the ability to communicate effectively
with blind children. Beyond Braille, fundamental habilitation and mobility
training must be available to blind children and cannot be taught in inclusive
education. Braille skills have declined worldwide and illiteracy among
blind children increased as a result. The WBU called for the addition
of the words “special and inclusive education” in paragraph 2 as well
as a reference to lifelong learning, as many people are not born blind
but lose their sight over time and need to learn new skills as an adult.
Paragraph 3 should be re-written, as previously noted by Thailand, and
paragraph 5 should address the needs of blind persons on an equal level
as it addresses the needs of deaf people.
The World Federation of the Deaf-Blind pointed out that most deaf blind
children and adults receive no or very little education and it rarely
geared toward their potential. Paragraph 3 should be re-written. Inclusive
education does not mean putting everyone in the same classroom, which
is wrong for the deaf-blind because of the communications issues. Being
included in the classroom is not the same as being included in the actual
education. Braille and large print should be added to paragraph 5 and
the idea of lifelong learning should also be incorporated, as most deaf-blind
people lose their vision and hearing during their adult lives.
Disability Australia Limited supported eliminating any bias toward one
particular type of education service delivery and endorsed the concept
that this treaty must widen the educational choices for children and their
parents. The push for inclusive education had its place and time when
there was a need to eliminate the historic restriction of people with
disabilities to special schools. But, in attempting to undo this historical
mistake, we must not impose another system that is also not universally
appropriate. Choice in education must be available to PWD.
Canada agreed with many delegations that paragraph 3 is overly prescriptive,
as is the wording in brackets in paragraph 2. One model of education does
not fit all people. Individual circumstances and the severity of the disability
must be considered when making educational choices for PWD. We need to
ensure that we do not create a model that provides an excuse for authorities
to ignore their responsibility to provide appropriate services (e.g. special
schools, when required) by claiming that the standard calls for inclusive
education. On a more general note, delegations should consider using the
word “should” instead of “shall” in all articulations and proposals. The
overuse of the word “shall” has the effect of weakening it.
The World Federation of the Deaf noted that 80% PWD do not have access
to education and that the article should cover all levels and forms of
education and not prescribe only one option. In developing countries,
for example, some deaf schools are being closed in the name of inclusive
education, resulting in high illiteracy among deaf children. Inclusive
education cannot meet certain specific need and special education is not
the same as segregated education. Paragraph 5 should encourage education
of deaf children to become bi-lingual or multi-lingual in terms of knowing
national sign language, the national spoken language in written form,
as well as foreign languages in written form. There is also a need to
address the issue of the need of interpretation in higher education.
The Coordinator commented that while inclusiveness is a fundamental principle
in the Convention, it also needs to be tempered with reality. Communication
skills for deaf, blind, for example, cannot be taught in general school.
In this regard, there is a need to find a balance so that special skills
can be taught in a specialist environment and other elements of education
more appropriate for inclusive setting can also be made available.
The European Disability Forum stated that it is clear the article needs
to ensure that all disabled children have access to education and should
also cover the area of lifelong learning. What is more complicated is
striking the balance between special versus inclusive education. In some
cases, special supports can facilitate integration in general classrooms.
In other cases, special schools are the better choice. It is unacceptable
in any case to send children with physical disabilities to special schools
due solely to issues of physical accessibility. The fundamental principle
at the core of this article is the issue of choice. The article should
not allow for reliance on special schools as excuse for States to not
make general schools accessible.
The World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry noted that in
the case of psycho-social disabilities, it would not support segregation
in the educational context. In this, the article needs to take into account
different disabilities. The inclusion of the word personality in the article
is good because it is also contained in the International Declaration
on Human Rights. The inclusion of the word potential is also appropriate.
If specific supports are to be listed in paragraph 2, then psycho-social
support should added to the list. WNUSP also called for some mention,
either in this context or in the context of torture, of the right to be
protected from medical intervention as a means to control behavior, which
is often justified in educational settings as well as prisons and other
institutional settings.
Rehabilitation International said that the problem is that PWD either
receive no education or receive it in such a segregated environment, without
choice, that they face discrimination in other spheres of life. Regarding
the right itself, there are interconnecting rationales that explain the
right: the rationale of economic independence, by providing marketable
skills; social independence, that is, preparing the person for an interactive
life; and, finally, civic responsibility, not only to exercise rights
but also assume responsibilities. In addition to Article 29 of the CRC,
members should be aware of the language in the Council of Europe recommendation
of 1992, which provides for the right to appropriate free education, adapted
to meet their needs and wishes. It is important for the international
community to voice support for an exceptionally strong principle of mainstreaming
to reverse the exceptionally strong principle of separate but equal, which
is so embedded in national laws in policies all over the world. This is
not only important for the peers of disabled children who then grow to
expect the presence of diversity. At the same time we must be careful
that support and reasonable accommodation be available in the educational
setting and that the educational plan be individualized for the needs
of the student. So, in paragraph 2, we should begin desegregating these
things: adequate support, reasonable accommodation, etc. and then individualize
the education plan. The paragraph should also refer to teacher training
during initial training. Overall, the provision should reflect the priority
of mainstreaming first, segregating if you must but only if proved that
it is objectively necessary as opposed to subjectively convenient. Paragraphs
4 and 5 should carve out space for the deaf and deaf-blind, but in a way
that preserves a strong presumption in favor of mainstreaming. Finally,
some link in the text should be made between rehabilitation and education.
Helpful language on this can be found in the1992 Council of Europe recommendation.
Serbia and Montenegro supported the idea that education should bear in
mind the future employment of children with disabilities. The article
should emphasize the best interest of child when choosing a form of education
to be pursued. Education should provide options and a right to choice.
The point made several times regarding lifelong learning is well taken
and should be included.
InterAmerican Institute on Disability said that the article should cover
all ages and access to all levels of education - from early education
to higher education. It should promote measures towards inclusion and
against unjustified segregation and should refer to options in education.
Illiteracy rates in developing countries prevent access to work. To this
end, access to technical training to create additional opportunities for
work should be reflected in the text.
Mexico said that Article 12 of the Mexican proposal could serve as guide
for drafting as it incorporates idea of lifelong education, development
of personality, and reasonable accommodation. This article also includes
statements that the State should guarantee any right to education that
is conducive to equal social and economic inclusion. It should also include
measures for inclusion, ensure access to other educational institutions,
consider those who are especially vulnerable and ensure training and sensitization
for public and private school teachers. The article should include a reference
to education technology and the facilitation of technical assistance.
It should also mention access to financial resources, the need to exercise
the right to choose the educational method and ensure that PWD receive
information on educational options in a timely manner.
Inclusion International noted that children with learning and intellectual
disabilities are usually the lowest priority, which is many times linked
to problem of poverty and lack of access. For these children, segregation
leads to exclusion and stigmatization. The article therefore must ensure
support to these children in the class (teacher training, aides). Many
UNESCO documents support the concept of inclusive education, but those
who have a need for special education should the right of choice. It is
important to understand that once children with intellectual disabilities
are segregated in a special school, they almost always end up in sheltered
workshops instead of independent employment. Segragated schools promote
a pattern of moving from one segregated environment to the next and away
from the community.
The Coordinator noted that it was clear that one size does not fit all
with regard to educational options.
Uganda supported the need for choice between inclusive and special education.
Where inclusive education is appropriate it should be available. This
should be the emphasized priority. However, where special schools are
needed, they should be available. It is also necessary for the government
to define accessibility in the educational environment as this may differ
from accessibility in other situations. Lack of access often causes disabled
students to leave school in frustration. The article should have a provision
on Braille facilities and should address the need to train a reasonable
number of teachers in sign language.
South Africa requested the addition of an introductory note to elaborate
on the quality of education for PWD. Paragraph 6 is useful as it takes
into account the ongoing problem of finances, but the three items listed
(tertiary education, vocational training and adult education) should be
broken into three separate provisions since different laws may guide them
each domestically. South Africa supported the restructuring most of article
24 to be more specific and to emphasize the right to education of children
and adults with disabilities rather than to prescribe specifically what
should be done. The issue of a right to choice and an informed process
to decision making for parents is important and should be strengthened.
Finally, the government of South Africa is a proponent of inclusive education
as a priority, as this form allowed for inclusion in the community and
family environments.
Germany referred the members to Standard Rule 6 and General Comment 5
and 13 of the ICESR ,which favor the issue of mainstreaming as a matter
of non-discrimination in education, and commented that it would be odd
for a disability convention not to reflect this standard developed under
international law. At the same time, the article should reflect the need
to accommodate individual needs and to provide choice. The article should
refrain from mentioning specifically deaf and blind children as it could
be misinterpreted as representing the medical model of disability. Finally,
attention to the needs girls with disabilities should be mentioned because
they are frequently denied access to education.
China said that on the basis of existing Conventions, specifically article
28 of CRC, the emphasis should be on right to access of education for
children with disabilities. The article should include the obligation
of States to take measures to progressively realize these rights and should
not suggest partiality towards any one model of education.
Volume 3, #9
January 15, 2004
Morning Session
Commenced: 10:30 AM
Adjourned: 1:03 PM
RIGHT TO EDUCATION
The Coordinator referred members to A/AC.265/2004/WG/CRP.3/Add.12 for
this discussion.
Sierra Leone considered the option of having a comprehensive article
on education and training. Any reference to training would include associates,
life assistance, and informing the public of disability issues. Paragraph
d in the article on mobility and 2(g) of the article on accessibility
should also be included in this article.
World Federation of the Deaf (WFD) said the text was a compromise and
that all disabled children, including deaf children, are ensured a right
to education so they could fully participate in society. Inclusion is
important, but there is more than one way to achieve education and the
text should not restrict the freedom of choice. Footnote 3 should be included
in the text because it would allow disabled teachers to teach both disabled
and non-disabled students. This would be a way to inform the public on
disability issues and help children accept diversity even at a young age.
In some countries, there are legislative barriers that do not let disabled
people teach. Footnote 5 should also be in the text because it does not
imply that other disability groups cannot have inclusive education. The
Convention should ensure that non-disabled children learn about disability
and reflect the issue of diversity.
The Coordinator said the footnote would be discussed in the AHC.
The Inter-American Institute on Disability (IID) emphasized the importance
of a broad approach and agreed with the WFD that the Convention had to
be open to all options to cover the learning and teaching needs of disabled
children. Inclusive education is important to avoid disabled children
in being placed in segregated environments. Education is a way to overcome
stereotypes of disability. It is important for teachers to have the responsibility
of giving students not only a quality education but also in imparting
values of diversity to bring about changes in the cultural environment.
Japan asked what was meant by “accessible education” in 2(i). 3(iv),
in spite of the footnote, presumes that one approach to education is better
than another. There is general agreement on the principle of right to
choice in the footnote. Yet the right to choice may not mean much in the
case of a child with severe or multiple disabilities where a regular school
could not possibly cater to his needs. The footnote needs to be revised
to reflect this.
Coordinator noted that although footnote 5 includes an element of a “right
to choice” practicalities do arise. The language might be softened to
show that not all members agree on this point.
World Federation of the DeafBlind described the personal experience of
inclusive education for the deafblind- loneliness, and not being able
to socialize with other students. There needs to be a creative solution
so that one part is inclusive education and the other part is special.
Deafblind people want inclusive education, but have to face the problem
of society excluding them. The text needs to reflect that disabled children
make choices in education, but many times it is the parent. Braille and
sign language should also be addressed in the text and not just in a footnote.
Thailand commented that the right to education was “above all” in the
article. PWD should have the right to choose inclusive education to the
fullest extent possible, but there are practicalities. The first sentence
in paragraph 4 should read “State Parties shall ensure that students who
are blind have the right to be taught Braille and students who are deaf
have the right to be taught sign language.” Braille and sign language
are different. Braille is a written script while sign language is a language.
Paragraph 2 should mention the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) because
it is a good tool for States to use to ensure the needs of students with
disabilities are recognized and met with a “middle” approach to education.
Venezuela supported a title change to “Education and Training” because
those who become blind later in life are left outside of the formal education
system and need to have access to both formal education and vocational
and mobility training. Professionals in these areas should be trained
on to deal with PWD. The article should also refer to the three possible
education methods for the deaf so that they are provided the opportunity
to communicate in the “real world.” Venezuela proposed that the second
sentence in the chapeau (paragraph 1) should be placed elsewhere because
the article does not deal exclusively with children and asked what “progressively”
referred to.
China noted the language was different in the chapeau from the rest of
the article because it refers to the education of children. The importance
of general education for children is obvious, and repeats what is contained
in the CRC. Three paragraphs discuss the objective of education. Is this
appropriate and does this need to be emphasized in every article? Footnote
1 could distort the meaning of existing standards and international documents.
Paragraph 2(including all subparagraphs) should be deleted.
Colombia supported that the title include the concept of education. Inclusive
education should be favored in the article. Deaf children should not be
left out and all three teaching methods should be promoted so that they
can be fully integrated into society. Paragraph 1 should reference all
PWD, not just children.
Canada suggested that “including access to early childhood and preschool
education” should be changed to “including, where appropriate, access
to early childhood education.” In Canada, preschool education is not provided
to all children, including children with disabilities.
Ireland said that some strong views were not accommodated in the text.
There needs to be a stronger reference to Malaga Declaration (EU). The
article needs to reflect the interest of the child. For example, it should
reflect the opportunity to attend mainstream school if in the interests
of the child.
Republic of Korea (ROK) noted some low levels of achievement for PWD
in inclusive education environments though segregated education was not
necessarily better. Special education may lead to lost opportunities of
being in mainstream. The goal of inclusive education should be qualified
in the article. In paragraph 4, “chose” should be replaced with “choose.”
World Federation of the Blind said the article mixed general education
and special education. Paragraph 2 should explicitly discuss general education
while paragraph 3 should explicitly discuss special education. There is
always a matter of choice in education and it should be in the hands of
students and their parents. Paragraph 4 should not include the term “sensory
disabilities” because this term also refers to the intellectually disabled
in some countries. Deaf, blind, and deafblind should be specifically referenced
because most intellectually disabled people are against special education.
Paragraph 2 should also make reference to access to higher education in
the general educational system with support. The footnotes should also
be clearer so the AHC can consider them.
Back to Draft Article
|