 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Article
24 - Education
Background Documents | Article
24 Background
Seventh Session | Sixth Session | Fifth
Session | Fourth Session | Third
Session
Working Group | References
Fifth Session
Non-governmental organizations
Center for Studies on Inclusive Education
Comments, proposals and amendments submitted electronically
Non-governmental organizations
CENTER FOR STUDIES ON INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
Inclusive education and Article 17
• The purpose of the Convention is to confirm that all existing human rights
apply to disabled people and that disabled children ‘enjoy without discrimination
of any kind on the basis of disability, the same rights and fundamental
freedoms as other children’ (draft Article 16).
• Article 17 should reflect the right to education as enshrined in Articles
28 and 29 of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,
taking into account the developing interpretation of that Convention by
the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the outcomes of the 1997 Day
of General Discussion on ‘Children with Disabilities’.
• Article 17 should also reflect the conceptualisation of the right to education
developed by Katarina Tomasevski, Special Rapporteur on Education 1998-2004,
and adopted by the UN as the obligation on governments to make education
Available, Accessible, Acceptable and Adaptable to all
(‘the 4-As’). This means inclusive education for all in mainstream settings.
• Article 17 should not put governments in the self-defeating position
of having to ensure both increasing inclusion in mainstream settings and
the maintenance of segregated ‘special’ settings.
• Article 17 should recognise that education is key to the promotion
of positive attitudes to persons with disabilities (draft Article
5). Segregating some children for education on grounds of disability works
against this by perpetuating the stereotyping and lack of understanding
of difference which leads to discrimination in all areas of life.
• Article 17 should fully reflect the social model of disability,
focusing government obligations on removing the barriers to full participation
in education by persons with disabilities. Education of some learners in
separate settings because of their disabilities or impairments reflects
and perpetuates a view of disability premised on the medical and charity
models of disability.
• Governments should be under an obligation to provide the support
and adjustments necessary for individual learning in mainstream
settings. Education will be fully inclusive when so-called ‘specialist support’
is typical and mainstream settings routinely provide for all students. This
includes the facility to teach learners with sensory disabilities in sign
language or Braille as required.
• Inclusion in mainstream education should be a right and not a
matter of choice. The recognition, support and fostering of particular
cultures, communities and identities associated with persons with sensory
disabilities do not require separate schools but can be achieved in fully
inclusive, properly resourced and restructured mainstream settings which
approach education flexibly and provide opportunities for a variety of grouping
arrangements.
• The obligation on governments to ‘adopt legislative, administrative and
other measures to give effect to this Convention’ (draft Article 4) should
include the obligation to remove all forms of segregation on grounds
of disability in education.
Problems with draft Article 17 as it currently stands
2 (a) - ‘Can choose’ indicates a very weak entitlement. Persons with disabilities
should have a right to inclusive and accessible education, with a corresponding
obligation on States to provide fully supported inclusive education for
all.
3 (a), (b), (d) - These paragraphs recognise, and legitimise,
the provision of education for some persons with disabilities in settings
segregated from the mainstream. A human rights Convention enshrining the
goals towards which governments are obliged to strive is undermined by provisions
which are not fully compatible with those goals, even if they are seen as
some form of ‘safety net’.
3 (c) - To allow a ‘free and informed choice between general and special
systems’ puts governments under an obligation to provide special systems,
undermining efforts to ensure fully inclusive mainstream education for all.
Inclusion is a right and should not be a matter of choice.
Omissions - The draft Article should reflect other human rights instruments
in guaranteeing the right of persons with disabilities, including sensory
disabilities, to enjoy their own culture and use their own means of communication
in community with other persons with similar disabilities, in fully inclusive
education settings. It should also ensure that inclusion in mainstream education
should not be conditional on learners receiving medical treatment or intervention
for their impairments.
We hope that the Ad Hoc Committee will take account of these issues
in its discussions and ensure that the final text of Article 17 fully reflects
the aims and purposes of education as stated in the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child, the ‘4-As’ conceptualisation of the right to education,
and the social model of disability. We hope that Article 17 will enshrine
every learner’s right to inclusive education and make no provision for the
segregation of learners on grounds of disability.