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