Memorandum submitted by Disability Equality
in Education
1. Disability Equality in Education is a
charity and the lead provider of training for inclusive education
and disability equality to the education system in the UK. Richard
Rieser our Director also represented the UK Disabled Peoples Council
at the Ad Hoc Committee in New York and is the Representative
on the European Disability Forum.
2. Following the publishing of a statement
on the Convention by Minster for Disabled People, Ann McGuire,
on the 6 May, which indicated that the DCSF were going to reserve
on Article 24 and also place an interpretive declaration on Article
24 on Education the Council for Disabled Children has been keen
to meet with representatives of the DCSF. The DCSF proposals run
counter to our Inclusion Policy adopted by the CDC and the Special
Education Consortium. (See Appendix 2)
3. Article 24 Education was much discussed
in the Ad Hoc Committee in New York which drafted the convention.
In expressing reservations to the new Disability Convention which
would have the effect of retaining separate special schools for
some disabled children permanently in UK, DCSF is struggling with
doubts similar to those debated and resolved between countries
round the world when the Convention was eventually agreed at the
UN in 2006 after years of negotiations.
4. The doubts at the UN took two main forms:
doubts about whether it was necessary for some children to be
separated on a full-time basis in order to receive an effective
education and doubts about the current capacity of education systems
to fulfill obligations required by the Convention.
5. During the negotiations countries who
questioned whether effective education for all was possible without
separate, special schools, especially for students who are blind
and/or deaf, were urged to consider the extent of successful inclusive
practice already existing. Case studies of inclusion working were
based on accommodation, support and flexible groupings for individual
needs in mainstream settings.
6. Text in earlier drafts of the Convention
which would have given a choice of special education in separate
settings was removed and so were words which envisaged alternatives
in case of inadequacy of mainstream settings. Discussions and
debate on Article 24 continued until the final days of negotiations
when agreement was finally reached on a goal of inclusive education.
7. The UK Government played a leading role
in these discussions with frequent communication with the relevant
Departments in the UK. Liz Tillet, who was leading the negotiations
for the UK, stated that the final wording of Article 24 had the
approval of the then Department for Education and Skills.
8. It was felt that the General Education
System in the UK was inclusive and fitted in with the wording
of the Convention. There were three major debates at the Ad Hoc
Committee on the question of choice and inclusion. Each time the
argument for inclusion as the norm was won in order to accord
with the principles of the Convention and the human rights of
disabled people. The Principles of the Convention are contained
in the preamble, Article 1 the Purpose and Article 3. General
Principles these include:
"Full and effective participation and inclusion
in society" (3c).
"Respect for difference and acceptance of
persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity"
(3d).
Equality of opportunity (3e) and "Accessibility"
(3f).
Inclusion is viewed as a fundamental freedom
in the Convention.
9. The DCSF has indicated "that there
is a need to recognise that the general education system in the
UK includes a range of provision, including mainstream and special
schools which will require and interpretive declaration".
This statement misses an important point.
10. The CRPD provides aspirations in the
area of social, economic and cultural rights that state parties
will work towards. Article 4.2 makes this very clear. The full
realization of theses rights, including Article 24, are to be
achieved "progressively". This provision recognises
that existing practices and structures do not fulfill the principles
of the Convention and lead to discrimination, prejudice and unequal
life chances for disabled people. This clause allows state parties
time to plan, to change the built environment, to build capacity
and to challenge and change negative attitudes and practices.
The Duty to Promote Disability Equality is a good example of this
in UK schools. All state schools are all expected, through a series
of three year Disability Equality Schemes, to eradicate discrimination
and harassment towards disabled people and promote positive attitudes,
equality and opportunities to be involved in public life for disabled
people. The Government and DCSF could adopt of a position similar
to that which the Government adopted in the Life Chances Report
(2005).
"By 2025, disabled people in Britain should
have full opportunities and choices to improve their quality of
life, and will be respected and included as equal members of society."
11. Then, if an interpretive declaration
on Article 24 is seen as needed, it should incorporate this sentiment.
There does not seem to be any need for this as the concept of
progressive realization applies to Article 24-Education. Therefore
there is no need for this interpretive declaration as the general
education system and the statutes that cover it have a pre-disposition
to inclusive education which will develop over time eg The 2001
SEN and Disability Act.
12. However, if DCSF still feels the need
for an interpretive declaration then this should read as follows:
"UK Government is committed to developing
an inclusive education system where mainstream primary and secondary
schools and staff will have the capacity to effectively educate
the full range of disabled children. Currently the education system
must be taken to mean mainstream and special schools with some
children whose needs are met by specialist provision being met
some way from their home. We aim through improving capacity that
by 2025 that all will be able to have their needs met in local
mainstream provision."
13. This formulation is progressive, whereas
the current suggestion of an interpretive declaration from DCSF
does not contain a recognition of progression and would maintain
and increase the educational disadvantage disabled pupils experience
in the education system and the consequent impact on their loss
of life chances in their transition to adult life.
14. If the time scale "2025" causes
an insurmountable problem "so that over time" could
be substituted.
15. The DCSF have also stated that there
will also be a need to have a reservation to Article 24 "in
respect of disabled children whose needs are best met through
specialist provision, which may be some way from their home".
The arguments stated above apply equally here. Just because this
is how specialist provision is provided now is not a reason to
have a reservation given the concept of progressive realization.
16. OFSTED (2006)[46]
examining the best provision for the range of disabled children
found that resourced mainstream school provided the best specialist
provision for disabled pupils. The DfES pack "Implementing
the Disability Discrimination Act in Schools and Early Years"
(2006)[47]
based on over 300 interviews in 41 schools, identifies key factors
in the development of inclusive provision that met the full range
of needs of disabled children. These were:
— a vision and values based on an inclusive
ethos;
— a "can do" attitude from
all staff;
— a pro-active approach to identifying
barriers and finding practical solutions;
— strong collaborative relationships
with pupils and parents;
— a meaningful voice for pupils;
— a positive approach to managing behaviour;
— strong leadership by senior management
and governors;
— effective staff training and development;
— the use of expertise from outside
the school;
— building disability into resourcing
arrangements;
— a sensitive approach to meeting the
impairment specific needs of pupils;
— regular critical review and evaluation;
and
— the availability of role models and
positive images of disability.
17. This list demonstrates that developing
schools to accommodate a widening diversity of disabled pupils
is not fundamentally about developing specialist provision, but
is about developing whole school policies, practices and procedures
which tackle the barriers that have traditionally discriminated
against disabled pupils.
18. The "social model" of disability,
which the Government has adopted as a paradigm in the Life Chances
Report, in the 2005 Disability Amendment Act and is at the core
of the UN Convention, requires a dynamic rethink of existing concepts
of special education. Geographically discrete specialist provision
to which disabled children are allocated, based on their type
of impairment, does not fit with the paradigm shift identified
in the Convention. While these are currently available as a choice
for parents there is considerable evidence that such a "choice"
is often made because of the inadequacies of the mainstream rather
than a whish for specialist provision. Many parents have identified
themselves as refugees from the mainstream.
19. Then Convention requires reasonable
accommodations for disabled people in all mainstream services
and Article 24 requires appropriate individual support for the
individual disabled person to be successful.
20. The phrase "some way from their
home" may contradict Article 19 when applied to residential
special schools, which states that "people with disabilities
should have the opportunity to choose their place of residence"|
and "are not obliged to live in particular living arrangements".
In 19 b) goes on to emphasise that providing the necessary support
for living and inclusion in the community and to prevent isolation
or segregation from the community. A number of Local Authorities
have systematically reduced their reliance on this type of provision
over the lat 30 years eg Oxfordshire, Newham, Barnsley and Wakefield
and that there is no reason why others could not be encouraged
to follow their example.
21. Article 23 on Family Life, paragraphs
3, 4 and 5 could well be breached by the insistence on best meeting
disabled children's special needs some way from their home. This
will be particularly the case if the primary reason for the separation
of a disabled child from their family is their disability.
"3. States Parties shall ensure that
children with disabilities have equal rights with respect to family
life. With a view to realizing these rights, and to prevent concealment,
abandonment, neglect and segregation of children with disabilities,
States Parties shall undertake to provide early and comprehensive
information, services and support to children with disabilities
and their families.
4. States Parties shall ensure that a child
shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will,
except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine,
in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation
is necessary for the best interests of the child. In no case shall
a child be separated from parents on the basis of a disability
of either the child or one or both of the parents.
5. States Parties shall, where the immediate
family is unable to care for a child with disabilities, undertake
every effort to provide alternative care within the wider family,
and failing that, within the community in a family setting."
22. The reservation the DCSF are considering
could be considered as running counter to the principles of the
Convention. Article 46 states.
"Reservations incompatible with the objects
and purpose of the present Convention shall not be permitted."
The development of more inclusive approaches
to disabled children and young people and their education over
time requires progressive realisation and will not be served by
a reservation such as proposed by DCSF.
23. Some of the issues touched upon here
are complex, but the suggestions offered here seek to help DCSF
plot a course which will enhance the human rights of disabled
children.
24. Fourty-one countries have ratified and
none of these including Australia, New Zealand,South Africa, India,
China, Brazil, Spain have found it necessary to put forward a
reservation or interpretive declaration on Article 24. The job
at hand is to convince the UK Government to get into the spirit
of the paradigm shift and progressive changes needed to give disabled
people full equality which has to include effective inclusive
education.
2 November 2008
46 OFSTED (2006) Inclusion: Does it matter where
pupils are taught 2006-17 OFSTED, London http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/portal/site/Internet/menuitem.e11147abaed5f711828a0d8308c08a0c/;jsessionid=LrnlBPJJx3v8rQ9FhvM0 Back
47
DFES (2006) Implementing the Disability Discrimination Act in
Schools and Early Years DfES,London and The Stationary Office
for Shorterned Version Back
| 
