educationeducation bettereducation a g … · bettereducation better education for ......

BETTER EDUCATION

iBETTER EDUCATION FOR ALL

People with an Intellectual Disability and their Families SpeakOut on Education for All, Disability and Inclusive Education

A GLOBAL REPORT

BETTER

FOR ALLEDUCATIONBETTER

FOR ALLEDUCATION

October 2009

When We’reIncluded Too

iiiBETTER EDUCATION FOR ALL

Better Education for All:WhenWe’re IncludedToo

A Global Report

People with an Intellectual Disability andtheir Families Speak out on Education for All,Disability and Inclusive Education

iv BETTER EDUCATION FOR ALL

First Published 2009by Instituto Universitario de Integración en la Comunidad (INICO)Salamanca, Spain

© Inclusion International. All rights reserved.

Project Director: Connie Laurin-BowieTranslated into Spanish by: Kelly Da Silva, Adela Griffiths, andRosario Camacho Koppel

Design: is five Communications

Printed and bound in Spain by Instituto Universitario de Integración enla Comunidad (INICO)

For information or copies contact:

Inclusion InternationalKD.2.03, University of East London, Docklands Campus,4-6 University Way, London E16 2RD, United KingdomTel: (+ 44) 208 223 7709Fax: (+ 44) 208 223 6081Email: [email protected]

ISBN: 978-84-692-6607-6D.L.: S.1.368-2009

Dedicated to the millions of children and youthwith intellectual disabilities worldwide who are not yet ininclusive schools; and to their families and advocates whostruggle daily for the right to a better education for all.

vii

List ofTables and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .viiiList of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ixAcknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiForeword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

PART I: Setting the Context for the Global Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Chapter 1: About the Global Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Chapter 2: What is Inclusive Education? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Chapter 3: The Global Context: From Salamanca tothe UN Convention on the Rights ofPersons with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

PART II: Confronting the Gap in Education for All . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Chapter 4: The Dakar Goals:The Inclusion Deficit . . . . . . . . . . . .51

Chapter 5: The Road to Inclusive Education: GoodExamples to Build Upon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91

Chapter 6: Key Findings of the Global Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113

PART III: Closing the Gap in Achieving Inclusive Education . . . .125

Chapter 7: Using the UN Convention on the Rightsof Persons with Disabilities to AchieveEducation for All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127

Chapter 8: Recommendations:Towards aCRPD-Compliant EFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156

Appendix 1: List of Countries and Participants in theGlobal Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156

Appendix 2: References to Disability in UNESCO’s GlobalMonitoring Reports on Education for All . . . . . .162

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .167

Table of Contents

viii BETTER EDUCATION FOR ALL

List of Tables and FiguresTable 1: Sources of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Table 2: UN and Inclusion International MDGs . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Table 3: Development Agencies’ Disability andEducation Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Table 4: Enhancing School – Enhancing Success . . . . . . . . . . .86

Table 5: How Dakar Goals Could Promote InclusiveEducation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90

Table 6: Implications of CRPD Article 24 for InclusiveEducation Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130

Table 7: CRPD Benchmarks for Inclusive Educationand Success Indicators for EFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132

Figure 1: Factors of Education Quality AffectingEnrolment and Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

ixBETTER EDUCATION FOR ALL

List of AcronymsAusAID Australian Agency for International Development

CBR Community Based Rehabilitation

CIDA Canadian International Development Agency

CONFE Confederación Mexicana de Organizaciones en Favor de laPersona con Discapacidad Intelectual

CRPD United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

CSID Centre for Services and Information on Disability

DANIDA Danish Cooperative Agency

DCI Danish Council of the Disabled

DFID UK Department for International Development

DPI Disabled Peoples International

ECCE Early Childhood Care and Education

EFA Education for All

EU European Union

FTI FastTrack Initiative

FEDOMA Federation of Disability Organisations in Malawi

GMR Global Monitoring Report

GTZ GermanTechnical Cooperation

IBE International Bureau of Education

ICEPVI International Council for Education of People withVisual Impairment

IDA International Disability Alliance

II Inclusion International

ILO International Labour Organization

INICO Instituto Universitario de Integración en la Comunidad

JAPMR Jamaica Association for Persons with Mental Retardation

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

MACOHA Malawi Council for the Handicapped

MENA Middle East/North Africa

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

MoEVT Ministry of Education andVocationalTraining

MSDPWD Ministry of Social Development and Persons with Disabilities

NAD National Association of the Deaf

NFU Norwegian Association for Persons with Developmental Disabilities

NGO Non-Government Organization

x BETTER EDUCATION FOR ALL

NHC National Health Committee

NORAD Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation

NRCI National Resource Centre for Inclusion

NZAID New Zealand’s International Aid and Development Agency

OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

PISA Programme for International Student Assessment

PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategic Plan

PWD People with Disability

SENTTI Special Education NeedsTeacherTraining Institute

SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency

SNC Special Need Children

SOH School of Hope

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

USAID United States Agency for International Development

WBU World Blind Union

WFD World Federation of the Deaf

ZAPDD Zanzibar Association for People with Developmental Disabilities

Acknowledgments

This report was prepared by a vast network of families, self-advocates, friends and organizations all over the world. Itreflects the reality of inclusive education and tells the story ofan international movement.

Inclusion International’s greatest strength and resource is itsmembers and affiliated networks.They are a rich and diversesource of knowledge about current practices, issues andchallenges. When we launched this study a year ago weasked our regional associations to assist in the coordinationand collection of research.

Special thanks to all those who assisted in collecting stories,surveys and country reports in their regions: Gabriela deBúrbano, Michael Bach, Anna MacQuarrie, Osamu Nagase,

xiBETTER EDUCATION FOR ALL

James Mung’omba, Vanessa Dos Santos, Rima Al Salah,Fadia Farah, RolandTamraz, Geert Freyhoff, Ingrid Koernerand KatrinaWard. Our sincere thanks as well to all thosewho contributed photographs for this publication, and inparticular professional photographer Ulrich Eigner(www.ulricheigner.com) whose photos can be found onpages 24, 52, 60, 72, 97, 104, 107, 116 and 151.

We are grateful to the members of Inclusion Europe’sworking group on inclusive education and the InternationalDisability and Development Consortium’s working group oninclusive education for their contributions.

ToWalter Eigner who has been advocating for a newpublication on inclusive education by Inclusion Internationalsince the publication of the Journey to Inclusion (1998), thankyou for your perseverance. Also thanks to Peter Mittler, PastPresident of Inclusion International, an early and constantadvocate for inclusive education.

Thanks to Gordon Porter whose expertise in inclusiveeducation has informed both the report and the work of manyof our member organizations around the world.

Thanks to Ryann Ferguson and Christopher George whohelped to organize the hundreds of stories and pictures thatwe received, and to Larissa Jones who worked until the verylast minute on edits.

A very special thank you to Inés-Elvira de Escallón whocoordinated the research for Inclusion International and whocontinues to work so hard behind the scenes. Her insightsand critical perspective are reflected throughout the report.

The project was financed in part by the Open Society Institute(OSI).We thank OSI for their continued support to InclusionInternational.

We greatly appreciate the financial contribution of InstitutoUniversitario de Integración en la Comunidad, INICO, of theUniversity of Salamanca, for the publication of the report inboth English and Spanish and also to the revision of thetranslation fromTeresa Nieto, Manuela Crespo y MiguelÁngel Verdugo.

Finally, to all of our member organizations and the families,self-advocates and teachers who shared their stories andtheir pictures with us (see full list in Appendix 1). We hopethat this report will do justice to their efforts to promoteinclusion.

xii BETTER EDUCATION FOR ALL

Foreword

In 2010, Inclusion International will celebrate its 50thanniversary. In 1960, national organizations came togetherto form an international alliance because they knew that theycould not accomplish their goals on their own. Now withmembers in more than 115 countries, we are trying to live upto the expectations of our founders.

Most of our member organizations at the local level werecreated by parents of persons with an intellectual disabilitybecause their children were not accepted into the localschools. Yet parents knew then as we know now that oursons and daughters can learn and that they have a right to aneducation.

Much has changed since 1960. From our early days whenmost parents were happy if their sons and daughtersreceived any education, our name change in 1994 to InclusionInternational signaled the fact that our goal is for people withan intellectual disability to fully participate in all aspects oftheir communities – including schools.

xiiiBETTER EDUCATION FOR ALL

xiv BETTER EDUCATION FOR ALL

We participated in the 1994World Conference on SpecialNeeds Education: Access and Quality convened by UNESCOin Salamanca, Spain. The Salamanca Statement signed by 92governments, was the first international recognition that inorder to meet the needs of students with special needs, thegoal for these students should be changed from inclusion ineducation to inclusive education. We fought hard so that theConvention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006)would guarantee inclusive education as a right.

But achieving rights on paper is one thing. As we celebrate15 years since our name change, and 15 years since thehistoric conference in Salamanca, we are confronting anumber of conflicting truths. Inclusive education is a right,but fewer than 5% of children with disabilities in most of theworld finish primary school. There are excellent examples ofsuccessful inclusion in every region of the world, but systemsstill exclude our children. Children with disabilities stayhome, cared for by their families, but they are invisiblebecause they are not counted in national statistics or ofteneven registered at birth.

So on this anniversary of theWorld Conference on SpecialNeeds Education: Access and Quality we wanted to confrontthe gap – between law and reality, between policy andattitude, between knowledge and practice.

People with disabilities, families, teachers and othersupporters in over 75 countries told us their stories. Thisreport is a summary of their experiences. It is dedicated toevery child who is now denied access to school and to everyfamily who has fought to make inclusive education a reality.It is our call to action.

Diane RichlerPresident, Inclusion International

1BETTER EDUCATION FOR ALL

Introduction

Going to school is one of the fewrites of passage shared in

countries the world over. School iswhere we learn the skills to prepareus for our responsibilities as adults.School is where we make friends tolast a lifetime. School is where welearn about the rules that govern ourcommunities and our nations.

Article 26 of the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rightsguarantees “the right to education…directed to the full development ofthe human personality andpromot(ing) understanding, toleranceand friendship.”

Yet 77 million children are not inschool – and at least 25 million ofthem have a disability (UNESCO,2006). Even more appalling, no more than 5% of childrenwith disabilities complete even a primary education (WorldBank, 2003). Most of those children live in developingcountries.

In Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD) countries and countries in transition, many childrenwith disabilities are also out of school. Our members reportthat most other children with disabilities do not attend schoolwith their non-disabled peers or do not receive the supportsthey need.

The members of Inclusion International (II) are people withintellectual disabilities and their families in over 115countries. For us, the Salamanca Statement1 adopted by theWorld Conference on Special Needs Education: Access andQuality convened by the United Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in Salamanca,Spain in 1994 was a beacon of hope.

Most of our member organizations wereformed precisely because children withintellectual disabilities were being deniedaccess to school, but parents knew that theirsons and daughters would benefit fromeducation.

At first – in the 1940’s in Europe and NorthAmerica, more recently in Latin America, Asia,the Middle-East and Africa — many of ourmembers started their own schools, often inchurch basements, or in someone’s home. Thefirst teachers were usually other parents, orwell-meaning but untrained volunteers. Inmany countries, these programs were initiallysupported through charitable contributions,but as the children proved they could learn,public bodies took increasing responsibility forfunding, and often ended up running theseschools.

Although the benefits of education were obvious in terms ofincreased skills, families by and large remained frustrated.They saw that education in classes and schools separatefrom their non-disabled peers prepared those leaving schoolfor lives of segregation and isolation. They were not learningto get along with others – and the other students were notlearning to get along with them. They were not forming thefriendships they would need later in life in order to fullyparticipate in their communities. In developing countries, thesituation was even worse because families realized that withso many children out of school, there would never be enoughresources to build new schools for all the children withdisabilities languishing at home.The answer for both groupsof parents was to change our goal from inclusion ineducation — to inclusive education.

This change in goal did not happen overnight. First, parentsworked at making the special schools they had started thebest they could be. But as they watched their children learnand grow, they realized that education in a separate schooloften led to a sheltered workshop, and a life apart from therest of the community. When people with disabilities beganto speak up on their own, they argued for an end tosegregation.

2 BETTER EDUCATION FOR ALL

BENEFITS OFQUALITY EDUCATION

� Better health

� Higher productivity

� Increased familyincome

� Chance to live indignity and makeinformed decisionsabout one’s life

At first, having the public system take overresponsibility for educating children withdisability was a big step forward. It wasrecognition that our children had the sameright to education as others. Often, withpublic funding and responsibility came amove from a small, separate school to awing of a regular school. Although thisprovided some opportunities for joiningwith the regular students, parents started todream of the possibility of their childrenbeing educated in the same classrooms.

The first attempts to do this were calledintegration. Children with disabilities wereaccepted into regular classes, but the classstructure didn’t change. Usually theseattempts were successful only if thestudent with a disability had an assistant tohelp them. In fact, these assistants oftenended up being the true teachers of thesestudents, and the regular classroomteacher did not accept responsibility for thechildren with disabilities.

Both families and educators saw that integration would notwork. It would be too expensive to provide aids for all thechildren with disabilities, and the aid was often a barrier toforming relationships with other children. But both parentsand educators saw advantages to having children with andwithout disabilities learn together. The children withdisabilities could learn and model from the other children;they could go to school with their brothers and sisters; andthey could make friends with non-disabled children in theircommunity.

Children without disabilities learned about diversity andteachers learned to provide more individualized approaches.Teachers were challenged to find innovative strategies toteach cooperation. As our Kenyan member proclaimed ont-shirts, “Children who learn together, learn to live together.”

Our experiences have taught us what makes inclusion work.It is a combination of vision and commitment; of law andpolicy; of innovation and renewal. It requires leadership fromMinistries of Education and from school directors. It takeswell-trained and supported teachers. Often, it takes advocacy


Please go on with yourefforts to send allchildren to school. Notto special schools wherethey will be treated asspecial monsters, notcapable of learning, butto regular schools. I wastreated as a monster--not human-- because Icannot speak or showeasily what I think. Iwant to tell the worldeverybody should betreated as human beingseven when they can’tspeak.

Thiandi, Netherlands


from parents and others, even going tocourt when necessary.

Inclusive classrooms are ones wherestudents enjoy learning. They are dynamic.They recognize that there are many differenttypes of intelligence – including verballinguistic, musical/rhythmic,body/kinesthetic, visual/spatial,interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalistic(Gardner, 1983) – and a good teacher tapsthem all.

But inclusion doesn’t just mean putting the entire onus onthe classroom teacher. An inclusive system provides supportto teachers. It recognizes that students with disabilitiessometimes need to have their special needs addressed –whether through provision of equipment like braillers orhearing aids, by making schools more physically accessible,curriculum adaptation and appropriate teacher training, or bywithdrawing students for special training such as signlanguage for deaf students, or mobility training for studentswho are blind.

As we began to learn about what made inclusive educationsuccessful, we realized that the same conditions that werenecessary for students with disabilities to learn also made forhigh quality education for all. The Salamanca Statementappeared to be the answer to our dreams.

Why a Global Report on InclusiveEducation?It is now 15 years since the Salamanca Statement wasadopted. Much has happened in the ensuing years. On theglobal stage there is a coordinated effort which recognizeseducation as one of the major tools for the eradication ofpoverty. Education for All (EFA) has become a universal goaland a basis for investment.

TheWorld Education Forum in Dakar, Senegal in 2000acknowledged the Salamanca Statement and admitted howfar there was to go to meet the goals of Education for All –more than 113 million children with no access to primaryeducation.2 Embedding the goal of universal primary

The biggest challengewas constantlyre-evaluating‘inclusion’ and how tobe included.

Parent’s focus group,New Zealand


education in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)adopted by the United Nations (UN) in the same year helpedto focus investment in education.3

More recently, the UN adopted the Convention on the Rightsof Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).4 Inclusion Internationalplayed an active role in the drafting of the Convention, inwhich Article 24 calls for States parties to “ensure an inclusiveeducation system at all levels.” UNESCO, the United NationsChildren’s Fund (UNICEF), the OECD, theWorld Bank andothers have given their support to the concept of “inclusiveeducation.”

At the same time that international policies and law haveendorsed the concept of inclusive education, people at alllevels and in every region of the world have helped to bringabout change. Our members report on positive examples ofstudents with disabilities being educated in inclusive settingsin all parts of the world—from the best equipped schools inNorth America and Europe to some of the poorestcommunities of India.

Examples of good practices reported by our members can befound on the Inclusion International Education website.5


Yet our members also report on continued exclusion – on theneed for family after family to take on their own fight to havetheir child included and to receive the supports they need toflourish at school. Families report moving to new cities, anew country or even to a school serving people of a differentreligion in order to escape exclusion.

Sometimes exclusion is based on outdated attitudes andprejudices against people with disabilities. Sometimes it isbased on lack of accessibility, or lack of resources.Sometimes it is based on outmoded legal structures orpolicies. Sometimes it is based on fear of the unknown.

And so, on this 15th anniversary of the Salamanca Statement,we want to paint our picture of the current state of inclusiveeducation. Has the dream of Salamanca been realized? Hasprogress been made?What kind of progress and where?What has not happened?What still remains to be done?

This report tries to answer these questions.


Overview of the ReportThis report is designed to tell the story of inclusive educationfrom our perspective; a parent, family and self-advocateperspective.We want to share with you the impact schoolingand the education system have had on the lives of childrenwith an intellectual disability and on families themselves.

We do this in three main Parts.

Part I sets the global context for the study and for the globalagenda for education. In Chapter 1 we describe how we didthe study, and the ways participants in over 75 countriescollaborated with organizations, governments, self-advocatesand families – to undertake country profiles, surveys ofparents and teachers, and focus groups with families.Defining inclusive education for the purposes of this studyand a global education agenda is essential. We provide adefinition in Chapter 2 drawing on aspirations of self-advocates and families, our understanding of the right toeducation, and on contributions of international disabilityorganizations and other experts. Chapter 3 describes thecurrent global agenda for education of governments, donorand international agencies. We outline the main globalcommitments to education and inclusive education since theSalamanca Statement and review the framework in place tomonitor global progress.

In Part II we look critically at Education for All as a globalagenda and ask ‘What difference does it make for peoplewith intellectual disabilities and their families?’ Chapter 4draws together information we collected from varioussources for this study. It presents our analysis of why EFA isnot enabling access, quality education and positive outcomesfor people with intellectual disabilities. There are manysuccessful examples of inclusive education at all levels:classroom/school, education system and national/state-levellegislation and policy. Chapter 5 reports on some of theseexamples from around the world and lessons we can learnfrom them to ‘scale up’ change. In Chapter 6 we pulltogether the key findings of the study.

Part III looks at how to close the gap in EFA and create aninclusive global agenda for education. Chapter 7 looksclosely at the Articles of the UN Convention, especially Article24 on inclusive education. It presents a framework ofoutcomes, performance benchmarks for education systems,

and EFA success indicators to help build a CRPD-compliantEFA. In Chapter 8 we apply this framework to the findings ofour study. We present in this chapter a comprehensive set ofrecommendations to guide governments, donor andinternational agencies in creating a global agenda forinclusive education.

We conclude the report with a summary of the mainunderstandings we have arrived at through this study, and anurgent call for action.

In collecting stories and experiences from around the worldabout progress, one thing became clear: we are still fightingone child at a time, one family at a time, every step of theway. Our collective efforts have made a difference inrecognizing the right to be included but we have not yet wonthe battle to transform education systems.

The CRPD provides us with a road map to the future, anaspirational tool that has the potential to lead us forward.Thisreport marks progress to date and sets a clear direction forthe road ahead.


PART I:

Setting the Context forthe Global Study


CHAPTER 1

About the Global Study


Chapter 1

About the Global Study

Many reports and studies have been written onapproaches to inclusive education both about policy and

practice. However, the perspective of people who experienceexclusion, those who have been fortunate enough to beincluded, and the work that families have done to makeeducation a reality has not been recognized as the kind ofknowledge that can and should inform policy makers andpractitioners. This report is an effort to draw from the vastknowledge and information that exists in communities allover the world about inclusive education to makerecommendations for change.

By reviewing both the international commitments made toinclusion and the knowledge that families have about whatworks, what doesn’t and why, the process of gatheringinformation for the report links local voices and knowledge toglobal processes for achieving Education for All.

In order to ensure that this report reflects the perspectives offamilies and self-advocates, we contacted our networkaround the globe.This included:

• Our member organizations;

• Other grassroots groups focused on people withintellectual disabilities;

• Groups working globally on inclusive education issues;

• Experts and officials in international institutions;

• Colleagues and friends; and

• Ministry of Education and other government officials,wherever possible.

Using this cumulative and diverse knowledge that has beendeveloped about inclusive education, this document will offerstrategies for “scaling up” our efforts for inclusion. It willconsider the challenges and opportunities for moving the



development of inclusive education into plans to achieve EFAat the country level, and how these national efforts can besupported through global investments and policies.

We developed a participatory research process in each of thefive regions of Inclusion International:

• Europe,

• The Middle East / North Africa (MENA),

• Africa and the Indian Ocean,

• The Americas, and

• Asia Pacific.

We consulted a number of different sources on the approachwe might use and used that input to create tools to collectinformation about the current status of inclusive education ona national level. In order to facilitate these processes weidentified a group of regional coordinators who led theinitiative in participating countries in their region.Thisregional inquiry provides the basis for the development ofthe Global Report.


We developed a set of tools to be used by families, children,self-advocates and teachers in the collection of information.The tools were developed and then adapted by the regions touse in their particular context.

The tools and resources used to collect information, stories,country profiles and the full results from the surveys for theCountry Profiles, families and teachers can be found onInclusion International’s Inclusive Education website.1

While the tools were designed to assist family-basedorganizations and to collect information in their country, theyalso helped to mobilize and engage communities around theissue of inclusive education. From every country we heardthat the focus group discussions were an importantmechanism for reaching out to families and strengtheningtheir understanding and capacity to promote the CRPD andinclusive education.

We collected stories and information from over 75 countriesabout exclusion and inclusion in education — stories thatreflect the reasons why children are excluded from schooland the issues that prevent real inclusion in education. Wereceived information about:


• Good practices in schools, classrooms and communities;

• Circumstances where children continue to be excludedfrom school; and

• The issues and challenges children, parents and teachersface that prevent real inclusion from occurring.

The stories and information collected are the basis of thisreport.You will find many of the examples and illustrationsthroughout this report. In addition, we wanted to share manyof the stories that we received in their original form.To readthem you can go to our Inclusive Education website.2

TABLE 1SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Country/Provinces/Territories Profiles 75

Personal Stories 270

Focus Groups with family members, with selfadvocates, with government officials and/orwith teachers 119

Teacher surveys 750

Parent surveys 400

How InformationWas CollectedThroughout the process for this study we heard about thedifferent ways the tools were used to collect information oninclusive education in participating countries. Limitedresources, numerous languages, and geography are just afew of the challenges which all of the members faced incollecting the information for this report. To deal with thesechallenges a number of creative techniques were developedin which to make effective use of the tools. Some countriesreported developing specific programs with an outline toobtain the information for the report. Other members usedlocal and national meetings as opportunities to collectresponses, while still other members trained facilitators totravel throughout the region to gather the survey and focusgroup responses.


In Mexico, CONFE, a member organization of InclusionInternational, developed a one year project with the goal ofgathering information for the Global Report.They used alltheir local and national meetings as opportunities to addressthe report. Regional facilitators were trained to assist self-advocates, families and local organizations gatherinformation at the local level using the tools provided.Thisensured a comprehensive collection of information for theCountry Report. CONFE also plans to use the information andanalysis for input into a ‘shadow report’ in preparation formonitoring Mexico’s implementation of the UN CRPD by civilsociety.

In Bolivia and Guatemala focus groups and informationgathering took place in remote indigenous villages.

Guatemala’s diversity was captured in the work done by ourmember organization.They gave us information from fivefocus groups in Guatemala, Morales, Quiche, San Marcosand Patulul.They also collected stories and surveys fromparents and teachers in the following departments:Huehuetenango, Ciudad de Guatemala, Patulul, Suchitepequez,Santiago Atitlán, San Marcos, Mazatenango, Moralez, Izabaland Quiché.

Our Global Study research collaborators working in thesecountries travelled to these villages with translators to beable to interview parents, teachers and people with


disabilities about education so they could provide us withtheir stories. Mostly they told us stories about being excludedfrom school, neglected and abused.

In Costa Rica, the government became involved in the datacollection process, making a report while using the tools as aframework.This created a much needed country profile oneducation, since none was previously available, theInternational Bureau of Education (IBE) conference entitledInclusion:TheWay to the Future.3 They supported parentsand teachers in completing the survey, creating a documentfrom the government’s perspective that can be used by thosewho want to promote inclusive education in the country.

Due to the diversity of countries and languages in the AsiaPacific region, information was gathered from partnerorganizations doing work in respective countries. A similarprocess was used in Armenia with the help ofWorldVisionArmenia. Using their networking connections they were ableto provide us with a country profile, focus group discussionsand stories of success.

In the MENA region, communication was mainly by emailand phone since partners were not able to travel within theregion.


In war torn Iraq, for example, a member invited otherfamilies to her home in order to collect the surveyinformation.This creative approach enabled a number ofdifferent people and families to provide input, ensuring theirvoices were recorded.

The respondent from one country participated on thecondition that we not use her name, fearing reprisals forcriticizing the government for their lack of services.

Coordination techniques were also required in Europe whereInclusion Europe and itsWorking Group on InclusiveEducation invested special efforts to collect relevantinformation from 19 countries.Their reports show that themajority of countries surveyed are reaching the goal ofuniversal coverage for primary education. Inclusion Europehas published the results in an additional focus report on thestate of inclusive education in Europe.

The surveys and focus group information were submitted toII in different ways. Information from teachers and parentswere submitted online, particularly in the Americas.However, with limited internet access in some regions, papersubmissions were received; others uploaded the informationdirectly to the site. In another example, video responseswere sent to II with personal stories from students. Thanks tothis cooperation, we have a broad base of information todraw upon.

Every country used the tools in creative ways that were mostappropriate to their own reality and resources. Although thereports were created for input to this Global Report they alsohelped members to identify challenges and opportunitiesthey can address in their own countries.We have received ahuge amount of information.We hope this Global Reportdoes justice to all the work and effort made by our memberorganizations, partner organizations, government officials,parents, teachers and friends.

One country coordinator said “…the work we managed toput together should be an example of how we can succeed ifwe all walk toward the same goal.” We hope that, worldwide,we can communicate and work together as we did for thisinitiative, with the aim of achieving inclusive education inevery country/school/classroom in the world.

CHAPTER 2

What is InclusiveEducation?



Chapter 2

What is InclusiveEducation?Inclusive Education:What does it mean?

In the development of this report we debated the usefulnessof a definition of inclusive education. Some argued that weneeded to describe what the ideal image of inclusiveeducation would look like. Others argued that few if any reallife examples could live up to our ideal picture of inclusiveeducation and therefore we might present an image that wasso far from the reality of people’s experiences that it wouldbe self-defeating.

From the country profiles we have gathered it is clear thatgovernments around the world give many different meaningsto the concept of inclusive education. Even within a singlecountry, the understanding of what inclusive educationmeans can vary from state to state, city to city or even schoolto school. For the purposes of our report, inclusiveeducation will refer to both –

• The concept of a high level paradigm shift for educationsystems to include and serve all children effectively; and

• The specific mandate to have students with disabilitiesattend regular schools and classrooms with their non-disabled siblings and peers with the supports theyrequire to succeed.

UNESCO, in 2006, describes inclusive education as

a process of addressing and responding to the diversityof needs of all learners through inclusive practices inlearning, cultures and communities and reducingexclusion within and from education. It involveschanges and modifications in content, approaches,structures and strategies, with a common vision whichcovers all children of the appropriate age range and aconviction that it is the responsibility of the regularsystem to educate all children. (UNESCO, 2006)


The Salamanca Framework focuses on inclusive education asa strategy to include children with special educational needsin mainstream education by responding to the needs ofindividual learners.

‘Inclusive education’ implies that children and youthwith special educational needs should be included inthe educational arrangements made for the majority ofchildren… Inclusive schools must recognize andrespond to the diverse needs of students,accommodation of both different styles and rates oflearning and ensuring quality education to all throughappropriate curricula, organizational arrangements,teaching strategies, resource use and partnershipswith their communities. (UNESCO – SalamancaStatement, 1994)

These descriptions of inclusive education have helped tohighlight the needs of children with disabilities.They haveresulted in many innovative and progressive efforts tosupport children with disabilities in the regular educationsystem in many countries.

However, other policy documents have clouded thismandate.They have shifted the focus from “inclusive


education” to a focus on simply providing children withdisabilities with an education.The “inclusion” factor issidelined and the provision of education to students withdisabilities remains in separate special education programs.While some of these initiatives have helped some previouslyexcluded children to receive an education, they haveneedlessly been at odds with the vision of the SalamancaStatement and have in some cases seriously undermined it.

For example, the UNESCO EFA Global Monitoring Report(GMR) on Quality Education (2005) attempted to drawattention to those who were most at risk of being excludedfrom education:

Uniform models of reform that ignore the multipledisadvantages faced by many learners will fail.Educational approaches for those who live withHIV/AIDS, emergency, disability and child labourshould be given more support.

Many education systems have interpreted this to mean thatseparate solutions are required for each disadvantagedgroup. It does not clarify that the real issue is making theexisting school system inclusive and thus able to respond toa range of different and diverse needs of children.

Another unfortunate fact is that many well intentionedattempts to address exclusion from school have simplyneglected to consider children with disabilities (e.g. Children-Out-of-School: Measuring Exclusion from Primary Education,UNICEF/UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2005). They havealso not addressed the need to develop and nurture theprinciples of “inclusive education” in the educational system.A specific example: the 2008 UNESCO InternationalConference on Education was entitled “Inclusive Education:TheWay of the Future”, and the background papers for theconference were based on the Salamanca model. However,there was little mention of disability in the plenary sessionsfor the conference, and the topic was relegated to a fewconcurrent sessions where it was unseen and unnoticed bymost of the participants at the conference.

Inclusive Schools, Effective SchoolsThe strategies used to achieve inclusive education forstudents with disabilities are clearly connected to general

school improvement efforts.The same strategies can benefitchildren with various learning difficulties, as well as improvethe quality of education for all children in the class. It iswidely accepted that the conditions required to allow forsuccessful inclusion are also those that contribute to overallschool improvement and high levels of achievement for allchildren.There are a variety of different models and practicesof inclusive education. Increasingly these practices are usedto meet the needs of an increasingly diverse schoolpopulation.

Ultimately, we have concluded that describing what we meanby inclusive education is helpful as a means of settingbenchmarks for progress towards inclusion. Families whoshared their stories told us that the challenge we face is nolonger to have governments accept that inclusive educationis the right thing to do but rather agreeing on what inclusiveeducation should look like.

Chapter 7 of this report which examines Article 24 of thenewly adopted CRPD provides a basis for this description.The CRPD guarantees inclusion as a right and alsoguarantees the right for students with disabilities to receivethe individual supports they require.

Much of the criticism we heard about inclusive education wasbecause schools met only one of these criteria – eitherchildren with disabilities were educated with their non-disabled peers or they received individualized supports, butthe two were often not combined.

There is currently no consensus among global organizationsof people with disabilities and their families on the definitionof inclusive education. The term “inclusive education” isoften seen as a “red flag” by some advocates who regard itas a threat to deny people with disabilities the individualizedsupports they need. This is an issue particularly for peoplewho are blind, deaf, and deafblind, many of whom want tohave the opportunity for group learning in separate classes orschools.Within the membership of II there has also been adebate about whether individual needs are ever best met in agroup setting. However it is important to be clear thatindividual supports can, and in many jurisdictions are,delivered in inclusive settings.

The disability organizations that participated in thenegotiations of the CRPD did reach consensus that inclusive



education means being part of the regular system, havingindividual needs met, and in the case of students who areblind, deaf, deafblind, and sometimes for students who arehearing-impaired, sometimes being educated in groups.

The policy of Disabled Peoples International (DPI) includesthe possibility for students who are deaf, blind, or deafblindto be educated in separate groups. The policy of theWorldBlind Union (WBU) calls for separate schools to be oneoption. The policy of theWorld Federation of the Deaf (WFD)states that Inclusion as a simple placement in a regularschool without meaningful interaction with classmates andprofessionals at all times is tantamount to exclusion.

Inclusion International interprets the wording of the CRPD tobe consistent with our position – that every child with adisability has the right to be able to choose an inclusiveoption. As you will see in the examples in Chapter 5, thismeans that education systems must be willing and able towelcome students, regardless of their disability, and providethem with the supports they need, with the default always aregular class with non-disabled peers.


While we agree that the CRPD does not make it “illegal” tooffer separate classes and schools, we believe that suchoptions are not the preferred ones nor are they economicallyviable in most of the world. Given the huge numbers ofchildren and youth with disabilities who are currently out ofschool we believe it is not economically possible to build asystem of separate schools to educate them. The only viablesolution is for them to be part of regular schools, and forthose schools to be designed and managed so they can meetthe needs of ALL their students.

INCLUSION INTERNATIONAL POLICY ON INCLUSIVEEDUCATION

Adopted November 2006

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilitiespromotes the goal of full inclusion and guarantees theright of every child to attend the regular school with thesupports they require.

Inclusive education requires that schools are supportedto welcome all students with adaptations made for allspecial needs.

Inclusion International believes that effective inclusiveeducation requires the regular school system to respectthe principles of:

• Non-discrimination,

• Accessibility,

• Accommodation to specific needs through flexibleand alternative approaches to learning and teaching,

• Equality of standards,

• Participation,

• Support for meeting disability-related needs, and

• Relevance to preparation for the labour market.


DISABLED PEOPLES INTERNATIONAL POSITION PAPERON INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

DPI is encouraged by the implementation of inclusiveeducation policies in many countries that have resulted inpositive changes in the lives of people with disability inthose countries.

DPI recognizes that if we are to achieve an inclusivesociety it is imperative that children with disabilities areintegrated into their schools at the earliest possibleopportunity so that this inclusion can benefit bothdisabled and non-disabled children ensuring thateducation for people with disability is:

• Not segregated or in a “special” school,

• A quality education that recognizes the principle oflifelong learning,

• Develops all the talents of each learner to reach their fullpotential, and

• Accommodates the individual needs of each learner’sdisability.

DPI believes that education should be accessible to allwho desire to be educated, no matter their ability; peoplewith disability should have the option to be integratedwith the general school population, rather than beingsocially and educationally isolated from the mainstreamwithout any choice in the matter. Students who are deaf,blind or deaf blind may be educated in their own groupsto facilitate their learning, but must be integrated into allaspect of society. 2005-05-19


EXCERPTS FROMTHE JOINT EDUCATION STATEMENT

TheWorld Blind Union andThe International Council forEducation of People withVisual Impairment (ICEPVI) (2003)

Urge governments to:

1. Place the educational services for blind and visuallyimpaired children and youth under the samegovernment bodies as that of children withoutblindness or visual impairment.

2. Guarantee all blind and visually impaired children andyouth in integrated, inclusive, or special schoolprograms — as well as their teachers — access to theequipment, educational materials and support servicesrequired, such as:

• Books in Braille, large print or other accessibleformats, and

• Low vision devices for those who require them.

3. Offer education of a high quality and standard in arange of educational options, including special schools.


EDUCATION RIGHTS FOR DEAF CHILDRENExcerpts from a policy statement of theWorld Federationof the Deaf (July 2007)

WFD supports the right of Deaf children to acquire fullmastery of their sign language as their ‘mother tongue’, aswell as to learn the language(s) used by their family andcommunity.

Full inclusion for a Deaf learner means a totallysupportive, signing and student-centered environment.This permits the learner to develop to his/her fulleducational, social and emotional potential.

Inclusion as a simple placement in a regular schoolwithout meaningful interaction with classmates andprofessionals at all times is tantamount to exclusion of theDeaf learner from education and society.

The challenge for schools is to include students who have adisability, respond to their individual needs and provide aquality education to ALL students. Through the voices ofstudents with disabilities and their families, this report offerssome ways to meet this challenge.

Civil society and regionalgroups are making effortstowards inclusiveeducation. An example ofthis is Inclusion Europe’sPosition Paperhighlighting strategicobjectives for childrenand young people,schools and governmentsto make inclusion ineducation a reality.1

CHAPTER 3

The Global Context:From Salamanca to theUN Convention onthe Rights of Personswith Disabilities



Education for children and youth is a global issue.International organizations like the OECD, UN agencies,theWorld Bank and others all point to how importantinvestment in quality education is – for individual health,cohesive societies and sustainable economies. Estimatesthat tens of millions of children are not going to school orcompleting even primary education, much less going on tosecondary and post-secondary education has led to a globalagenda for education.

What about children and youth with disabilities? Is inclusiveeducation recognized as part of the global issue and agendafor education? For Inclusion International, people withintellectual disabilities and their families around the world, itmost certainly is. In this Chapter we ask whether inclusiveeducation is also a global issue for governments andinternational institutions, and on their agenda for investment.

Ideally, a global framework for inclusive education wouldprovide shared goals, investment strategies, and ways ofassessing progress. It would enable collaboration socountries could learn from one another. It would mean thatgovernments, donor countries and international agencieswere sufficiently investing in education reform that resultedin inclusion. And, we would have international monitoringand reporting on key benchmarks of access, quality andoutcomes of inclusive education for children and youth withdisabilities around the world.

Chapter 3

The Global Context:From Salamanca to theUN Convention on theRights of Persons withDisabilities


In considering whether we have a global framework forinclusive education, and to assess progress made since theSalamanca Statement was adopted 15 years ago, we askthree questions in this chapter:

• How far have we progressed globally in establishinginclusive education as an accepted and understood goalfor children with disabilities?

• Is inclusive education on the global agenda for educationand investment strategies to promote Education for Alland the MDGs?

• Are we measuring global progress on inclusiveeducation?

This chapter looks at the main global commitments toinclusive education beginning with Salamanca, the globalframework for investing in inclusive education development,and what international studies of inclusive education and ourown research tell us about global progress to date. Inpreparing our analysis of the global context, we drew on keystudies, interviews and consultations with officials ininternational agencies.

Is Inclusive Education on the Global Agendafor Education?A comprehensive set of commitments to inclusive educationwas made by governments and international institutions inSalamanca in 1994. A few years later, in 2000, governmentsand international institutions adopted Education for All andthe Millennium Development Goal for universal primaryeducation. They now constitute the global education agendato be achieved by 2015. Yet a clear commitment to inclusiveeducation is nowhere to be found in this framework. After theDakar Framework for EFA was adopted a few, relatively small,initiatives were established to promote inclusive education.Fifteen years after Salamanca, the UN Convention recognizesa right to education for people with disabilities. It establishesthe obligation on governments and the mandate forinternational institutions to make education systems inclusive.

So the global commitment to inclusive education hasstrengthened between Salamanca and the CRPD. But takentogether, these four global commitments make clear that


inclusive education has been, at best, an afterthought on theglobal agenda for education.

The Salamanca Statement

The 1994 Salamanca Statement recognizes education afundamental right of ALL children, including children withdisabilities. It calls for education systems to be inclusive anddesigned to take into account the diversity of all children. Itstates as an underlying belief that:

…regular schools with this inclusive orientation arethe most effective means of combating discriminatoryattitudes, creating welcoming communities, buildingan inclusive society and achieving education for all;moreover, they provide an effective education to themajority of children and improve the efficiency andultimately the cost-effectiveness of the entireeducation system.

The Statement calls on governments to:

• give the highest policy and budgetary priority toimprove their education systems to enable them toinclude all children regardless of individual differencesor difficulties,

• adopt as a matter of law or policy the principle ofinclusive education, enrolling all children in regularschools, unless there are compelling reasons for doingotherwise,

• develop demonstration projects and encourageexchanges with countries having experience withinclusive schools,

• establish decentralized and participatory mechanismsfor planning, monitoring and evaluating educationalprovision for children and adults with special educationneeds,

• encourage and facilitate the participation of parents,communities and organization of persons with


disabilities in the planning and decisionmakingprocesses concerning provision for special educationalneeds,

• invest greater effort in early identification andintervention strategies, as well as in vocational aspectsof inclusive education,

• ensure that, in the context of a systemic change, teachereducation programmes, both preservice and inservice,address the provision of special needs education ininclusive schools.

The Salamanca Statement also called on the internationalfunding agencies including theWorld Bank and UN agencieslike UNICEF, UNESCO and the United Nations DevelopmentProgram “to endorse the approach of inclusive schooling andto support the development of special needs education as anintegral part of all education programmes.” It called for theinternational community to promote, plan, finance andmonitor progress on inclusive education within theirmandates for education.

Yet this call to action is nowhere to be found in the globalagenda for education that did get established a few yearslater with the Dakar Framework for Education for All and theMillennium Development Goal for universal primaryeducation.


RECOGNIZINGTHE RIGHTTO EDUCATION FORALLAND INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 26)

1952 European Convention on Human Rights (1st Protocol)

1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social andCultural Rights

1982 TheWorld Programme of Action ConcerningDisabled Persons

1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child

1990 JomtienWorld Conference on Education for All

1993 Standard Rules on the Equalization ofOpportunities for Persons with Disabilities

1994 Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action

2000 TheWorld Education Forum, Dakar

2006 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons withDisabilities

Dakar Framework for Action

In 2000,TheWorld Education Forum held in Dakar, Senegal,adopted the Dakar Framework for Action for Education forAll. It commits governments to achieving quality basiceducation for all by 2015. The Dakar Framework generated arenewed international commitment and a consensus on sixcomprehensive goals:

• Improving early childhood care;

• Free and compulsory primary education for all by 2015;

• Equitable access to life skills programs;

• Achieving a 50% improvement in adult literacy by 2015;

• Eliminating gender disparities by 2005; and


• Achieving measurable improvements in the quality ofeducation.

There was some mention in the Dakar Framework of the needto address issues of children with disabilities, but theSalamanca call to governments and the internationalcommunity was not incorporated into the Framework.

After Dakar was adopted, and in response to concerns thatEducation for All initiatives were not including children withdisability, UNESCO established an EFA Flagship entitled,“The Right to Education for Persons with Disabilities:Towards Inclusion” to encourage international leadership andcooperation for this excluded group. Its main purpose is toensure that national EFA plans incorporate people withdisability. However, with minimal resources and no formalstructure linking it to UNESCO programs it has had limitedsuccess.

Progress towards the six Dakar Goals is monitored annuallyby UNESCO which publishes a GMR, drawing on backgroundresearch and national surveys of governments. There is noglobal monitoring report for the goals of the SalamancaStatement.

The Millennium Development Goals

Another major international commitment to universalprimary education was made in 2000 when the eight MDGswere adopted by governments around the world. The MDGsare the most comprehensive commitment to end globalpoverty and recognize education as central to this aim in thegoal to ‘achieve universal primary education.’ Internationalagencies recognize Education for All as the global frameworkfor achieving the MDG goal of universal primary education.Both are to be accomplished by 2015.

Like Education for All the MDGs do not make reference todisability. Inclusion International developed a framework forthe MDGs to show governments, international agencies andother civil society groups how people with intellectual andother disabilities and their families could be fully included inthe education and other goals.


TABLE 2UNAND INCLUSION INTERNATIONAL MDGs

INCLUSION INTERNATIONAL’SMILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS

Eradicate Extreme Poverty For People withDisabilities and their Families: By 2015, people withintellectual disabilities and their families will live freeof poverty and discrimination.

Achieve Inclusive Education: By 2015, all children withintellectual disabilities will receive good quality,inclusive education with appropriate supports toensure that each child reaches their highest potential.

Promote Gender Equality for Women with Disabilities:By 2015, social, economic and political discriminationagainst women and girls who have a disability andtheir mothers will be eradicated.

Reduce the Mortality of Children with Disabilities: By2015, the mortality rate of children who are born with adisability or become disabled in the early years will bereduced by two-thirds.

Achieve the Rights of Children and Families: By 2015,the rights of children with disabilities, as outlined inthe UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, will berespected; mothers will receive adequate pre- andpost-natal health care to ensure the well being andhealthy development of all children; families will getthe help they need for the care and support of theirmember with a disability.

Combat HIV/AIDS: By 2015, the spread of HIV/AIDS inthe community of people who have a disability willbegin to be reversed and children with disabilities whohave been orphaned will be supported and cared for inthe community.

Ensure Environmental Sustainability: By 2020, achievesignificant improvement in the lives of people whohave an intellectual disability and their families wholive in extreme poverty.

Develop a Global Partnership for Development andInclusion: By 2015, global efforts to promote goodgovernance and global partnerships will contribute tothe human rights of people with intellectual disabilities,including citizenship and economic rights.

UNMILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS

Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger: By 2015,halve the proportion of people living on less than adollar a day and those who suffer from hunger.

Achieve Universal Primary Education: By 2015,ensure that all boys and girls complete primaryschool.

Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women: By2005 and 2015, eliminate gender disparities in primaryand secondary education preferably by 2005 and atall levels by 2015.

Reduce Child Mortality: By 2015, reduce by two-thirds the mortality rate among children under five.

Improve Maternal Health: By 2015, reduce by three-quarters the rate of women dying in childbirth.

Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Other Diseases: By2015, halt and begin to reverse the spread ofHIV/AIDS and the incidence of malaria and othermajor diseases.

Ensure Environmental Sustainability: By 2020,achieve significant improvement in the lives of atleast 100 million slum dwellers.

Develop a Global Partnership for Development:Develop further an open trading and financial systemthat includes a commitment to good governance,development and poverty reduction – nationally andinternationally.


United Nations Convention on the Rights of Personswith Disabilities (CRPD)

While the Salamanca Statement was the first globalinstrument explicitly calling for the inclusion of children withdisabilities in regular education, it no longer stands alone. InDecember 2006, the United Nations General Assemblyadopted the CRPD, in which Article 24 secures the right to aninclusive education in international law. However, the CRPDdoes not simply recognize the right to inclusive education asan entitlement. It presents a framework of goals for inclusiveeducation systems (see Chapter 7 for a guide to performancebenchmarks based on Article 24). It establishes obligationsfor governments and international agencies to provide thesupports and conditions required to make quality inclusiveeducation successful for all children and youth withdisabilities.

Inclusion International was an active participant indeveloping and negotiating the CRPD. Over 5 years and 8 AdHoc Committee meetings, governments and civil societycame together to negotiate the CRPD. By the last Ad HocCommittee meeting, more than 800 civil societyrepresentatives were engaged in the dialogue andnegotiating process.


Inclusive education has long been a contentious issue for thedisability community. The negotiation process provided anopportunity to craft a common position on inclusiveeducation. Article 24 reflects a delicate consensus amongstinternational disability organizations that reflects the right toinclusive education but still respects the right of blind, deafand deaf blind students to be educated in groups. (SeeChapter 2)

Article 24 is one example of how the CRPD as a wholereflects a new way of understanding disability and presents anew framework for realizing the rights of persons withdisabilities.

As of October 2009, 70 countries had ratified the CRPD and143 had signed indicating their intention to ratify. Thesesuccesses are proof of the growing acceptance of the goal ofinclusion. The CRPD establishes the obligations andguidelines by which governments, international agencies andcivil society can work together to improve education for all,and ensure the inclusion of people with disabilities ineducation.

Of all States which have ratified the Convention so far, onlythe United Kingdom has “reserved” on Article 24. Thiseffectively means that the Government of the UK does notagree to abide by the CRPD obligations to develop a fullyinclusive education system in the UK. We recognize that itwill take time for governments to transform their educationsystems to make them fully inclusive, and that the CRPDdoes not require that governments close all special schools,but it is urgent that the process begin, and that governmentsdo not seek to justify their inaction and deny students theright to be in regular schools and classrooms.

A more detailed analysis of the CRPD and its implications canbe found in Chapter 7 of this report.

We will have to wait and see if the CRPD motivatesgovernments and international agencies to build inclusiveeducation into their global agenda more comprehensivelythan they have to date.


Is there a Global Framework for Investingin and Implementing Inclusive EducationSystems?How does planning, implementation and investment work toachieve the goals of EFA and the MDG goal for universalprimary education? National and/or state-level governmentshave the primary responsibility for planning, implementingand investing in education systems in their own countries. Inmost developed countries, with a few exceptions,governments invest in and implement a two-track system –regular education for children without disabilities, andseparate ‘special’ education for children with intellectual andother disabilities.

For the most part, this two-track approach is also taken inlower-income and developing countries. As we have noted,in these countries the vast majority of children withdisabilities are outside of school all together. As well, inmany developing countries special education has been seenas a social welfare issue, not part of the Ministry orDepartment of Education. In many developing countriesgovernments and donors have mostly funded non-governmental organizations to deliver special education inseparate schools as part of the social welfare system, and ona charity basis. Where special education has beenincorporated into the public system in developing countries,it is on a very small scale, delivered primarily through aseparate special education system and leaving most childrenout of the system.

Aid to developing countries for investing in educationsystems includes both financial aid and technical assistance.It is provided through many channels. Donor countriesprovide aid directly through their bilateral aid agencies. Theyalso flow aid through multilateral agencies like theWorldBank, Regional Development Banks, UN Agencies likeUNICEF and in the case of European Union membercountries, through the European Development Fund.Multilateral agencies like theWorld Bank channel aid todeveloping countries from donor countries, and also provideaid directly; in the case of theWorld Bank through debt relief,trust funds, concessions on loans, etc. All of these forms ofaid, and ways of flowing it are used to invest in developmentof education systems in developing countries.


This international system of aid largely follows the two-trackapproach – one to invest in the global EFA and MDGeducation agenda overall, and one much smaller track toinvest in special education. On the one track there is majorinvestment in education reform to improve supply, accessand quality, but usually without a ‘disability inclusion’ lens.

On the other track is investment in ‘special needs’ education,usually in separate schools all together, and seen as a‘targeting’ strategy. While many governments prioritizegroups of children out of school (girls, Roma children, childlabourers, etc.), strategies to reach those children are notembedded in larger school reform efforts. The targeting ofmarginalized groups through programming withoutcorresponding transformations of education systems resultsin the creation of more separate responses to the needs ofdifferent groups – and more special classes and schools.

Along this much smaller second track, there have been someinvestments in inclusive education, and in transitioning from‘special’ separate education to inclusive education. Therelatively minor investments for inclusive education areusually of a ‘project’ nature – e.g. pilot projects, research on

inclusive education, with aid delivered through NonGovernment Organization (NGO) partners from donorcountries assisting developing country NGOs with specialeducation or inclusive education projects. These projects areprofiled inWorld Bank and bilateral donor agency reports andwebsites. But they are not seen as integral to educationsystem reform. If that was test of these projects – whetherthey resulted in scaling up inclusive education so that the95% of children with disabilities outside of school could beincluded – they would likely receive a failing grade. That doesnot mean that these projects are not important.They doprovide good lessons to build upon. The problem is theyremain confined to the second track investment strategy.They don’t actually transform the first track – where the realinvestment in the global education agenda flows.

One argument for a two-track approach is that it is notpossible to meet the needs of all children with disabilities inthe regular education system; it is not fiscally viable. In fact,an OECD (1994) study found that including children withdisabilities in regular classrooms is seven to nine times lesscostly than maintaining a separate system. Separatefacilities, administration, teacher training, etc. is a far morecostly approach. There is no question that ensuring access tothe 95% of children with disabilities out of education alltogether will require more investment. However, financingexpansion via the regular system is a much more cost-effective approach, in terms of short term financing costs,and long-term outcomes.

That inclusive education is not adequately included in themain global investment strategy for education is affirmed in arecent study on the aptly-named ‘FastTrack Initiative’ (FTI) ofEFA, coordinated under theWorld Bank. The study is byWorldVision (2007), titled Education’s Missing Millions.1Through the FTI, donor agencies pledge additional resourcesfor education to developing countries which have a poverty-reduction strategy and national plan for education. TheWorldVision study looked at how effective FTI initiatives were ataddressing the barriers to primary education for children withdisabilities. The study found that no country had developedor implemented rights-based plans that adequately identifiednumbers of children with disabilities, their needs, or providedstrategies for ensuring accessibility of school buildings,teacher training, parental support, community involvement,adequate financing, or effective monitoring strategies. Thatsaid, the report does point to some countries where ‘strong



and sound plans’ are being developed including Cambodia,Kenya, andVietnam among others. However, in mostnational education plans reviewed there was minimal or nomention of disability.

One of the main reasons why inclusive educationinvestments remain ‘off-track’ has to do with the policies ofaid agencies. In 2003 Inclusion International conducted ascan of aid agencies’ policies related to people withdisabilities. In preparation for this report we reviewed thosepolicies as well as agency education policies in order todetermine whether more agencies had adopted disabilitypolicies; whether those policies promoted inclusion andwhether this approach had been taken up within the agency’seducation policy.

Over the past six years we have witnessed an increase inpolicies and programmes for people with disabilities indevelopment agencies. However, this has not translated intoinclusive approaches across the work of these developmentagencies (See Table 3 on Development Agencies, Disabilityand Education Policies). In education this means thatinclusive education has still not been adopted as a part ofeducation initiatives in bilateral agencies. One bilateralagency when presented with a proposal for an initiative topromote inclusive education responded by saying the agencydid not support initiatives in inclusive education because theydid not see inclusion as a trend and were concerned aboutaddressing the needs of “all students” in their programmingrather than just students with disabilities.

A recent study byWorldVision also finds that among 20donor agencies, there is “Increase in individual policycommitments [to inclusive education]… not accompanied bysystematic action and specific financial commitments.” Theresult is “weak political will and marginalisation of the issueimpeding progress.” The same study quotes a donor whosays “This is a luxury issue that as a donor I wouldn't havethe time for” (Lei, 2009). Similarly aWorld Bank study hasfound that “67% of PRSPs [Poverty Reduction StrategyPapers – national plans for poverty reduction] hadcommitments on education for disabled children but only20% had corresponding budget lines.”2


TABLE 3DEVELOPMENTAGENCIES, DISABILITY AND EDUCATION POLICIES

Has a Includes IncludesGovernment Agency Disability Disability in Education in

Policy Education Policy Disability Policy

AusAID (Australian Agency for International � �

Development)

CIDA (Canadian International DevelopmentAgency)

DANIDA (Danish Cooperative Agency)

DFID (Department for International �

Development, United Kingdom)

EU Commission (European Union) � � �

GTZ (German Technical Cooperation) � �

JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency) �

NORAD (Norwegian Agency for Development �

Cooperation)

NZAID (New Zealand’s International Aid andDevelopment Agency)

SIDA (Swedish International Development � � �

Cooperation Agency)

USAID (United States Agency for International � �

Development)

We have been consulted recently by two developmentagencies which both were planning to abandon their focuson basic education because, according to their analysis, thegoal of universal primary education was close to beingreached. Unfortunately, such an analysis ignores the largenumbers of unregistered children with disabilities, and thosewho are not the responsibility of their nation’s ministry ofeducation. There is a risk that if development agenciesassume that basic education should no longer be a priority,


necessary changes will not be made, and children withdisabilities will remain excluded.

Until inclusive education becomes central to the promotionof Education for All, the education of children and youth withdisabilities will continue to be viewed as the responsibility ofseparate ‘special education systems’, and the systemicchanges required for inclusion to be successful will not bemade.

Are we measuring global progress oninclusive education?

UNESCO’s Global Monitoring Reports

The main way for measuring progress on the EFA and MDGglobal education agenda is through the annual ‘GlobalMonitoring Reports’ on EFA published by UNESCO. Theseshow the performance of countries against the six EFA goals,and provide a global picture on progress towards theirachievement. However, as we note above the DakarFramework does not provide specific targets and measureswithin these goals for inclusion of children and youth withintellectual or other disabilities in education.

With no clear targets and measures for children and youthwith disabilities, or girls and young women with disabilities,to guide planning, investment and monitoring very littleprogress has been made in reaching EFA goals for thisgroup. Appendix 2 provides a summary of the increasingnumber of references to disability in the Global MonitoringReports since they were first issued in 2002.The 2009 GlobalMonitoring Report provides the most comprehensivediscussion of disability and education in the reports issued todate. It identifies disability as one of three main barriers toachieving the goal of universal primary education, along withchild labour and ill health.The report acknowledges lack oftransportation/physical distance to school, inaccessiblefacilities, shortage of trained teachers, and negative societalattitudes about children with disabilities among the specificbarriers that lead to exclusion.

For the most part, the Global Monitoring Reports presentpersonal and small-scale success stories about inclusion, and


make some general reference to the barriers to education forchildren with disabilities. However, the reports are lacking indata that would provide governments and internationalagencies a basis on which to guide effective planning,investment and monitoring progress on inclusive educationas part of the global agenda for education.

The information presented in the latest report would suggestthat no progress has been made in coming up with a globalreporting strategy on children with disabilities in and out ofschool, despite calls for such information since Salamanca.The 2009 report refers again to data problems, but still goeson to reference estimates of a disability prevalence rate in anumber of developing countries of only 1-2%. This is despiteWorld Bank reports estimating 10-12%, and a rate in NewZealand as high as 20%. When the disability rate is so under-estimated it dramatically inflates the estimates of childrenwith disabilities who are in school. It leads, for example to a‘finding’ cited in the latest Global Monitoring Report thatthere is only a 4% gap in education access between olderschool age children with and without disabilities in India, andthat no gap exists at all in Burundi.3 These are highly suspectestimates.

‘Programme for International Student Assessment’(PISA) –The Organization for Economic Cooperationand Development (OECD)

The OECD plays a number of roles in the two-track approachto education we have outlined in this Chapter. It provides aforum for member countries4 to consider broad directions foreducation policy in developed and developing countries. TheOECD undertakes research and suggests effective aidstrategies for member countries’ bilateral aid efforts ineducation and other sectors. It has also undertaken andpublished international comparative studies on inclusiveeducation in developed and developing countries andcountries in transition (e.g. OECD, 2009; 2007;1999).

The biggest impact it is having on the global educationagenda, however, is through its ‘Programme for InternationalStudent Assessment’ (PISA). This assessment programmenow involves over 50 countries which provide a standardizedtest on reading, science and math skills to 15-year olds inschool. It is part of a much broader trend towards

standardized testing in schools, as a measure of effectivenessof a country’s education system.

There is general public support for this approach, but it isstudents with disabilities who are often ‘blamed’ for bringingdown standardized test scores, as one local newspaperheadline in Canada reported: “OtanabeeValley [school] nearbottom of provincial rankings: Results skewed by specialneeds students” (Marchen 2004).

Standardized testing results in incentives for educationsystems to either refuse admission to children withdisabilities or stream them into special education where their‘scores’ won’t count in assessing the system’s overallperformance. Learner-centred approaches to studentassessment measure students’ progress against individualgoals and recognize the ‘multiple intelligences’ studentsbring to the diversity in classrooms. This is the approach toassessment that makes inclusion possible. Yet standardizedtesting is reinforcing a global agenda for education whichdoes not include children and youth with disabilities. In fact,it is helping to create the incentive system to make sure theyare not a part of it.

Other International Research

One of the most comprehensive reviews of literature oninclusive education within the context of EFA provides agood summary of research findings to date (Peters 2004).Peters suggests that research points to a wide range ofsystemic changes that are required to achieve the EFA goalsfrom the perspective of children with disabilities. Changesare needed at the micro level (schools and communities),mezzo level (education systems), and the macro level(national/international policy and national legislation). Shealso suggests that research findings point to inclusiveeducation policy and practice as a “struggle that takesdifferent forms and is exercised at different levels by socialactors with different objectives and under differentconditions and power relations.”

It is in this context of this struggle that the research oninclusive education points to critical issues that must beaddressed including: decentralization of education delivery,financing, access and participation, pre-service and in-service



teacher training and professional development, legislativereform, school restructuring and ‘whole-school’ reform,assessment, and building capacity through NGO, community,government and multi-sector partnerships.

PromisingTrendsDespite the structural challenges to an inclusive globalagenda for education, we have recently seen some promisingsigns of movement with international agencies. Throughoutthe more than 12 months of this study we have witnessedsome promising changes in the policies and activities ofthese organizations.

UNICEF, which had virtually ignored children with disabilitiesfor more than 10 years, has now made the promotion ofinclusive education a priority for its role in implementing theCRPD (UNICEF, 2009). In a report prepared by UNICEF as acontribution to our study, it was acknowledged that it was‘regaining’ energy and involvement in promoting inclusion ofchildren and youth with disabilities, including children withintellectual disabilities. It now has a number of initiativesunderway at its headquarters and through its various countryoffices, including larger scale initiatives with donor andrecipient countries focused on identification of children withdisabilities, teacher training, accessibility of schools,development of information tools and resources on disability,human rights and inclusion.5 The CRPD is having a positiveimpact on strengthening both the mandate and operations ofUNICEF in this area. At UNICEF Headquarters a positionpaper is being developed on promoting and implementingearly intervention and inclusive education for children withdisabilities within the framework of UNICEF’s GlobalEducation Strategy.

UNESCO, since the Salamanca conference of 1994, had givenresponsibility for promotion of inclusive education to theSection for Inclusion and Quality Enhancement of theDivision for the Promotion of Basic Education, but thissection relies mostly on donations from governments andhas not had a major impact on UNESCO policies overall.However, since the International Conference on Education in2008 focussed on inclusion, UNESCO’s International Bureauof Education has been giving higher priority to the issue.


The OECD was extremely helpful in identifying goodinclusive practice and providing comparable data for bothmember and non-member countries through its Centre forEducational Research and Innovation and EducationDirectorate, but recently curtailed these activities. TheOECD’s Development Assistance Committee plays animportant role in shaping donor policies but has ignoredissues of disability.

TheWorld Bank strongly promoted inclusion during thepresidency of JamesWolffenson. Although there have beena few positive examples of national programming –Vietnamstands out – overall disability and inclusion have beenignored as an integral element of the education agenda.However, a knowledge network on inclusive education isnow being developed by the Bank. Education’s MissingMillions, produced byWorldVision, identified how the FastTrack Initiative administered through theWorld Bank couldplay a more proactive role in promoting inclusion, and thereare signs that some of the recommendations of that reportwill be implemented.

SummaryThere is an impressive global agenda for education – with aset of goals, investment strategies, and ways of monitoringprogress. However, the commitments to inclusive educationwithin this global agenda have largely become rhetoric.Despite some promising trends and growing attention toinclusion and its value, this objective is largely still marginalto what the global agenda has become.

How do we reconstruct the global agenda for education – inits commitments, investment strategies and monitoringframework – so that it might become inclusive in the future?If the agenda is being driven now by EFA and the MDG foruniversal primary education, it seems important to startthere. It’s important to ask what achievement of these goalslooks like from the perspective of people with intellectualdisabilities and their families. What might our voices tellabout the barriers and issues to confront in creating a trulyinclusive global agenda for education? The next chapter doesjust that.


PART II:

Confronting the Gap in

Education for All

CHAPTER 4

The Dakar Goals:The Inclusion Deficit



Chapter 4

The Dakar Goals:The Inclusion Deficit

“We heard that a group was starting a campaign forEducation for All, but when we tried to join the coalition wewere told they didn’t mean our children.”

Report from a Parent from South Africa, to the Global Study

There is no global report that looks at the gap in access to,experience and outcomes of education from theperspective of people with intellectual disabilities and theirfamilies. We undertook this study because we felt it wasimportant that our voices were more clearly heard so thatgovernments and international institutions might chart amore inclusive global agenda for education.

In this chapter we analyse the findings from the countryprofiles completed by our member organizations, and thesurveys, interviews, focus groups and consultationsconducted with self-advocates, families, teachers and otherkey informants in over 75 countries, and from numerousdonor and international agencies.

Our aim is to see how the global education agenda – basedon the six Dakar Education for All goals and the MillenniumDevelopment Goal for universal primary education – couldbecome fully inclusive of people with disabilities. We ask inthis chapter, how does the global agenda for education touchdown, or not, in the lives of people with intellectual and otherdisabilities?

The full statement of the six Dakar goals for EFA is as follows:

1. Early childhood care and education – expanding andimproving comprehensive early childhood care andeducation, especially for the most vulnerable anddisadvantaged children;

2. Free and compulsory primary education – ensuring thatby 2015 all children, particularly girls, children indifficult circumstances and those belonging to ethnicminorities, have access to and complete free andcompulsory primary education of good quality;

3. Learning needs of all youth and adults – ensuring thatthe learning needs of all young people and adults aremet through equitable access to appropriate learningand life-skills programmes;

4. Adult literacy – achieving a 50 per cent improvement inlevels of adult literacy by 2015, especially for women,and equitable access to basic and continuing educationfor all adults;

5. Gender equality in primary education – eliminatinggender disparities in primary and secondary educationby 2005, and achieving gender equality in education by2015, with a focus on ensuring girls’ full and equalaccess to and achievement in basic education of goodquality;

6. Educational quality – improving all aspects of thequality of education and ensuring excellence of all sothat recognized and measurable learning outcomes are



achieved by all, especially in literacy, numeracy andessential life skills.

We present our analysis of information in six sections below,one for each of the Dakar EFA goals.


Goal 1: Early Childhood Care and Education“expanding and improving comprehensive early childhoodcare and education, especially for the most vulnerable anddisadvantaged children”

Early Childhood Care and Education(ECCE) are particularly important forchildren with disabilities. Earlyinterventions and opportunities to beincluded with other children can havea significant impact on whether achild is included in their communityand their neighbourhood school.Gaining access to good quality ECCEis important not only for thedevelopment of the child. It is also asupport to families who are caring fora child with a disability.

Despite the importance of ECCE forchildren with disabilities, we heardconsistent reports of poor access,lack of an educational model or linksto the education system, and lack ofcoordination. Most programs thatwe learned about were disabilityspecific rather than inclusive.

Poor Access

• Our research shows that familieswho have children withdisabilities are significantly lesslikely to have access to earlychildhood programmes andinterventions than their peers.Even in high income countries itis often those who would benefitmost (those who are vulnerableand disadvantaged) who haveleast access to ECCE.

• Where families are able to access services for children0-5 years of age, these services tend to be segregateddisability services, or childcare programmes with little orno educational curriculum.

ECCE represents a continuum ofinterconnected arrangementsinvolving diverse actors: family,friends, neighbours; family daycare for a group of children in aprovider’s home; centre-basedprogrammes;classes/programmes in schools; andprogrammes for parents.

EFA Global Monitoring Report,2007

Early childhood care andeducation supports “children’ssurvival, growth, developmentand learning – including health,nutrition and hygiene, andcognitive, social, physical andemotional development – frombirth to entry into primaryschool in formal, informal andnon-formal settings... providedby a mix of governmentinstitutions, non-governmentalorganizations, private providers,communities and families.”

EFA Global Monitoring Report,2007


• Almost 40% of respondents saidthat ECCE programmes were notpreparing children with anintellectual disability for transitionto primary school.

• Respondents from 25% of thecountries indicated that not allchildren are registered at birth.These results did not include manyrespondents from Africa where itwas reported that children withdisabilities are often notregistered.The result is that thesechildren do not have access toservices or school.

Predominance of Medical Model

Access to early childhood educationfor children with disabilities is limitedby two main issues: the overall lackof availability of any ECCE services inmany countries; and provision ofECCE through social service or healthministries which emphasizerehabilitation not education.

The “defective child” model identifiesthe lack of school success as afunction of presumed limitations ofthe child, not the capacity of theteacher or school to teach andsupport the child to learn.This is apervasive problem that has beenfound to exist even in schools thathave officially been called “inclusiveschools”.

In many countries of the MENAregion we heard that for a child with disability to enter aschool or programme they have to get a letter from thedoctor assessing her condition, and if there is a risk for otherstudents even in a special education setting. Most of the timethe doctor will recommend that the child stay at home,because there is no point sending a child to a place that has

Poor countries frequently lackresources and political will tofulfill their responsibility toguarantee that all the childrenare registered at birth. Parentsmust travel long distances to thebigger cities because the civilregistries frequently arecentralized. Also, because theprocess of birth registrationusually begins in the hospitals,the babies born in their parents’home are less likely to beregistered. Other factors thatprevent birth registration are thelack of confidence in theauthorities due to cultural fearsof discrimination or persecutionand practices that go againstthe systems of birth registration.

Nicaragua Country Report

I believe that in our country wehaven’t even arrived at inclusiveeducation and its deepestmeaning. There is an intent.However, the [medical] labelsgiven to these children preventsthem from getting access to areal education which wouldprovide equality for all whoparticipate in it.

Teacher, Mexico


nothing for him/her.The doctor often does not even see thevalue in a hearing device for a deaf child because the trainingis too hard and the only place is deaf rehabilitation facilities.(Country reports from Lebanon, Jordan and Syria).

Poor Delivery, Coherence and Responsibility

While some major efforts are being made by governments toachieve the EFA goals, insufficient attention has been given toECCE in the national education plans.

• Policies and planning for ECCE are not integrated withthe education plan for the country and Ministries ofEducation are often not responsible for children underthe age of 5.

• Examples of this can be found from information collectedfrom the country profiles. In the USA only 57% ofchildren between the ages of 3-5 attend center basedearly childhood education, while in Colombia only 35% ofchildren less than 5 years of age receive services, ofwhich less than 40% receive programs with aneducational component. More information fromColombia indicates a low estimate that only 2.5% of the


children under 5 have adisability, and there is no dataindicating the number whoaccess education programs. Ourfamily survey shows that thesechildren have a difficult timeaccessing regular earlyeducation programs run by thegovernment.

• Our members report that thecentral objectives of ECCE oftenseem unclear in their countriesand there is confusion abouthow it should be delivered. InMENA for example we foundthat responsibility for ECCE fellin different ministries. InLebanon it is the responsibilityof the Ministry of Health, inYemen, Algeria and Sudan theMinistry of Labour and inBahrain, Kuwait and Jordan it isthe responsibility of theMinistry of Social Affairs. Theresult is that the ECCE isdelivered sporadically with littlecoherence by governmentagencies and often throughprivate agencies, with little orno connection to the primaryeducation system.

According to the reports wereceived, poor quality andinsufficient provision of ECCE aswell as lack of access to ECCEmeans that:

• Children with disabilities do nothave access to health care,immunization, hearing andvisual preventive programs,feeding and nutritionprogrammes; since these aredelivered through early

Launched last April, theambitious Madrasati (myschool) initiative seeks to makeeducation a socialresponsibility. The idea is topartner NGO’s who are mainlyresponsible for pre-schooleducation with the Ministry ofEducation. Even though theinitiative commits to inclusion,there is no mention of studentswith intellectual disability.Academic achievement andtesting/assessment are still thedetermining factor that childrenhave to undergo to be able toaccess the new pre-schoolsand transition to grade one inthe mainstream system.

Jordan Country Report

childhood programs. This is confirmed by a major studyin India on access to early childhood programs, whichfound that children with disabilities were ‘invisible’ to thecountry’s major ECCE program (Alur 2003).

• Parents of children with disabilities do not have theopportunity to access parenting information, parenteducation and supports.

• Children with disabilities are often placed in unsafeenvironments when their parents are at work and theyare denied the opportunity to play and socialize with theirpeers.

• Without access to ECCE children with disabilities areunable to get the supports they need at a critical age tomitigate their disadvantages and help them to fosterresilience.

• Children with disabilities are denied the opportunity toreceive support for ‘school readiness’ and preparation forprimary school.

In addition to the direct benefits of ECCE for children withdisabilities, the impact on families and communities isfundamentally important to building inclusive communities:

• Parents of children with disabilities are less likely to beable to participate in the labour market because of pooraccess to child care for their children contributing tofurther disadvantage and increased poverty;

• ECCE helps to strengthen communities and build socialcohesion.

Early learning and care for children is a fundamental part ofthe economic and social infrastructure of all countries.Increasingly, policy makers and governments are recognizingthe benefits of investing not only in the care and education ofyoung children but also in the supports to families that itprovides.



Goal 2: Universal Primary Education“ensuring that by 2015 all children, particularly girls, childrenin difficult circumstances and those belonging to ethnicminorities, have access to and complete, free andcompulsory primary education of good quality”

The bulk of information collected through our study wasabout access to primary education. The picture that results isthat there has been much progress in reforming legislationand policy to support inclusive education, and there has beensome teacher training, actual implementation at the schooland classroom level is moving slowly if at all and muchremains to be done.

Policy and Legislation – Limited Commitment and/orImplementation

Despite the assessment by participants in this study that themajority of countries profiled have adopted commitments toinclusive education, families and self-advocates tell us thateven in countries with good legislation and policies, inclusionis not yet a reality.

• In Central America almost every country has adoptedlegislation or policy that affirms inclusive education, yetpractice falls far behind the goal.


• In Canada, New Zealand, the US andsome European countries there areoverarching national and sub-national/provincial/state human rightslaws that protect the rights of peoplewith disabilities, and education lawsthat commit to inclusive education.However, our members report that inpractice, implementation of these lawsand commitments do not take a humanrights-based approach to the provisionof education.

• In Africa there are a few countries thathave adopted statements or policiesthat refer specifically to children withdisabilities.

• In some places legislation and policyrefer to inclusion of marginalizedgroups but leave out children withdisabilities.

• In other instances legislation thatfocuses on the needs of children withdisabilities results in the developmentof segregated or isolating practices.

For example, in Colombia the law statesthat when a child has an intellectualdisability, with high needs, they will becared for in institutions selected by theauthorities (most of them out of theeducational system).

There continues to be a wide gap betweenpolicies and legislation and the reality ofhow students with intellectual disabilitiesare served in their communities, schoolsand classrooms.

Separate Responsibility for Education

Often the Ministry of Education does nothave responsibility for the education ofchildren with disabilities but rather a socialministry has that responsibility. (See, for

The Ministry ofEducation’s Statement ofIntent 2007-2012acknowledges that theNew Zealand DisabilityStrategy must becomepart of our educationpolicy if disabledstudents are to receivethe best education...

Report from IHC,New Zealand

About 90% of studentswith disabilities attendregular schools. Abouthalf of all students withdisabilities spend 80% oftheir time in regularclass.

Education and Inclusionin the United States:An OverviewSeptember 2008

The Universal PrimaryEducation Programmeoffered free primaryeducation for fourchildren per family. Thechild with a disability inthe family was given firstpriority to education andthen the girl child.

Government of UgandaReport, 1998


example, The right toeducation of persons withdisabilities, Report of theSpecial Rapporteur on theright to education, February2007.) In the majority ofcountries that participated inthe survey, a governmentdepartment not responsible foreducation overall, wasnonetheless responsible foreducation of children withdisabilities.

Almost 80% of respondentssaid some school agedchildren do not attend regulareducation programs, but arecovered through what is oftensome meagre provision ofgovernment departments ofsocial welfare or health.

The result is that children withdisabilities often do not haveaccess to education and theyare segregated into health andsocial service programmes atbest, and usually left isolatedat home.

Exclusion from RegularSchools and Classrooms

Our surveys, interviews, andconsultations confirmed thatthe majority of children withdisabilities in developing anddeveloped countries do notattend regular schools with thesupports that they need. Manyself-advocates and familiestold us stories about how theyhad been refused or turnedaway by school administrators,principals and teachers. This

KEY MESSAGES FROMFAMILY SURVEYS

� The majority of families said that theirfamily member was attending aneducation institution at present; howevermost had attended for only short times (2to 4 years).

� Very few children with a disabilitygraduate from secondary school.

� There is limited support from schools;families are made to pay for almost allclassroom supports for their children.

� Financial limitations are forcing them topull their child out of school earlybecause they cannot cover the costs ofsupports (aids, assistants) needed fortheir child at school.

� Families of children with a disability whoare not attending school said that poorexpectations of the child’s ability andnegative attitudes from the school werethe main reasons for exclusion fromschool.

� The majority of families think that lack ofknowledge of teachers in teachingspecial education is a major barrier tothe educational advancement of theirchild.

� Families told us they prefer to send theirchildren to a regular school rather than aspecial education school but the benefitof special education schools is that theirchild is less likely to be ‘hurt’.

Overall, families told us they believe thatbuilding inclusive communities was still agoal to be achieved and inclusive educationwas a way to achieve this goal.


happens in developing countries but is just as pervasive inwealthy countries where separate programs prevail. Of allthe factors that have been identified as making childrenvulnerable to exclusion (girls, HIV/AIDS, poverty, ethnicity,etc.) disability is often found to be the main reason for beingexcluded.

As a parent from Bolivia told us, inreference to her daughter,

When she was little I used to take her tovarious schools but the teachers didn’tknow what the problem was and usedto tell me the child wasn’t suitable forthe school, and that she wouldn’t learnlike the other, and I should take herhome.

At first schooladministration resisted myenrolment into the schoolbecause there were noqualified teachers to teachme and there was nobodywho could communicatewith me.

Khenyi, Sudan


One of the focus groups from India reported that while thereare some instances of inclusion, they are anecdotal, theresult of courageous individuals; the ‘system’ does not driveaccess.

The dream of every parent is to ensure that their childbecomes independent, realizes his/her full and bestpotential and is a useful and contributing human being.The dreams of a parent with a child with special needsare quite similar. However, since [children withdisabilities] are often excluded from the mainstreamcommunity, the struggle has been to see them includedand functioning in the mainstream community and to beaccepted and treated with the dignity they deserve asfellow human beings. Having said that, inclusion/integration just does not seem to be happening in ourcountry except in small pockets here and there. Even thishas been achieved mainly due to the openness andcourage of a few individuals rather than that of thesystem.

• As noted in the section on ECCE, many children withdisabilities are not registered at birth and therefore do notappear in statistics or have a right to education, and sothey are not eligible to be enrolled in school.

• Some families are forced to move to other cities orcountries in order to get access to any education becauseof the closed doors they face, or even to break up thefamily to make this possible. As a mother from Jordanreported

“We were aware of the needs our son has to continuein his education so we had to make some importantchanges in our life. My husband accepted a contractin another country to be able to provide for our son.Breaking the family has been hard but that is the onlyway we could afford to pay for a school to accepthim.”

• Lack of affordability was pointed to time and again indeveloping countries in Latin America, Middle East andNorth Africa, Asia and Africa. Finding that no schoolwould accept their child, one parent from Lebanon told us

“The family has opted to place our child in aninstitution. The tuition fees for an inclusive school areunaffordable.”

• Many reported negative attitudes of teachers andadministrators. We report on this in the section below on‘Quality’.

Lack of Supports in School,Privatizing the Costs

While the majority of countries whoresponded to our survey say thatchildren with disabilities in theircountry have the right to attend theregular school with their brothersand sisters and they might receivesome support, most said that thesupports required were usuallyinadequate and ineffective; or thatparents had to pay for them out-of-pocket. Often children are registeredfor school but do not attend becauseof lack of resources and support.

The Sri Lanka Country Reporthighlighted this issue:

The dropout rate is decreasing ingeneral... However, the drop-outrate of children with disabilities isstill an observable issue. Thismay be due to the reasons ofpoor quality of the educationalassistance given to them, inschools and lack of resourcesincluding availability of trainedteachers or methods of teaching.

Responses to our country profilesindicate that while some childrenwith disabilities are getting intoregular classrooms, in the majority ofcases they are not getting thesupports they need. Respondentsfrom over 60% of countries profiled,indicated that at least some childrenwith disabilities in their country wereable to access regular education withtheir peers. However, respondents in


Families do not have the neededresources to give the support.The government does notprovide it either. Of coursethere are good experienceswith teachers that areinterested and value thestudent, but still there is lot ofresistance. There is noaccepting that a person with adisability can learn with otherswho don’t have a disability….Special schools do not want tomake the neededtransformation to supportstudents with disabilities ininclusion.

Teacher Focus Group, Argentina

My child attended a regularschool but wasn’t given the rightmaterial. He was playing all thetime. Moving him to a [privateschool that believes in inclusion]has changed my life. I know nowthat I have wasted three years ofmy child’s life. The teachers atmy son’s school now are veryunderstanding, progressive andtake the time to plan I.E.P.s[Individual Education Plans]according to his needs.Teachers are cooperative withother teachers, parents andchildren.

Parent, Lebanon


just over 40% of countries profiledfelt that children with disabilitieswere getting at least 75% of thesupports they needed.

Failure of Special Education

In most countries systems ofseparate special education emergedas a response to the failure of regularschools to include children withdisabilities. The result is thatresources that are used to fund theseparate special system provideservice to only a very smallproportion of the population ofchildren with disabilities.

For example, of the estimated 1.6million children with disabilities inEthiopia only 35,000 children receiveeducation (reported by Ministry of

Education Officials at Inclusive Education workshop April,2009). With a few small pilot projects the majority of thechildren with disabilities who receive education are inseparate special education schools which are often run byprivate organizations or NGOs. There are simply not enoughresources in a country like Ethiopia to establish enoughseparate special education schools initiatives to reach the 1.6million children with disabilities who are out of school.

My daughter is in school butevery year we are afraid that thiswill be the last year. The schoolplaces a great deal of demand onus financially and emotionally.That is not only the case for ourdaughter, there are others in theschool and each family has topay and provide the shadowteacher for their child. Moststudents are afraid to approachmy daughter. They think shecould be aggressive, and theteacher does not take the time totalk to the students about the factthat she has Autism and that iswhy she acts different.

A Mother, Bahrain


FAILURE OF SEPARATE SPECIAL EDUCATION SCHOOLING

In Latin American countries, the educational system for students with disabilitieshas been based primarily on a limited number of special schools. This has beentrue for smaller, less developed countries, as well as for larger, more developedones, as the following examples demonstrate:

� Nicaragua has some 150,000 children with special-education needs. Of these,the country’s system can accommodate only 2.4% (3,600 children), meaning thatthe needs of 97.6% of children with disabilities are unmet.

� In Chile, traditional schools direct their special-education efforts toward childrenwith mild disabilities, ignoring those with more severe problems (Milicic and Sius1995). Moreover, most special-education schools specialize in only one type ofdisability, meaning that children with multiple disabilities are often overlooked.The country’s 300 special-education schools can accommodate only 30,000students, one-third of those who need the service.

� El Salvador has some 222,000 school-age youths with disabilities (InclusionInterAmericana 2000). About 2,000 of these take courses at one of the country’s30 special education schools, meaning that less than 1% attend any type ofschool.

Porter, 2001


Goal 3: Meeting Lifelong Learning Needs ofYouth and Adults

“ensuring that the learning needs of all young people andadults are met through equitable access to appropriatelearning and life-skills programmes”

For all people, and certainly forpeople with intellectual disabilities,learning does not begin and end inthe formal primary classroom.Families and self-advocates reportedon the impact that inclusion orexclusion from education has had ontheir sense of inclusion in thecommunity.The life-skills attained ininclusive education and therelationships established with peersenable people with intellectualdisabilities to contribute andparticipate in their community.Exclusion from basic education tendsto further exclude and disadvantage

Everyone has the right toeducation. Education shall befree, at least in the elementaryand fundamental stages.Elementary education shall becompulsory. Technical andprofessional education shallbe made generally availableand higher education shall beequally accessible to all onthe basis of merit.

Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights Article 26


people with disabilities from accessto post-secondary and vocationaltraining.

Limited Access to and Flexibilityin Post Secondary Education

In recent years there has beenincreased funding of post secondaryand higher education bydevelopment agencies andinternational agencies. However littleor no corresponding investmentshave been made in programming oraccessibility for people who wereexcluded from primary education andwho do not meet the eligibilityrequirements of formal postsecondary education.

Generally, our members report evenless access to education at thesecondary and post-secondary levelcompared to the primary level. Inmany countries access to secondaryeducation is very restricted andavailable only to students passingstandardized exams which are notmodified for students with disabilities. In other situations,the cost of secondary education is prohibitive for families. Asone mother in Colombia told a focus group for the study:

“The majority of our kids are in primary school, whichshows us that it was not possible to advance in thecurriculum, and transform the education system to beflexible with a diverse population in secondary educationand higher education.”

Several good practice examples of inclusion in post-secondary education can be found in countries whereinclusive primary education has been in place for some time.In New Zealand three Universities are offering inclusiveeducation to students and one University has established aCentre for Excellence in Inclusive Education. Other examplesinclude Canadian, US and European university and collegeprogrammes where students with disabilities (includingintellectual disabilities) are included.

At university level the curriculumadaptations were denied by theMinistry of Education because ofa lack of policies at this level....that made my daughter veryfrustrated and she left university.We have sent judicial notes tothe Ministry but it is the personthere who denied her theflexibility of the curriculum…

A Mother, Argentina

The beginning and end of classtimetables are complicatedbecause all my children are notaccepted at the same college.My son with a disability goes toa distinct college, so this makesthe other students notunderstand/accept him.

A Mother, Mexico


These models provide a basis for future development ofpost-secondary options but particularly for students whohave an intellectual disability they remain anecdotalexamples in the global context, rather than signals of asystemic shift.

‘Dead-end’Training and Education –Transitions toJobs andAdulthood

Another common issue raised by self-advocates, families andtheir organizations is that adult education or vocationaltraining is not preparing youth with disabilities for decentjobs, or assisting them in accessing the labour market. Thecosts of mainstream training are too high.

The Country Report from Sri Lanka tells us:

Although Sri Lankan Government is tryingtheir level best to make the educationinclusive, still the vocational educationcenters mostly remain isolated and usuallyin separate special education environmentsfor persons with disabilities.The majority ofthe students after completing their formaleducation are directed to vocationaltraining at technical/vocational traininginstitutions established for PWDs.

The opportunity to mingle with non disabled youthsfor vocational training is mainly prevented due to tworeasons. The government- sponsored /supported suchinstitutions provide free training exclusively for peoplewith disabilities, and the private institutions offertraining services for all, but at a high course fee. Sothat disabled at low income levels cannot have accessto such training facilities.

The youths trained in such institutions are faced withdifficulties not only in searching job opportunities, butalso getting a fair wage for their labour. According to theinstructors, such youths are very disappointed and feelthey are being exploited.They are underpaid for theservices they render; their earnings are not substantialwhen compared to their own cost of attending to suchjobs.Teachers blame the problem on the student.

My daughter attendedseveral regularschools, never finishedprimary education,then went to a rehabcenter and now is in aworkshop.

A Mother, Mexico

In Brazil, our member association told us there are more than2000 special schools in the country, and many of the storiesthey gathered came from self advocates who were in specialschools and in vocational programs run from special schools.They told us that for them going to school was importantbecause “If I do not go to school where would I go?” “Goingto vocational programs at special school is the only activitythat I do out of my home.”



Goal 4: Adult Literacy“achieving a 50 per cent improvement in levels of adult literacy by2015, especially for women, and equitable access to basic andcontinuing education for all adults”

High Rates of Illiteracy

Literacy rates among people with disabilities and especiallypeople with intellectual disabilities are disproportionatelyhigher than the general population. A recent paper exploringthe issue of literacy for people with disabilities, estimatesthat of the 650 million people in the world who have adisability only 20 million are literate (Groce and Bakhshi2009).

Literacy is both the result of exclusion and a contributingfactor to conditions of poverty and exclusion. Literacy skillsimpact on the ability to get a job; to participate in politicalprocesses; to access services and supports.


Poor Access and Poor Quality

Low literacy rates among people with disabilities can beattributed to a number of factors: poor access to formaleducation; poor quality education and poor access to literacyand informal education programmes.

For people who have intellectual disabilities there is often anassumption on the part of teachers, community workers,policy makers and sometimes parents that they are unable tolearn basic literacy skills.These misconceptions result indenied access to primary education which is where literacyskills are acquired by most people.Where children withintellectual disabilities have access to some form ofeducation (usually in segregated environments) they oftenreceive poor quality supports and education. Many childrenreceive informal education supports at home or in thecommunity but parents of children with disabilities do notreceive supports and encouragement to promote literacy.Parents often believe that they require specialized training toassist their son or daughter to learn to read, write and havebasic numeracy skills.

Insufficient Literacy Programming

International commitments and attention to EFA have largelyfocused on the improvement of the formal primary educationsystem.

National governments and the internationalcommunity have tended to assume that the politicaland economic returns from investing in young children,youth and adults are lower than those from investingin school-age children. The resulting neglect has beencompounded by the inclusion of only two EFA goals inthe Millennium Development Goals and by thedecision to limit the EFA FastTrack Initiative, the onlysignificant multilateral aid vehicle, to universal primarycompletion. (UNESCO, 2006)

Literacy programming outside of the formal educationsystem targeted towards the needs of those who aremarginalized, is usually inaccessible to people withintellectual disabilities. For example, literacy programmes fornew immigrants or for adult learners are not designed toaddress the needs of people with intellectual disabilities.


Even in countries where the majority of children withdisabilities attend school, few programmes that are designedto assist people in keeping up or enhance their literacy skillsinclude people who have disability. Those that do are oftenone time initiatives without evaluation or monitoring. (Groceand Bakhshi, 2009)

As one self-advocate from Malaysia told us:

“I did not remember anything I learned. I am stillunable to read nor write. I am very dependent onothers.”


Goal #5 Gender“eliminating gender disparities in primary and secondaryeducation by 2005, and achieving gender equality ineducation by 2015, with a focus on ensuring girls’ full andequal access to and achievement in basic education of goodquality”

Gender and Disability – ‘Double Disadvantage’ forGirls andWomen

Girls with disabilities have been largely ignored, both byefforts to promote gender equity and by those promotingequity for people with disabilities. Cultural, social andattitudinal barriers based on disability and gender limiteducational opportunities for girls with disabilities. Access toeducation for girls with disabilities is affected by a range offactors including: the type of disability they have; theeconomic status of their family;where they live; and theirethnicity.

Little data exists on the status ofgirls with disabilities in educationbut there is some evidence fromfamilies who we surveyed thatgirls with disabilities are less likelyto be in school and are less likelyto be successful.

Despite their significantnumbers, women and girlswith disabilities, especially inthe developing countries (inthe Asian and Pacific Region),remain hidden and silent, theirconcerns unknown and theirrights overlooked.Throughoutthe region, in urban and ruralcommunities alike, they haveto face the major problems oftriple discrimination by society:not only because of theirdisabilities, but also becausethey are female and poor.(UNESCAP 1995)


Although available data are limited, they indicate that womenand girls with disabilities fare less well in the educationalarena than either their disabled male or non-disabled femalecounterparts. For example, UNESCO, theWorld Blind Unionand others estimate the literacy rate for disabled women atonly 1%, compared with an estimate of about 3% for peoplewith disabilities as a whole (Groce, 1997). Statistics fromindividual countries and regions, while often higher,nonetheless confirm the gender inequalities (Nagata, 2003).

Lack of a Gender/Disability Sensitive Approach inSchools, Education Planning and Monitoring

Our research found little evidence of policies or programmesdesigned to address the needs and inclusion of girls withdisabilities. Some of the donor projects for inclusiveeducation that our members pointed to did call for a genderstrategy. However, we did not find evidence that the ‘doubledisadvantage’ that girls and women with disabilities face ineducation is being addressed in National or state-leveleducation planning.While gender is a key focus of both EFAand the MDGs, the exclusions that girls and women withdisabilities are facing are not being monitored in national orglobal education agendas, nor are targets being set for theirinclusion in ECCE, primary, post-secondary and adulteducation.

Goal #6 Quality“improving all aspects of the quality of education andensuring excellence of all so that recognized and measurablelearning outcomes are achieved by all, especially in literacy,numeracy and essential life skills”

Inclusive education, when effective, contributes to qualityeducation for children with disabilities and for school systemsas a whole. Seen another way, inclusive education cannotwork if all we are doing is putting children with disabilitiesinto existing systems that do not achieve quality andexcellence for all students.

Our study points to four main elements of quality educationthat results in inclusion – inclusive attitudes and schoolcultures of inclusion; trained and supported teachers;adapted curriculum and assessment: and supportive andaccessible school environments. Analysis of responses fromcountry profiles indicate these were the main factors affectingschool enrolment and completion for children and youth withdisabilities who did access regular education (see Figure 1).

FIGURE 1FACTORS OF EDUCATION QUALITYAFFECTING

ENROLMENTAND COMPLETION



Negative Attitudes

Inclusion is only in appearance. They let you in but they donot accept you.

Self-Advocate, Nicaragua

PARENTS REACT TO NEGATIVE ATTITUDES – INSIDE THE CLASSROOM ANDOUT – FROM MEXICO, ARGENTINA, BOLIVIA, CANADA, YEMEN, KUWAIT,TANZANIA

“The teacher took him out of class because he wasn’t learning, another teacher didn’t likethe way he looked at him. Federic was insistent and said ‘I want to go to school’.”

“It’s easy to get the impression that some teachers / schools do not respect the human rightsof disabled persons. A number of teachers held negative or ignorant views about disabilitywhich caused them to actively exclude him or fail to seriously address his learning needs.”

“Teachers love my son but there is very little inclusion in regular activities; very little peer-to-peer interaction.”

“It’s very stressful at times. You need to know all the players and all be on the same page.Commitments were not always met (on both sides - family and school system). We have toinsist upon getting positive stories from the educational assistant or we get very stressedout.”

“My son went to a special school, then regular school, then special school and now is goingto a special school but working on one to one at home. He is having lot of behavioral problemsdue especially to the negative attitudes he is facing from teachers and the other students.”

“It’s hard on parents’ self esteem. Don’t feel like I am good enough and don’t know what toadvocate for.”

“There was no problem in the special needs school but in the primary school there was notacceptance but the teachers. They would discriminate and did not pay attention to him. Atthe moment because of the economic situation he does not go to any school.”

“She was placed with the most affected kids, the teacher lacked commitment. We feltdiscriminated against.... we took her out of school and looked for someone to care for her athome. Now she is 30 what she has learned is what we taught her as a family.”

“Seeing her now in regular school is the best that could happen for her and us as parents,she is living the same experiences as her brother... she attends secondary school. Teachersand fellow students are sensitive to inclusion.”


• Self-advocates, parents and teachers all pointed to theimportance of positive values about inclusion anddisability in making quality education possible. Thereality is that for the majority of those who wereinvolved in focus groups and who responded tosurveys, negative attitudes persist.Their assessment isconfirmed in larger population surveys.

• The Canada Country Report indicates that a large publicopinion survey found only 33% of Canadians supportinclusive education.

• In a survey in Brazil, over 95% of 18,500 teachers,principals and students reported they had a negativepre-conception about people with disabilities, andmostly about people with intellectual disabilities.Ninety-nine percent indicated they did not want peoplewith disabilities at their school.

• The Country Report from India indicated negativeattitudes in schools based on the myth that disabilityresulted from the ‘sins’ of people themselves or theirparents.

• A UK survey of young people, age 14-16 found thatover 50% had not learned about people with disabilityin the last year in their school curricula (The Children’sSociety, 2005).

• In surveys and focus groups around the world, parentsspoke of the high costs of negative attitudes for theirchildren and their families.


Lack of Pre-Service and In-ServiceTeacherTraining

Teachers who are trained, skilled, andknowledgeable about inclusive education,and supportive of teaching in this way,remain a minority in education systemsaround the world. In our survey, whiletwo-thirds of parents with children inregular education felt that their child’steachers understood their needs, only one-third felt that teachers had the skills andknowledge to include and teach their child.Among teachers themselves, 70% felt thatother teachers in their school were notprepared to have students with disabilitiesin their classes.

Over 750 teachers from around the worldresponded to our survey. Some of the keyissues identified through the teachersurveys include:

• A main finding from the survey is thatteachers who have received training inteaching children with disabilities,tend to be teaching children withdisabilities whether in separate specialeducation or regular classrooms.Those who did not receive thistraining are much less likely to havechildren with disabilities in theirclassrooms. Teacher training forinclusion still remains on the marginsof teacher education.

• For those who do receive training, it isoften done from a medical model ofdisability, rather than focusing onlearning styles and teaching strategiesfor inclusion. Many NGOs in the fieldof rehabilitation are the ones trainingteachers and there is a tendencytoward a medical perspective andspecial education paradigms.

TEACHERS TOLD US:

• They are not satisfied withthe programs children witha disability were receivingin their schools.

• Teachers feel there islimited support from schooladministrators.

• Teachers said they requiremore support fromassistants in theclassroom.

• Teachers feel that they andother teachers do not havethe proper training; and somany are not prepared tohave students withdisabilities in their classesbut would agree if giventhe opportunity andsupport.

• Teachers said that lack oftraining, administrativebarriers to attend school,and negative stereotypesof children with disabilitiesare the main reasons whythese children areprevented from attendingschool.

• Over 70% of teachers saidthey would RECOMMENDinclusive education toparents and students.

• Teachers feel strongly thatinclusive educationpromotes relationshipswith peers and fosters asense of community.


• Much of the training is in awarenessand sensitization but little is inplace to address the challenges atthe classroom level and thestrategies needed by teachers.

• The training that regular teachersreceive does not include the toolsneeded to deal with the broaddiversity of students that they willlater face in their classrooms. Theconsequence is that children withdisabilities may be in a regularclassroom, but are not getting aneducation. As the Country Report from Zambia indicated:

The school practices in Zambia are that allchildren are allowed to go to same school andattend classes with their fellow peers. However,being in class in one thing and learning isanother.

• There are few universities involved in pre-service and in-service training of teachers to address their needs ininclusive classes. And where it is provided, it is for themost part not a mandatory part of teacher education.

• There is still a perception by many teachers that studentswith disability are the responsibility of special educationteachers alone.

• Teachers who attend training are usually specialeducation teachers, support teachers that teach in specialschools only for students with a disability and /or someteachers that are already doing inclusive education.

• The survey showed that teachers that teach at separatespecial education schools have higher levels of trainingin the strategies for inclusive education than those thatare teaching students with a disability in regular schoolsand regular classes.

• We received many reports of special education teacherswho do not want to change their practice and stillpromote segregation as a better option for students withdisability.

COMMENTS FROM THETEACHER SURVEY:

“As newly teaching grads we are notfully trained to work with the kind ofpopulation we see nowadays.”

“Training as a special educationteacher is fairly incomplete.Continuing education is essential.”


In Poland we have a lot of architecturalbarriers. My son went to a school thatdidn’t have an elevator. When he was asmall child – his school friends helpedhim to carry his bags and helped him togo up the stairs. But when he grew uphe became too heavy for them. Now Imust employ an assistant, who helpsmy son with his daily functioning. Mostschools have architectural barriers thatmake them inaccessible to people withphysical disabilities.

A Mother, Poland

For a disabled child living in rural India,going to a local school can be adifficult task. The schools are eitherlocated far away or there are notransport facilities. Nor do the schoolshave ramps or modified toilets to suitthe needs of a disabled child.

India Country Report

Inaccessible Classroomsand Schools

Issues of communityaccessibility, transportationand accessibility within theschool are major factorsimpacting on whether childrenwith disabilities are able toattend school.

• 75% of respondents saidschools were notphysically accessible

• 77% said accessibility wasa major factor affectingenrolment and completionof children with disabilitiesin regular school

Inflexible Curriculum andAssessment

In addition to the physical andhuman resources needed tosupport inclusion, families andself-advocates told us that a

range of issues related to curriculumand evaluation create barriers forchildren with disabilities andespecially those with intellectualdisabilities.

• There is limited curriculum andinstructional adaptation basedon universal design,differentiated instruction, multi-level instruction and recognitionof multiple intelligences.

• Our survey results suggest thatmost children do not attendneighbourhood schools with theindividual supports theyrequire.

• Over 50% or respondentsindicated that school systemsdo not provideaccommodations for childrenwith intellectual disabilities.

• Standardized testing canencourage schools to excludestudents who are likely to havepoor scores.

• Lack of adaptations inevaluating students (such asrequirement for blind studentsto take written tests) preventsstudents from moving tosecondary education.

• Measuring standardizedlearning outcomes as the onlyindicator of quality educationmeans that many children aredenied access; or assessmentaccording to their individuallearning goals is not seen asintegral to the assessment ofthe quality of education.


COMMENTS ON STANDARDIZEDTESTING FROM MEXICOCOUNTRY REPORT

Recently, the LINK test has beenimplemented in Mexico. The purposeof the test is to assess schools basedon the curricular knowledge of theirstudents. This has created a lot ofcompetition among educationalinstitutions since achieving “goodmarks” on this test raises the nationalreputation of the educationalinstitution.

The assessment does not take intoaccount values of inclusion, overallaccessibility conditions or thediversity of populations enrolled, allof which lead to building inclusiveenvironments. This situation hasgiven rise to competition amongschools, exacerbating exclusion anddiscrimination towards students withdisabilities [who are seen as risks tohigher school scores].

“They should ban testing ofchildren for school enrolmentbecause only the most qualifiedchildren are allowed in.”

A Mother, Mexico

“They forget that not all childrenlearn alike, or that childrenfollow the same learningprocess… It is a school thatalways wants to have a score of10 to look like a successfulschool.”

A Mother, Mexico


A recent study (Spect et al. 2006) oninclusive education in Austria offers ameasure of quality other thanstandardized test scores:

instead of concentrating on theformulation of result standards,which only lead to problematicresults which are difficult tointerpret and contradictory, itseems to be more appropriate todefine clearer standards for specialneeds support at school [whichmeasure the extent to which]pupils:

(a) get maximum possible supportto develop their individual abilitiesand assets, and

(b) are provided with a maximumof opportunities for their inclusioninto their social environment andsociety.

Lack of flexibility – we foundthat schools and teachers(particularly secondaryschool) were often unwillingto examine or change theirpractices in order to meetthe needs of disabledstudents. For example, wewere unable to obtain areader / writer at exam timebecause he didn’t fit thecriteria. Often a messagewe received was ‘this is theway we do things here – if itdoesn’t work for your child –too bad’.

Country Report from NewZealand


Known Success Factors not being Adapted forInclusion

Since Salamanca there have been many efforts to placechildren with disabilities into mainstream schools. Thefundamental assumption is that “what is on offer in themainstream school is, with minor modification and a littleredistribution of resources, a means to ensuring educationalexcellence and equity.” (Lloyd 2002)

This is also the message that we received from both teachersand families in this study. If they could overcome negativeattitudes, physical barriers, lack of in-class supports andadapt curriculum and evaluation methods, quality educationcould be available to all children.

The following table is drawn from a background reportprepared for UNESCO (Richler, 2005), and suggests the mainmodifications and transitions in education systems that needto be made. They focus on governance, training and supportto teachers, and in-school supports. In column 1 it shows thefactors associated with an agenda for quality education andsuccessful schools. Column 2 shows how these factors canbe adapted to address the various barriers that self-advocates, parents and teachers told us keep students withdisabilities out of regular classrooms.


TABLE 4ENHANCING SCHOOL SUCCESS – ENHANCING INCLUSION

Factors Enhancing School Success Factors Enhancing Inclusion

Well trained and valued teachers1 Regular teachers trained to teachstudents with special educational needs2

No ability groupings3 Within class differentiation in curriculum4

Teachers working in teams5 School based student services teams6

Support to teachers7 New role for special educator as supportto regular teachers8

Balance of governance with Endorsement of inclusion atdiscretion at school and district national, regional and local levels10

level9


SummaryWe began this chapter with the question of whether theglobal agenda for education is ‘touching down’ in the lives ofchildren, youth and adults with intellectual disabilities. Ouranalysis makes clear that EFA is not yet making the differenceit needs to make for people with intellectual disabilities.

In fact, Education for All is failing us.

Early Childhood Care and Education, Goal 1 of EFA, is well-recognized as essential to healthy childhood developmentand a good ‘head start,’ for primary school, especially forchildren with disabilities. Yet the data gathered for this studysuggests that programs are inaccessible, young children withintellectual disabilities are not welcome, and those that doaccess some programming are not getting what they need toprepare them for primary school. A ‘medical model’predominates, which often labels children with intellectualdisabilities, posing one more barrier to an expectation thatthey would benefit from further education. Lack of programs,and incoherent policy and programming all contribute to anECCE system that leaves children and their families withoutthe supports and interventions to be ‘school ready.’

A number of barriers prevent children with intellectualdisabilities from getting access to primary education, Goal 2of EFA. Separate responsibility for children with disabilitieswhether in social welfare departments of government orspecial education departments in schools and school districtsis a major barrier to children with disabilities accessingregular primary school. Add to this the fact that manychildren with intellectual disabilities are not registered at birthand so cannot enroll in school, lack of in-school supports,financial costs of access imposed on parents. The right toeducation is being systematically denied to this group in themajority of cases.

Barriers to ECCE and primary schooling mean that childrenwith intellectual disabilities who do enroll often do notcomplete programs. This means an even smaller enrolmentin secondary education and hardly any enrolment in post-secondary education or vocational training that give essentiallife and vocational skills – Goal 3 of EFA. Those who are luckyenough to go on to post-secondary education usually findinflexible curriculum and lack of support for successful

outcomes and completion. Many self-advocates sharedstories of simply giving up, or finding themselves insheltered workshops, that were presented as ‘vocationaltraining.’ Or, they find themselves completely isolated intheir community.

Adult education – Goal 4 of EFA – is just as elusive for peoplewith intellectual disabilities. With hugely disproportionaterates of illiteracy, self-advocates face limited access to thefew programs available in most communities, andexpectations they are unlikely to benefit.

For girls and women with intellectual disabilities, the barriersto ECCE, primary, secondary and adult education are evengreater.Their exclusion from education at all levels is one ofthe main factors that makes them particularly vulnerable topoverty, ill-health and abuse. Goal 5 of EFA – gender equityin education – remains a distant hope for girls and womenwith intellectual disabilities.

With a few exceptions, quality education, Goal 6 of EFA, issimply not available for children, youth and adults withintellectual disabilities. We define quality in this study ashaving four main dimensions – positive and enablingattitudes for inclusion, supportive and trained teachers,adaptable curriculum and assessment, and accessible andsupportive schools. The ‘supply’ of all these educationalcomponents is foundational to a good education. Our studysuggests that none of these factors are in place anywherenear the extent needed, and the consequence is entrenchededucational exclusion.

With such a comprehensive set of barriers to educationalequality and inclusion, how do we develop and implement aglobal agenda where Education for ‘All’means all children,youth and adults with intellectual disabilities? First we need ashared direction. Based on the findings from our globalstudy, Table 5 provides such a direction. It shows how theDakar goals for EFA would have to be defined and measuredto be inclusive of children, youth and adults with intellectualand other disabilities.

To achieve the Dakar goals in an inclusive way, we alsobelieve it is essential to start with the growing number ofexamples of successful inclusive education being developedat all levels – classrooms, schools and school districts, andstate and national level educational systems. We gathered



some of these examples through this study and present themin the next chapter. They begin to provide a ‘roadmap’ toconfronting the barriers to quality inclusive education for all.

We know from the experience of people with intellectualdisabilities and their families that inclusion is possible. Andthat it makes a difference for individuals, families, schoolsand communities. As one parent from New Zealand sharedin a focus group for this study:

The opportunity of a community-based inclusiveeducation has meant that my son has grown up andlearnt alongside his sister, his friends, and his peers inhis community. He has learnt valuable and practicalsocial skills which will assist with forming relationshipsand networks and will equip him well for futureemployment and community participation. Equallyimportantly, over 1500 students and staff have alsolearnt how to include a disabled person in theircommunity.

The next step is to make it possible for all.


TABLE 5HOW DAKAR GOALS COULD PROMOTE INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

1. Expanding and improvingcomprehensive early childhood careand education, especially for the mostvulnerable and disadvantaged children.

2. Ensuring that by 2015 all children,particularly girls, children in difficultcircumstances and those belonging toethnic minorities, have access to, andcomplete, free and compulsory primaryeducation of good quality.

3. Ensuring that the learning needs of allyoung people and adults are metthrough equitable access to appropriatelearning and life-skills programmes.

4. Achieving a 50 per cent improvement inlevels of adult literacy by 2015,especially for women, and equitableaccess to basic and continuingeducation for all adults.

5. Eliminating gender disparities in primaryand secondary education by 2005, andachieving gender equality in educationby 2015, with a focus on ensuring girls’full and equal access to andachievement in basic education of goodquality.

6. Improving all aspects of the quality ofeducation and ensuring excellence ofall so that recognized and measurablelearning outcomes are achieved by all,especially in literacy, numeracy andessential life skills.

Early childhood care and education isinclusive of and accessible to children withdisabilities, and provides transitions toinclusive primary education.

Children with disabilities are welcomed inregular schools and classrooms in thepublic education system, and have thesupports needed to complete free andcompulsory primary education.

Young people and adults with disabilitieshave the disability-related supports neededto participate in a full range of inclusivesecondary, post-secondary, adult, literacy,vocational and continuing educationprogrammes.

Adults with disabilities have full accessand needed supports to literacyprogrammes to achieve literacy on anequal basis with others.

Girls and women with disabilities haveequal access to age-appropriate andinclusive education from ECCE to primary,secondary, post-secondary and adulteducation.

Quality inclusive education is enabled inECCE, primary, secondary, post-secondaryand adult education through:• positive attitudes of educators and

community• trained and supported teachers• accessible schools and inclusive

education infrastructure• individualized, differentiated and

disability-positive curriculum for allstudents

• learner-centred assessment strategiesvalued equally with standardizedassessments.

Education For All: Dakar Goals An Inclusive Approach to Meetingthe Goals

CHAPTER 5

The Road to InclusiveEducation: GoodExamples to Build Upon



Chapter 5

The Road to InclusiveEducation: GoodExamples to Build Upon

We have received positive stories from self-advocates,parents, teachers and community advocates about

successful experiences in inclusive education from all overthe globe. In countries with a lot of resources, and incountries with few, inclusion is working. We receivedexamples of individuals, classrooms, schools andcommunities in every region that are making real efforts toinclude children with disabilities in regular schools with thesupports they need.We have also learned about considerableexpertise and knowledge about successful inclusive practicesand how to put them in place in the school and classroom.The examples we received are extensive and inspiring. Sincewe cannot include them all in this report, they are availableon our education website.1

Some stories were about including one or two students at alocal school. In others, there was change in an entire school’sapproach. In yet others, there has been a change to makeinclusion a part of government policy at the regional, state ornational level. The stories in this chapter provide examplesof change at each of these levels.

We classify the examples of the development of inclusiveeducation development using the following framework:

• Micro level (individual, classroom levels);

• Mezzo level (school-community-education systemlevels); and

• Macro level (law, policy and cultural).


These three categories complement the examples identifiedin UNESCO’s Global Monitoring Reports and other researchstudies. As Peters (2004) suggests, research on inclusiveeducation makes clear that change is needed at all theselevels to address the systemic barriers that continue to holdback progress. A series of ‘North-South Dialogues onInclusive Education’ convened in India by the NationalResource Centre for Inclusion-India between 2001 and 2005also used these three levels to reflect on the process ofsystemic change for inclusive education – with advocates,educators, researchers, and policy makers from countries ofthe north and south. Three volumes of papers from theseDialogues have been produced and provide a wealth ofexamples.2To these examples and others which have beendocumented in the growing body of research on inclusiveeducation, we add some of those examples provided andreferenced by participants in this study. Together theydemonstrate that change for inclusive education is takingplace at all levels and in all regions.

Micro Level Change: Individual & ClassroomInclusion is often happening one student at a time.This isusually a result of advocacy by individual parents.The burdenon families and particularly parents to be on the front line ininsisting on education for their child in an “inclusive” settingis a global reality.We can state with confidence that positivechange in inclusive practice is linked to parent demand. It istheir vision, goals and dreams for their child that pushes theinclusive education agenda forward.

El Salvador

One compelling story comes to us from El Salvador. A smallnumber of parents of children who were deaf formed a groupto support the inclusion of their sons and daughters inregular education.

They raised money to hire interpreters who could teach theirchildren sign language.They taught sign language to some oftheir children’s hearing peers so they could become proficientin sign-language.They supported this effort in communityschools. As a consequence they created a group ofcommunity youngsters who their children could communicatewith and thus experience the positive effect of a peer group.


This in turn allowed them to beincluded in the regular classroomand participate in the regularcurriculum.

As a result of this program, one ofthe deaf students, Pablo David DuranVillatoro graduated from universityin 2009 as an engineer in computersystems, becoming the first deafengineer in El Salvador. His father,Edgar told us:

I want to share … the experience… that inclusive education is aneffective way to ensure the successof people with disabilities. But let

us not fool ourselves; it requires sacrifice to deal withall the issues. But it is possible – very possible.

South Africa

Cayley describes how her school was committed to includingher.

I have always loved Hillcrest Christian Academybecause the children and the teachers are all very kindand helpful but when I was in school I did sometimeshave a few problems. My parents always had meetingswith the teachers to work together with them as theyfound the best way to help me.They found the bestway was to let me work with easier work. When theother children were doing math, then I did my “easy”maths. When the other children were doing Englishspelling, then I did my “easy” English spelling. I neverhad an assistant in the class because I had learnt toconcentrate quite well and every day I had two classfriends who were “buddies” for that day. I didn’t mindthat I had easier work to do. It was good. I was gladthat I also never did exams. That was the best for me.

I learnt so much from my friends in the school and Ithink that I can speak a bit better because of that.


A parent focus group in India provided their suggestions about how to makeinclusion work at the school level.

1. Parents need to make a conscious decision that they are ready for the struggle, as inclusion is notgoing to be a simple or easy task for the school or you or your child.

2. It is always easier if you are upfront about your child’s challenges, so the teacher and schoolknow what to expect.

3. If the school has a resource room for special needs, check to see if the services are reallyinclusive or the child is only taken into the mainstream classroom for certain periods or activities(like lunch or art!!).

4. At least one parent needs to work alongside the professionals on the child’s program and, andget formal training if possible.This way they will be able to confidently support their child in theschool or community environment. Parent empowerment is very important.

5. A few parents living in the same locality can form a group and employ a therapist (or take turnsthemselves) to go into the school with their children and backup the therapist when required.Thismay work out for children who need minimal support. If children need more support, the parentmay have to go in themselves on such days/periods or for a child with more difficulties for alonger period.

6. Some schools do object to parents coming; they may need to be convinced of the merits of thecase.

7. If the child is not admitted to school, still ensure he/she gets a lot of community exposure so thatit is easier to participate in the mainstream in the future.

8. If the child is in a special school, try and work through the special school to get him/her into amainstream school with support for a few hours initially so that the transition is easier for thechild.

9. Ensure the child has adequate skills and support to function in the group/classroom.These skillsinclude communicating his/her needs, sitting, attending classes as are appropriate. Specificnecessary support includes the structure of his/her physical space and time, and transitionroutines.These could be visual supports, prompting and cueing done by a shadow/supportperson or the trained classroom teacher (if available).

10. For those already in a school system: ensure full support for the teacher/aide handling the child;maintain close contact with the school so that you can prevent problems before they begin;educate the school, teachers and children about your child’s difficulties which increases theinteraction with the rest of the school; and try to find a sensitive child/children who willmentor/buddy your child.

Yemen

Yemen provided us with a good example of the impact ofattitude change. A Ministry of Education official explainedthat while including students with disability has not yet beenmade a policy priority, there is no resistance to havingstudents with an intellectual disability in mainstreameducation. “If they learn by being with their peers, then theyare welcome in the classroom.”


Mezzo Level Change: School-CommunityEducation SystemWhen an entire school makes a commitment to inclusion,there is a positive impact on all students.

Mexico

‘Building Bridges: Transition to Independent Adulthood forYouth with Intellectual Disabilities,’ is a project of UniversidadIberoamericana and CAPYS (a Centre for personal and socialdevelopment and training). The project began in 2006 on thecampus of Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City, and isthe first time that a university in Mexico opened its doors touniversity-aged youth with intellectual disabilities to enroll inpost-secondary courses and programmes. The projectpromotes the personal and professional skills of thestudents. It is also based on a commitment of the universityto promote values of respect for difference, non-discrimination and diversity. Students with intellectualdisabilities are encouraged and supported to participate incampus life, and develop competencies for independentliving and employment. As well, the project aims to developawareness of students and professors about people withintellectual disabilities and the value of an inclusive culture.


India

The ‘Children’s Club’ designed by Leonard CheshireDisability, ensures that children with disabilities have accessto education by implementing inclusive educationprogrammes in parts of India.The children’s club is arecreational, informal group, in which both disabled and non-disabled children participate.The main purpose of the club isto ensure that children with disability have an opportunity toparticipate in sports, arts, theatre, drama, music and localsummer camps along with other children and show theirtalents.

The club also initiated a peer-to-peer education programme.As part of this programme, a non-disabled child visits thehomes of two children with disability and helps them withtheir basic education. Since they first started in 2006, morethan 20 clubs have been formed which include over 191children, of whom at least 113 have a disability.The clubshave been a success.They have not only helped in providingbasic education to children with disability, but have alsohelped build their confidence and improved their socialinteraction.The events conducted by the club have alsocreated awareness in the community and started to build aninclusive community for all.


Bahrain

In Bahrain students with intellectual disability weresupported by siblings – non-disabled family members – aswell as friends to go to regular classes.They joined togetherwith students with intellectual disabilities for part of theinstruction time in order to promote inclusion.

Cameroon

A good example of community level change was reportedfrom Cameroon. ITCIG-SENTTI started in January 2007 as aspecial educational needs teacher-training institute in theNorthWest province of Cameroon, the first of its kind in thecountry. Started through the partnership of local advocatesand the NGO Spire International, the primary goal of SENTTIis to educate qualified special needs teachers, who are ableto return to their home towns and villages and educate thehigh number of children with disabilities and special needs.The vast majority of children with disabilities are unable togo to school due to poor accessibility, lack of resources,social stigma and unqualified teachers.The few children withdisabilities able to go to a ‘special’ school must travel longdistances and be removed from their families.

Through school promotions and sensitization of thegraduates from the program, SENTTI is raising awareness inthe community on the issues associated with disability. Localbusinesses have become more open to people withdisabilities by taking them on as apprentices, asseamstresses, beauty parlour helpers, mechanics andcarpenters, all different ways of being included in thecommunity.The initial success and interest in the programhas also received government attention. Announced inAugust 2009, the government will employ 200 graduatesfrom SENTTI within the public school system to ensurechildren with disabilities are able to be included in theeducation system.

Hungary

Kókay Lányi Marietta, Principal of Children’s HouseAlternative Program in Budapest, Hungary3 shared the storyof her inclusive school, founded in 1991.


In our school the students are in the centre of theeducation instead of the curriculum.That makes ourschool inclusive. So, the different kinds of students andtheir abilities determine the working of our school, notthe standard curriculum.

We’ve made a differential learning environment. Ourteaching methods are not standardized so they ensurediverse ways to learn. Our students can go on slowly orrapidly to acquire knowledge and key skills. We alsodivide the curriculum into three levels of complexity.We work with cards and workbooks that contain theknowledge in three levels. Our evaluation in school is apersonal system containing the different kinds oflevels.

At first parents were probably afraid of inclusion.Thatis because until 1993 children with disabilities wereseparated in special schools in Hungary. So, inclusionwas unknown for the parents.We invited them to theschool to show them how all the children can learntogether.

I think that an inclusive school is a “good” school.Paying attention to the diversity of children andproviding suitable environment for everyone isbeneficial for students and teachers alike. Using thismethod teaching becomes a kind of an art. It is great tolead a school like this!

Uruguay

AWorld Bank-supported ‘School Inclusion Fund’ in Uruguaywas established 2003 to support inclusive educationinitiatives in that country. Projects in 125 schools and 13school inclusion projects were implemented. The initiativesranged from improvements for physical accessibility, toteacher training, curriculum materials, public and communityawareness, development of inclusive cultures in schools,development of a ‘Network of Inclusive Schools.’ A study ofthe initiative points to a number of challenges that need to beaddressed for systemic adoption of inclusive education.4


Macro Level Change: Law, Policy andCulturalWhile we can learn a lot from good practice at the individualor school level, examples of change of entire systems offermore promise for replication elsewhere. Some systemicchange is taking place because of effective advocacy,especially by parents and their organizations. In other places,it is the result of attitude change and willingness to simply tryto see if it can work. Both of these are important first steps tocomprehensive change, but the places where systemicchange is comprehensive, we heard of strong commitmentsto the rights of students with disabilities and the belief thatinclusive education would contribute to better education forall children.

Italy

Italy has long been recognized as a leader in creating anational system of inclusive education. After closing its largeinstitutions for people with disabilities in the 1960s a strong‘anti-segregation’ movement and culture took root and in theearly 1970s a national law was adopted for compulsoryeducation of students with disabilities in regular classes inpublicly-funded schools. Special educators were trained tosupport classroom teachers. A recent report by the Ministryof Education for Italy5 emphasizes that the majority ofchildren with disabilities are enrolled in regular classes andthat the number of children with disability has beenincreasingly steadily over the past decade. ‘School Plans’,school teams that prepare and implement individualeducation plans and needed classroom supports, local andnational support initiatives, and strong legislation are all keyfactors in creating an inclusive system.

Finland

In Finland, the creation of bilingual schools, where signlanguage is one of the recognized languages, has been thebasis of innovative and systemic inclusive practice. FinnishSign language is recognized as a mother tongue andstudents can study with this as their main language from pre-school through comprehensive school. More and more deafparents want their hearing children to be educated in signlanguage leading to the creation of bilingual schools attendedby both deaf and hearing students.


New Zealand

IHC reported from New Zealand that together with otherNGO’s they have lobbied the government consistently aboutthe need for inclusive education policy and practices. Theirefforts included a complaint to the Human RightsCommission about the discrimination experienced bychildren at their local school in terms of access to thecurriculum and participation in school life.

Zanzibar

Inclusive education came about in Zanzibar after educationofficials visited Lesotho and were inspired by the changesshown in the Lesotho education system.The ZanzibarAssociation for People with Developmental Disabilities(ZAPDD ) partnership with NFU (Norwegian Association forPersons with Developmental Disabilities) and the Ministry ofEducation andVocationalTraining (MoEVT), with fundingfrom the Norwegian youth organization “Operation Day’sWork”.

The MoEVT has adopted an inclusive education policy and atthe moment is developing guidelines for the implementationof the policy.This work is supported by CREATE.


The MoEVT has also changed the name of the Special NeedsEducation unit to the Inclusive Education unit.

The Ministry has incorporated Inclusive Education into itsnew Policy Statement (2006) and plans to extend theprogramme to a further 20 schools in 2008 and this willcontinue on a rolling basis in future years.Teacher trainingcapacity will be increased as will the Inclusive EducationUnit.

Peru

Significant progress has been made towards inclusiveeducation in Peru in recent years. Inclusion Inter-Americana,Inclusion International’s regional member for the Americas,helped plant the seeds there through work with our nationalmember – Patronato Peruano de Rehabilitación y EducaciónEspecial. Parent activism led the Ministry of Education todevelop an initiative that led to the establishment of an Officeof the National Director of Inclusive Education. For nearly 5years the Ministry has been working with regions, schoolleaders and teachers to develop and promote the idea ofinclusive education.They have invested in training for

teachers and principals and worked to develop the concept ofinclusion in communities. For the last several yearsthousands of families, parents, and teachers have taken partin an Inclusion Celebration at a stadium in Lima .The focushas been on developing inclusive practices in regular schoolsand changing the mission of special schools to becomeResource Centres where staff and program initiativesprovides support and training for teachers in regular schools.Peru has established a strong base to further developinclusive education across the education system.

Malawi

In Malawi, the umbrella organization FEDOMA has a strategyto enable local communities to identify and address theneeds of community members with disabilities. Since 2004,the Norwegian Association for the Disabled in collaborationwith the Ministry of Social Development and People withDisabilities and the MACOHA, operate in three pilot districtsworking across sectors to promote inclusion.

FEDOMA collaborates with several international agencies,such as UNICEF, European charity organizations, NAD,NORAD, Firelight Foundation, CIDA, ILO, DFID, USAID,AUSAID and Danish DCI. Effective partnership resulted in thelaunch of the CBR programme in the late 1980s by thegovernment through MACOHA with financial and technicalsupport from the UNDP and ILO.

From the 1970s until the mid-1980s the disability sector inMalawi was based on charity. Activities and caregiversbenefiting disabled persons came mostly from churches andmissions. Disability issues were the responsibility of theMinistry of Health, Ministry of Community Services and othersocial ministries. However, in December 1998 the MinistryResponsible for People with Disability was formed.Today it iscalled Ministry of Social Development and Persons withDisabilities (MSDPWD).

In November 2005, a national policy paper on theEqualization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilitieswas adopted. The aim of the policy is “to integrate fullypersons with disabilities in all aspects of life”, and “topromote equal access and inclusion of persons withdisabilities in education and training programmes.”



Austria

In Austria, the highest number of students are included in theprovince of Styria. In 1993, after a tradition of more than 200years of special education in separate programs in Austria, anew national law – based on the positive results of severalinclusionary pilot programs in the years before – suddenlychanged the situation. Parents were given the choice eitherto place their child with a disability in a regular classroomsetting or in a special school. Since then a dramatic transferof special education resources and expertise has taken placefrom the special to the regular system. Many special schoolshave closed and others will yet do so.

More than half of the school children considered to havesevere disabilities and about 80% of all students with specialeducational needs are now already included in the regularsystem. This success is said to be due to:

• a clearly defined policy

• a flexible and adaptable curriculum


• in-service training for special and regular teachers

• political pressure by parents of children with disability

Panama

Panama is another jurisdiction which is attempting to achievefull inclusion. Parents of children with disabilities first beganadvocating for inclusive education in 1995. While theconstitution of 1972 guarantees the right to education, it alsosays that exceptionalities will be dealt with by specialeducation, based on scientific investigation and educationalorientation. Parent advocacy meant that in 1995, educationreform gave responsibility coordinating the education ofchildren with special educational needs to the Ministry ofEducation, under a Directorate of Special Education.

The election of President MartinTorrijos in 2004 gave a boostto the rights of persons with disabilities. As parents of adaughter who has a disability, he and First LadyVivian

Fernandez deTorrijos actively promoted the rights andinclusion of persons with disabilities. In 2004, an executivedecree established the Norm for Inclusive Education of thePopulation with Special Educational Needs. With thecollaboration of the Panamanian Institute for SpecialHabilitation and other partners, the Ministry then developeda National Plan for Inclusive Education, within the frameworkof the policy on modernizing education.

The National Plan includes provisions for:

• In-service teacher training,

• Transformation of curriculum,

• A new focus on teaching strategies,

• Teacher training in dynamic and participatorymethodology,

• Ongoing teacher training with incentives and appropriateremuneration,

• Support for school including adequate physicalconditions, basic texts, technology and other teachingresources to facilitate learning, and

• Each school will have an annual operational plan andregular evaluation consistent with internationalstandards of quality.

A number of barriers were identified in the country report wereceived from Panama including:

• Financial barriers, because although education is free,that is only tuition, and families need to cover other costs,

• Attitudinal barriers still exist,

• Environmental barriers exist, especially because schoolsare often far from where people live, especially in ruraland indigenous areas, and

• Child labour is still an important factor.

To improve the quality of inclusive education, investment isbeing made in physical infrastructure – building ramps andmaking washrooms and drinking fountains accessible;providing accessible transportation; transforming specialhigh schools into systems which can support teachers in



regular schools; reducing class size; supporting teacherimprovement; and modifying curriculum and studentevaluation practices.

A new government was elected in 2009, and PresidentRicardo Martinelli has made educational reform a priority.It is too soon to know how this reform will affect inclusion.

India

The ‘National Resource Centre for Inclusion’ (NRCI) initiativewas an Indo-Canadian project, sponsored by the SpasticsSociety of India in Mumbai (now Able Disabled All PeopleTogether), with a Canadian non-governmental partner,TheRoeher Institute of the Canadian Association for CommunityLiving, and funding from the Canadian InternationalDevelopment Agency. The project enabled over 2,200children to be placed in regular schools in Mumbai’s Dharavi,the largest slum in Asia, and in public and private schoolsbeyond. The initiative changed schools and pedagogy;trained hundreds of teachers; expanded the knowledge baseon inclusive education; changed public policy – local, state,and national; developed ‘culturally appropriate codes ofpractice’ for micro, mezzo and macro change and had ademonstrated positive impact on public attitudes. The NRCI


led the effort for the development and recent adoption by thenational government of a national action plan for inclusiveeducation.

Through its networking strategy, NRCI engaged over 40NGOs, 140 colleges and universities, 167 firms in thecorporate sector, 27 print media, 16 broadcast media, 32government departments and over 25 internationalagencies.6 These various interventions enabled the project toinitiate change across the levels – from micro to mezzo-leveland macro-level change.

Canada

Inclusive Education has been mandated by provinciallegislation in New Brunswick, a province in Eastern Canadasince 1986. The province had gradually accepted moreresponsibility for educating students with disabilities over theprevious few decades. But in the early 1980’s special classes,special schools and a children’s institution remained as keyparts of a system that failed to assure equity or service tomany children.

One impetus for change was the Canadian Charter of Rightsand Freedoms, adopted in 1982 and effective in 1985. Inaddition there was significant demand from parents, parentgroups, and educators in New Brunswick for more integrated

and inclusive school programs for students with disabilities.As a consequence the Legislative Assembly unanimouslypassed Bill 85 in 1986. It addressed the equality andprocedural issues for educational practice that flow from theCharter. The closure of theW. F. Roberts Hospital School, achildren’s institution, in 1985, and the dismantling of theAuxiliary School System followed.The result was stronglegislative and policy support for inclusive education in oneof Canada’s smallest provinces.

It must also be noted that several school districts in NewBrunswick adopted inclusion as their policy a several yearsprior to the legislative changes in 1986.These districts,specifically what is now District 14 based inWoodstock,started to develop approaches and practices that made thevision of inclusion a reality in schools and classrooms. Theyhelped move inclusion from a concept and theory to apractical reality.

How radical is this approach? Simply stated, not very radicalat all. Supports were developed for teachers and students.Training was focused on school and classroom practices.Support teachers were put in place and trained to assistteachers with program planning and implementation. School-based support teams were brought together and schoolleaders were trained in the in the essentials of providingleadership in an inclusive school. Instructional strategieswere developed that emphasized multi-level instruction andcurriculum adaptation. School-based problem solving wasmade a feature of school culture.

The approach withstood a major and very political review in1989, another in the mid 1990s, and a thorough examinationthat was completed in 2006.7

The program of inclusion in schools continues today,arguably successful, although not without room forimprovement. All the reports have suggested ways tostrengthen and enhance inclusion in New Brunswick schools.

In 2007 the New Brunswick Human Rights Commissiondeveloped and published a ‘Guideline on theAccommodation of Students with Disabilities’ in publicschools.The ‘Guideline’ provides a legal and human rightsframework for assuring equality and inclusion in educationalservices.8


While New Brunswick is a small, rural and diverse provinceand has economic challenges it has provided a positivemodel of system-wide implementation of inclusive educationin Canada, and indeed for other countries for more than 20years.The success of the effort has been recognized byofficials at the OECD as well as UNESCO.

Scaling up changeWe have seen in the findings for this study that a coordinatedapproach to planning for, investing in, and monitoringprogress for inclusive education is required to bring aboutmicro-to-macro systems change for inclusive education.Without that, we will not be able to build upon and ‘scale up’the good examples now in place, to make sure the majorityof children with disabilities who are outside of school alltogether or still in separate special education systems willhave access to inclusive education.

What does scaling up these kinds of examples require?

Increasingly, the literature on scaling up is pointing to thecrucial need to develop local-to-regional-to-global networks.In this way stakeholders can share information, technologyand financing.They can find ways to demonstrateinnovations, and then get them embedded in systems andpolicies for wider dissemination and impact. As JeffreySachs (2005) has written in exploring the mechanisms forscaling up innovations to address poverty,

The end of poverty must start in the villages of Sauriand the slums of Mumbai, and millions of places likethem. The key to ending poverty is to create a globalnetwork of connections that reach from impoverishedcommunities to the very centres of world power andwealth and back again (Sachs 2005, 242).

Sachs (2005) and the UN Millennium Project have examineda number of case studies in innovation which they suggestdraw upon these ‘networks of connections’ to scale up theirimpact. They identify key ‘success factors’ associated withnational-level scaling up of innovations, including:

• political leadership;

• effective and coordinated local-to-national human



resources and public management strategies;

• local delivery mechanisms engaging local communitiesand civil society organizations;

• mobilization of private sector engagement, support, andinvestment;

• effective monitoring of progress against national goalsand benchmarks; and,

• long-term, predictable funding commitments andtechnical assistance from donor agencies.

This framework is a useful tool for assessing the existingefforts on a country-by-country basis to ‘scale up’ inclusiveeducation.9

• Is there senior political leadership for the cause?

• Is a national action plan in place with a clear focus oninclusive education?

• Does the plan have measurable targets and outcomes?

• Will the plan require leadership to implement the manypolicy commitments now in place?


• Are the information systems and knowledge networks inplace to support these plans and monitor progress?

• Is there sufficient focus in plans, investment strategies,and monitoring frameworks for a human resourcesstrategy for inclusive education teachers, administrators,professionals and policy makers?

• Are the overall funding commitments by governmentsand donor agencies in place, in a way that can deliver onthe plans?

• Are the NGO, government, civil society, donor andinternational agency partnerships in place to supportimplementation over the long term?

In Chapter 8 we offer some recommendations for how wecan build on the lessons learned from these micro, mezzoand macro change strategies to bring about widespreadsystems change to achieve inclusive education.

CHAPTER 6

Key Findings ofthe Global Study


Chapter 6

Key Findings of theGlobal Study

No previous global study of inclusive education draws ondata from as wide a range of countries as those included

in this study – and the profiles of legislation and policy,parent and teacher surveys, and focus groups in whichparticipants shared many examples. We have examined thisrich and large-scale body of information from the perspectiveof the six goals of the Dakar Framework and Education forAll. As the above analysis shows, we found both successesand limitations in achieving each of the six goals in aninclusive way for children, youth and adults with intellectualdisabilities.

Our analysis of the information we have gathered points tothree main findings:

1. Inclusive EducationWorks, But SuccessRemains Ad Hoc

The evidence gathered through this study confirms thefindings of other global studies and reviews of research oninclusive education. Inclusive education works, even forchildren with more significant or ‘severe’ disabilities. Whenparents who have high expectations for their childrenapproach ECCE or primary schools that are welcoming ofdiversity; when children are supported in school according totheir individual needs and strengths; and when teachers aresupported to teach to diversity – then all children can learnand develop. The consultations with self-advocates, familiesand teachers pointed to a number of barriers and challenges.However, alongside these concerns many examplesdemonstrated the success of inclusive education. Ouranalysis of parent surveys is a good indicator that inclusiveeducation works: when their child with a disability is



included in regular education their parents, who are usuallythe strongest advocates for children’s education, are muchmore likely to recommend this outcome to others, than areparents whose children are not included. Inclusion breedssuccess, higher expectations, and continued support.

Previous research has found that for inclusive education to besuccessful, inputs and efforts are required at three levels –the micro (classroom, school and local community), mezzo(education system), and macro (policy, legislation). Ourstudy found numerous examples of success at each of theselevels. However, there are only a few examples whereclassrooms and schools, communities, education systems,and macro planning and policy work together to makeinclusive education work across the board.

In the vast majority of education systems around the world,success remains extremely limited, if not non-existent.Wherethere is some success it is usually ‘ad hoc,’ often achievedonly by the sheer will and dedication of a teacher or schoolprincipal to make inclusion possible, and without resourcesor support from the education system.The result is that onlya minority of children with intellectual disabilities areincluded in regular education with the support they need.Thissystemic failure is consigning people with intellectualdisabilities to a lifetime of poverty and exclusion.

2. There is Growing Commitment toBuild Upon

The various sources of data we drew upon and analysed forthis study indicate there is a growing commitment toinclusive education at all levels. Findings from parent andteacher surveys, while not comprehensive samples, indicatea solid base of commitment for inclusion of children withdisabilities with their peers in regular classrooms. Countryprofiles developed by our members in 75 countries suggestthat in over 60% of the countries profiled there is a legislativeand/or policy commitment to education of children withdisabilities in regular education. In 50% of the countriesprofiled, inclusive education is clearly defined in national orstate-level policies for education. Among those whoresponded to our family survey, 95% would recommendinclusive education.


Our review of secondary sources confirms our findings –whether from international and donor agencies or teachersthemselves. The review of UNESCO’s Global MonitoringReports points to increasing focus and recognition of thecommitments to and value of inclusive education. TheWorldVision’sMissing Millions study of donor agenciescontributing to the ‘FastTrack Initiative’ indicates there aregrowing policy commitments to inclusive education,although actual aid and investment is not yet in line with thecommitments. Findings from surveys of attitudes ofteachers, also indicate a growing trend towards support forinclusive education.1

3. Systemic Barriers –Why CommitmentsFail toTransform Policy and Practice

With ad hoc success, growing commitment and an extensiveknowledge base, what are the prospects for scaling upchange so that inclusive education is the outcome for allchildren and youth with intellectual disabilities, not just the


minority? Our study suggests that until some key systemicbarriers are addressed, the successes will remain limited.Our analysis of findings point to eight main systems failures:

The PoliticalVacuum – of leadership andaccountability

We did not find many examples, other than in a fewjurisdictions, of coordinated national or state-level plans andstrategies. We believe this is because there is little, if any,political direction in most countries to make inclusiveeducation a systemic response to the educational needs of allchildren. Political leadership for this effort is urgently neededgiven the numbers of children with intellectual and otherdisabilities outside of education all together, and theunsustainable option of parallel systems – one for childrenwith disabilities, one for all other children. Our findingsconcur with Peters (2004) in her extensive review ofinternational research, that achieving inclusive education is a‘struggle’ that takes place in ‘power relations’ because of allthe interests involved. Where political leadership has beentaken, systems for inclusive education have been created.While there are a growing number of legislative and policycommitments to inclusion of children with disabilities ineducation, the mechanisms to exercise the needed politicalleadership to actually implement these commitments are notin place in the vast majority of countries profiled.

Invisible Children – not registered, not identified,not included

Our review of demographic sources suggests conflictingestimates, and in more recent research based on nationalhousehold surveys a gross underestimation of children withdisabilities in many developing countries. This has the effect,as we note, of significantly inflating estimates of the numbersof children with intellectual and other disabilities in school.The country profiles and focus groups conducted for thisstudy point to one of the key gaps in demographic data –many children with disabilities are not getting registered atbirth and are not showing up in household surveys. Stigmaand negative attitudes about bearing a child with a disabilitycontinue to affect the social and cultural status of childrenand their parents in many countries. Identification tools andsystems to identify children with disabilities at an early ageso they can access Early Childhood Care and Education


programs, and get a ‘good start’ for inclusive schooling arecritical factors in developing primary education systems thatare, in fact, universal.

Unsupported Families – the cycle of disability,poverty and education exclusion

Inclusion International’s (2006) global study on poverty andpeople with intellectual disabilities and their families foundthat lack of access to education was one of the key factorsthat result in people with disabilities being denied theopportunities later in life for education, training, jobs anddecent incomes. One of the main factors that keeps this‘vicious cycle’ of disability, exclusion and poverty in place isthat parents usually lack the encouragement, information,and support to get their children into ECCE programs andprimary school. Children with intellectual and otherdisabilities who have parents who are aware about theirchild’s rights to inclusive education, and who meet awelcoming culture from educators at ECCE programs andschools are much more likely to have access. Yet systematicoutreach and awareness programs that identify children withdisabilities and that link their parents to ECCE and schoolingopportunities are critically lacking.


UnsupportedTeachers – when training, leadership,knowledge and supports are not in the mix

We heard many reports from our consultations about therejection that children with disabilities face when theirparents take them to regular schools. Together with thedemographic data, parents’ accounts tell a chilling story ofexclusion. However, our data also makes clear that teachersare not to ‘blame.’ As indicated, there is evidence of growingcommitment to inclusive education among teachers in bothdeveloping and developed countries. However, they lack theteacher training, the skills, the in-class supports, thecurriculum materials, the leadership, and the opportunitiesfor teacher-to-teacher learning that make inclusiveclassrooms work. Those teachers who have received trainingin inclusive education, and have taken the leadership to maketheir classrooms learning environments that welcome allchildren, demonstrate inspiring possibilities. Our studyconfirms that we need to develop training and supportsystems for teachers that equip them with the skills andopportunities to educate an increasingly diverse studentpopulation. Prospects for expanding inclusive educationfundamentally rest on such an investment.

Abundance of Knowledge – but little ‘knowledgenetworking’ and ‘knowledge mobilization’

A central theme from our analysis of the surveys andconsultations for this study was the importance of easyaccess to culturally appropriate information and knowledgeabout how to:

• Make inclusive classrooms work,

• Adapt curriculum to meet diverse learning needs andgoals, and provide disability-positive curriculum to allstudents,

• Support the diversity of students’ learning styles andcapacities,

• Provide for school-based health and social supports toaccommodate a range of disabilities,

• Develop good inclusive education policy, and

• Promote inclusive education to parents, teachers,administrators and the general public.

For the most part, participants suggested that those whoneeded the knowledge about how to make inclusion work didnot have the access they required.

However, that parents, teachers and principals do not haveaccess to the knowledge they need does not mean that theknowledge does not exist. In addition to demonstratedsuccess and commitment for inclusive education, our studyalso found what we call an emerging ‘knowledge network forinclusive education.’ Knowledge networks are the linkagesbuilt between those who produce knowledge (whether in anacademic setting, in a ‘community of practice’ like a school,or through the personal experience of self-advocates andparents) and those who need the knowledge in order tochange their practices (Scarf and Hutchinson, 2003).

The knowledge networks we can detect through our researchsuggest there is an abundance of knowledge about how tomake inclusive education work. What seems to be lackingare the online, ‘hard copy’ and ‘oral’ knowledge networks forinclusive education; the latter being especially important forpoor, rural and remote areas still on the losing side of the‘digital divide.’ Nor did we find evidence of sufficient andproactive ‘knowledge mobilization’ – the training,dissemination, and investment in information andcommunication technologies needed to make sure culturallyappropriate information and knowledge about how inclusiveeducation works actually gets into the hands of those whoneed it most: parents, teachers, administrators and policymakers.

An Unaware Public – the solidarity of denial

Despite what appears to be growing support of those mostdirectly engaged and affected by inclusive education –parents, teachers, governments, international and donoragencies – there remains a concerning and persistent lack ofsupport among the general public. Those who participated infocus groups shared many accounts of attitudes ofcommunity members who felt that children with disabilitiesdo not belong in regular schools; that their presence woulddefeat learning opportunities for others. Yet research hasconfirmed that classrooms where diverse students aresupported to maximize their potential benefit all students(Willms, 2006). Nonetheless, the belief that children withdisabilities pose a threat to the education of others, or that it



is in their best interests to segregate them, seems to be asrobust as ever.

Negative public attitudes about children with disabilities wereidentified as one of the major obstacles to inclusiveeducation in country profiles conducted for this study fromevery region of the world. There is certainly a link betweenlimited public support and weak political leadership forinclusive education. Significant investment is needed inraising the understanding among the general public aboutthe value of inclusive education to help build politicalsupport; and to help create communities where all childrenare valued for their potential and parents are supported tohave high expectations for their children with disabilities.

Supply-side Exclusion – physical barriers, lack oftransportation and school-based supports

In addition to negative public and community attitudes, ourstudy found that inaccessible schools (both facilitiesthemselves and lack of transportation to school), and lack ofschool-based practices and supports for inclusion were themajor obstacles to including children with intellectual andother disabilities. This finding holds across all regions –


Americas, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Middle East and North Africa.It is clear, as we indicate above, that investment in the‘demand side’ for inclusive education is sorely lacking (i.e.identification of children, outreach to and awareness buildingamong parents). However, even where there is ‘effective’demand from parents they most often encounter a ‘supply’ ofeducational services that is not welcoming, accommodatingor adapted.

Basic access in terms of accessible transportation to andfrom school, and ECCE and school facilities that canaccommodate children with physical disabilities is a startingpoint for the supply-side part of the equation. Criticallylacking as well, as we have reported from our findings, is asupply of teachers with skills, knowledge, pedagogicalapproaches and curriculum materials to reach and teach tothe diversity of children with disabilities.

Another supply side issue identified through ourconsultations is the need for school-based health and socialsupports/services – physio, speech and occupationaltherapies to assist children in maximizing theirdevelopmental potential. While these services have often

been developed for private and NGO special schools, ourstudy found examples of where their re-deployment tosupport inclusive education, even in very poor ‘slum’communities in India are demonstrating success.

Systemic Failure – the missing links of partnerships,mandated responsibility policy, planning, financing,implementation and monitoring

What keeps the obstacles outlined above in place? One ofthe major factors is that they are treated as isolated issues.There are some strategies for teacher training, someinvestments in adapting some schools, some district-wideefforts at inclusive education. But in only a few instances isinclusive education even conceived of as a focus andresponsibility for national or state-level policy, planning andinvestment – whether by governments or donor agencies.

When children with disabilities remain ‘invisible’ todemographic surveys and education systems; when politicalleadership is not taken; when education of children withdisabilities is not included as a mandate of governmentdepartments or ministries responsible for education but isseen as a ‘social welfare’ issue; when national or state-levelpartnerships for inclusive education that link family/disabilityorganizations-government departments-teacher/educatorassociations are not in place; when inclusive education isunderstood as an ad hoc outcome of parents and teacherswho take individual initiative – then the institutions andsystems needed to approach the issue in a systematic wayare simply not established. Inclusive education remainsoutside of national and global agendas for education.

We found little evidence in our research, or the research wereviewed for this study, of system-level partnerships, policies,national plans, financing instruments or implementation andmonitoring strategies – and the needed linkages betweenthem – anywhere near the scale needed to confront themassive exclusion reported in this study. Without thisinstitutional ‘machinery’ inclusive education will remain onthe margins of the education systems and the global agendafor education. The outcome will be people with disabilitieswho remain on the margins of the society in which they live.


In summary, there is ground on which to build a systemicresponse to the exclusion of children, youth and adults withintellectual and other disabilities from inclusive educationand learning opportunities. There are examples, there isknowledge, there is growing commitment. But the system-level institutions and responses are not in place to deal withthe scope and scale of the barriers that result in persistentand long-standing exclusion. On what basis aregovernments, donor agencies and international institutionsto build this infrastructure? We look in the next chapter to therole that the recently adopted United Nations Convention onthe Rights of People with Disabilities could play in providingguidance to these players in laying the systemic foundationsfor inclusive education; as an integral part of the globalagenda for education.



PART III:

Closing the Gap in AchievingInclusive Education

CHAPTER 7

Using the UN Conventionon the Rights of Personswith Disabilities toAchieve Education for All


Chapter 7

Using the UN Conventionon the Rights of Personswith Disabilities toAchieve Education for All

Our research for this study provides demonstratedevidence and examples that inclusive education can and

does work in both developing and developed countries.However, we have found that very few countries included inthis study – or reported elsewhere – have good examples andstrong policy commitments yet added up to systemicadoption of inclusive education as a means to achieveEducation for All.

From our analysis of progress towards the Dakar Goals andefforts to include people with disabilities, it is clear thatgovernments and international institutions have failed toadopt approaches to education governance, policy, planning,financing, implementation and monitoring that result ininclusive outcomes. That said, countries around the worldhave adopted and are ratifying the CRPD, a binding legalinstrument that has direct implications for future efforts toachieve Education For All.

In addition to the obligations of governments at the nationallevel and in the context of their international cooperationefforts, UNESCO, theWorld Bank, UNICEF and otherinternational agencies also have an obligation to implementthe CRPD within the scope of their mandates.The specializedagencies of the United Nations are instruments of theirmembers and as such have a mandate to promote andimplement human rights conventions and other instruments.This means that efforts to achieve EFA and the Dakar Goalsby governments and international institutions must takeaccount of the CRPD.


This Chapter examines what the CRPD means for EFA, whatfoundation it sets for addressing the ‘inclusion deficit’ in theDakar goals and the EFA efforts to date.

Article 24 of the UN Convention and theRight to EducationArticle 24 of the CRPD refers specifically to education, andcreates an obligation for governments to do two things:

• Provide education to children, youth and adults withdisabilities on an equal basis with other children; and

• Provide that education within an inclusive system.

The meaning of Article 24 isindisputable. Realizing the right ofpeople with disabilities to educationrequires establishing “an inclusiveeducation system at all levels…” Ouranalysis of the implications of theCRPD for education system reformbegins in Table 6. We identify theessential outcomes that participantsin the consultations and focus groupsfor this study pointed to if the right toinclusive education recognized inArticle 24 of the CRPD is to berealized in the lives of people withintellectual disabilities.


Article 24 of the CRPD obligesState Parties to “recognize theright of persons with disabilitiesto education. With a view torealizing this right withoutdiscrimination and on the basisof equal opportunity, StatesParties shall ensure an inclusiveeducation system at all levels,and life-long learning…”


TABLE 6IMPLICATIONS OF CRPDARTICLE 24 FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION OUTCOMES

Article 24.1 State Parties shall ensure an Outcomes for Inclusive Education in ECCE,inclusive education system at all levels primary, secondary, post-secondary and adultand lifelong learning directed to: education

(a) The full development of human • Greater self-esteem of children, youth andpotential and sense of dignity and adults with disabilities reported by learnersself-worth, and the strengthening of themselves, families and teachers;respect for human rights, fundamental • Equal access and participation in social andfreedoms and human diversity; extra-curricular activities;

• People with disabilities are valued, respected,accepted and welcomed by other learners,educators, administrators, and policy makers;

• Awareness by people with disabilities, theirpeers, educators, administrators and policymakers about disability as a human rights issue;

• Learners with disabilities experience belongingand membership.

(b) The development by persons with • Improved academic and learning outcomes fordisabilities of their personality, talents students with disabilities;and creativity, as well as their mental and • Greater acceptance and recognition of successphysical abilities, to their fullest potential; in education beyond traditional academic

measures (cultural values; citizenship; creativityand talents);

• Evaluation processes adapted to effectivelymeasure both academic and other achievements.

(c) Enabling persons with disabilities to • Equal access to and participation of people withparticipate in a free society; disabilities in all education systems (ECCE,

primary, secondary, post-secondary and adulteducation); the labour market; politicalprocesses; and social, cultural, religious andeconomic activities.

Expectations that education systems should result in theseoutcomes are shared by learners, parents, educators andpolicy makers. They apply to the diversity of learners withand without disabilities. These outcomes also underlie theDakar Goals and vision of EFA. However, the challenge withEFA is that while the Dakar Goals are theoretically inclusive ofall learners, the indicators for inclusive education systemsdesign and success have not been articulated, much lessaccounted for. The CRPD resolves that gap.


Article 24, along with other provisions in the Convention,establish comprehensive guidance to address the systemsfailures and barriers identified in Chapter 6. The otherrelevant CRPD provisions include the recognition of the needto support families so they can advance the rights of peoplewith disabilities (Preamble to the CRPD), the ‘GeneralPrinciples’ of the CRPD (Article 3), Equality and non-discrimination (Article 5), Children with disabilities (Article 7),Awareness-raising (Article 8), Accessibility (Article 9), Respectfor the home and family (Article 23),Work and employment(Article 27), Participation in cultural life, recreation, leisureand sport (Article 30), International cooperation (Article 32),and National implementation and monitoring (Article 33).

In Table 7 below, we draw from across these Articles andpresent them as ‘inclusion benchmarks’ the CRPD establishesfor design and performance of education systems. Column 1in the table below quotes the language of the CRPD Preambleand Articles. These are the standards for inclusion that mustbe met for education systems to be compliant with the CRPD.Based on these benchmarks, in Column 2 we identify‘success indicators’ that EFA policies, plans, investments,implementation and monitoring mechanisms can bemeasured against to demonstrate their compliance with theCRPD benchmarks/standards for inclusion.


TABLE 7THE CRPD BENCHMARKS FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

AND SUCCESS INDICATORS FOR EFA

1. CRPD Inclusion Benchmarks for 2. Success Indicators for EFAEducation Systems

• Removal of legislative and policy barriers to the inclusionof children, youth and adults in ECCE, primary,secondary, post-secondary and adult education;

• Ministry/Department of Education has a clear mandatefor the primary and secondary education of all childrenand youth (including those with disabilities) in onesystem;

• Human rights laws recognize right of children withdisabilities to education in the regular education system;

• Law and policy ensure that children with disabilities notonly have access to education but also to the supports,accommodations and adaptations required to assuresuccess;

• An explicit commitment to the necessary policies,resources, facilities and training programs needed toenable children with disabilities to realise an effectiveeducation in schools.

• Constitutional guarantee of free and compulsory basiceducation to all children, without discrimination on thebasis of disability;

• Repeal of any existing legislation which defines anygroup of children with disabilities as ‘in-educable’;

• Recognized right to early identification and assessmentto ensure that children with disabilities are able toacquire the educational support and services they needfrom the earliest possible age;

• Accountability mechanisms in place to monitor birthregistration, school registration and completion bychildren with disabilities;

• Data gathering and reporting mechanisms on schoolaccess and completion disaggregated by disability.

• A guideline for ‘reasonable accommodation’ in educationestablished as a basis for human rights claims ofdiscrimination in education on the basis of disability;

• School buildings and materials accessible to childrenwith disabilities;

• Provision of accessible transport for students withdisabilities;

• “Universal design” guides educational provision,including curriculum and instructional/teaching models.

Article 24.2: Education(a) Persons with disabilities are not excluded from thegeneral education system on the basis of disability, and thatchildren with disabilities are not excluded from free andcompulsory primary education, or from secondaryeducation, on the basis of disability;

(b) Persons with disabilities can access an inclusive,quality and free primary education and secondaryeducation on an equal basis with others in the communitiesin which they live;

(c) Reasonable accommodation of the individual’srequirements is provided;


TABLE 7 (continued)THE CRPD BENCHMARKS FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION



(d) Persons with disabilities receive the support required,within the general education system, to facilitate theireffective education;

(e) Effective individualized support measures are providedin environments that maximize academic and socialdevelopment, consistent with the goal of full inclusion;

Preamble… section on FamiliesConvinced that the family is the natural and fundamentalgroup unit of society and is entitled to protection by societyand the State, and that persons with disabilities and theirfamily members should receive the necessary protectionand assistance to enable families to contribute towards thefull and equal enjoyment of the rights of persons withdisabilities;

Article 3: General principlesThe principles of the Convention shall be…Full andeffective participation and inclusion in society;

• Providing pre-service and in-service training to teachersso that they can respond effectively to diversity in theclassroom;

• Adaptation of teacher training syllabuses to includeteaching strategies in inclusive classrooms with diversestudent populations;

• Revision of national curriculum to make it accessible toall students;

• Revision of testing and evaluation methods to ensurethat accommodation is made for students withdisabilities;

• Make the teaching of “human rights” principles a part ofboth the formal school curriculum, and more generalschool culture to promote respect for the rights of everylearner, including learners with disabilities.

Individualized supports vailable as needed – including:• Accommodation to assure physical access to the school

and classroom – ramps, lifts, other technical supports;• Assistive technology for communication and other

instructional purposes;• Individual support, on an as-needed basis, from a para-

professional or peer;• Appropriate provision of supports such as sign-language

interpretation, Braille training and associated equipmentand materials, and other individualized supports;

• Teacher and student access to diverse professionalexpert collaboration to assist with health needs,behavior challenges and other requirements.

• Requires that State Parties consult with families, familybased organizations, and organizations of persons withdisabilities in the establishment of National EducationPlans;

• Requires State Parties to ensure that families areconsulted and involved in the development andadaptation of education plans for their child with adisability;

• Families are supported to understand and meet theeducation needs of their child with a disability througheducation, training, and access to services.

• EFA goals must include measures to ensure that studentswith disabilities have access to all education;opportunities;

• EFA efforts must adopt an inclusive approach toeducation of all children.





Article 5: Equality and non-discriminationStates Parties shall prohibit all discrimination on the basisof disability and guarantee to persons with disabilitiesequal and effective legal protection against discriminationon all grounds.

Article 7: Children with disabilitiesStates Parties shall undertake all necessary measures toensure the full enjoyment by children with disabilities of allhuman rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basiswith other children.

Article 8: Awareness-raisingStates Parties undertake to adopt immediate, effective andappropriate measures:

(a) To raise awareness throughout society, including at thefamily level, regarding persons with disabilities, and tofoster respect for the rights and dignity of persons withdisabilities;

(b) To combat stereotypes, prejudices and harmfulpractices relating to persons with disabilities, includingthose based on sex and age, in all areas of life;

(c) To promote awareness of the capabilities andcontributions of persons with disabilities.

Article 9: AccessibilityThese measures, which shall include the identification andelimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, shallapply to inter alia:

Buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor andoutdoor facilities, including schools, housing, medicalfacilities and workplaces

• In addition to guarantees of access to inclusiveeducation, without discrimination on the basis ofdisability, clear procedures and mechanisms are in placeto provide for lodging, investigating, and ruling onindividual complaints of discrimination in education, andlegal supports are in place to assist people withdisabilities and their families in making these complaints;

• Independent mechanisms are in place to investigate andrule on systemic discrimination and exclusion frominclusive education, on the basis of disability.

• Children with disabilities have a right to education on anequal basis with other children.

Measures should include:• Initiating and maintaining effective public awareness

campaigns designed;• Fostering at all levels of the education system, including

in all children from an early age, an attitude of respectfor the rights of persons with disabilities;

• Encouraging all organs of the media to portray personswith disabilities in a manner consistent with the purposeof the present Convention;

• Promoting awareness-training programmes regardingpersons with disabilities and the rights of persons withdisabilities;

• Incorporating disability-positive curricula into educationsystems.

• National/state-level Education Plans for investments inschools and infrastructure must include budgets andplanning for accessible transportation to and from ECCEprograms and schools, and accessible program andschool facilities.





Article 23: Respect for the home and familyStates Parties shall ensure that children with disabilitieshave equal rights with respect to family life. With a view torealizing these rights and to prevent concealment,abandonment, neglect and segregation of children withdisabilities, States Parties shall undertake to provide earlyand comprehensive information, services and support tochildren with disabilities and their families.

Article 24: EducationStates Parties recognize the right of persons withdisabilities to education. With a view to realizing this rightwithout discrimination and on the basis of equalopportunity, States Parties shall ensure an inclusiveeducation system at all levels and life long learning. . .

Article 27: Work and employmentEnable persons with disabilities to have effective access togeneral technical and vocational guidance programmes,placement services and vocational and continuing training;

Article 30: Participation in cultural life; recreation,leisure and sportStates Parties recognize the right of persons withdisabilities to take part on an equal basis with others…[and] Shall take appropriate measures…To ensure that children with disabilities have equal accesswith other children to participation in play, recreation andleisure and sporting activities, including those activities inthe school system;

Article 32: International cooperationStates Parties recognize the importance of internationalcooperation and its promotion, in support of national effortsfor the realization of the purpose and objectives of thepresent Convention, and will undertake appropriate andeffective measures in this regard, between and amongStates and, as appropriate, in partnership with relevantinternational and regional organizations and civil society…

• National/state-level Education Plans must includeprovisions that ensure children with disabilities are notremoved from their family setting for the purposes ofseparate special education schooling;

• Identification and outreach programs to parents withchildren with disabilities are in place to enable earlyidentification, access to ECCE and primary education,registration of children, and support to families todevelop high expectations for inclusive education.

• EFA investments and National/state-level EducationPlans must be developed to reflect the inclusiveapproach outlined in Article 24.

• State parties must include people with disabilities invocational and technical programmes and continuingeducation.

• Schools must ensure that children with disabilities haveaccess to sports and recreation activities on an equalbasis with others, and the supports needed toparticipate.

Drawing on suggested measures in Article 32, StatesParties in cooperation with donor and internationalagencies undertake measures to advance inclusiveeducation, including:• Efforts to support and promote ECCE, primary, secondary,

post-secondary and adult education policies andpractice are inclusive of and accessible to includechildren, youth and adults with disabilities;

• Facilitate and support capacity-building for inclusiveeducation through sharing information, training and bestpractices;

• Facilitate cooperation in research and access toknowledge;

• Provide appropriate technical and economic assistanceto develop and sustain inclusive education systems.


This is a comprehensive set of benchmarks/standards forinclusive education systems, and indicators to guide designand assessment of EFA plans and investments. It is aguideline for governments to follow in their planning andinvestment for national and state-level education plans. Forfamilies, self-advocates and civil society organizations, thisset of benchmarks and indicators also serves as a tool forengaging with governments and other educationstakeholders in EFA planning, monitoring and reporting onprogress towards implementation.

For Governments this framework provides:

• A basis against which National/state-level EducationPlans or national/state-level legislative andprogrammatic plans may be reviewed;




Article 33: National implementation and monitoringStates Parties… shall designate one or more focal pointswithin government for matters relating to theimplementation of the present Convention… [and]maintain, strengthen, designate or establish within theState Party, a framework, including one or moreindependent mechanisms, as appropriate, to promote,protect and monitor implementation of the presentConvention…Civil society, in particular persons with disabilities and theirrepresentative organizations, shall be involved andparticipate fully in the monitoring process.

• Governments must establish appropriate governanceand accountability mechanisms to ensure that aframework for inclusive education is developed,financed, implemented and monitored;

• UNESCO and other international agencies should assistin developing terms for a global monitoring framework;

• UNESCO and other international agencies confront andaddress the data issues in gathering reliabledemographic data about national populations of peoplewith disabilities so that reasonable estimates ofchildren, youth and adults with disabilities in and out ofeducation and the labour market can be established;

• UNESCO establish indicators of ‘quality’ of education forGlobal Monitoring purposes, that address the key qualityissues affecting learners with disabilities – accessibletransportation to/from schooling, accessible facilities,disability-related supports and services in educationsettings, teachers trained for inclusive education, andadapted curriculum and learning resources;

• Systematic monitoring and reporting on access,participation, completion and quality of education forchildren, youth and adults with disabilities – as part ofUNESCO’s Global Monitoring Reports on EFA;

• Planning and monitoring mechanisms must engage civilsociety organizations representing children, youth andadults with disabilities and their families.


• A framework for collecting information on theimplementation of Article 24 for periodic reporting andmonitoring as is required under the CRPD;

• Criteria for identifying and collecting examples of goodpractices in inclusive education; and

• Direction for knowledge development and capacitybuilding to scale up from good practices to systemicchange.

For Families, Self-advocates, Disabled Persons Organizationsand Civil Society Organizations the framework provides:

• A basis for collecting information on the implementationof Article 24 for shadow reporting;

• Criteria for identifying and collecting examples of goodpractices in inclusive education;

• Guidance when engaging with governments, donoragencies and international institutions in EFA planningand monitoring; and

• A mechanism to identify potential complaints undernational/state-level human rights complaints systemsand the CRPD Optional Protocol.

Article 24 and other Articles that support the right toeducation provide a basis for moving forward an agenda forinclusive education that makes it integral to achievingEducation for All. As a starting point for theirimplementation, governments must review both humanrights legislation and education legislation and policy toensure the removal of any discriminatory provisions andbarriers to the full inclusion of children with disabilities ineducation.

The Education Act of a country or state must also establishthe right of all children to an education in the regulareducation system, without discrimination on the basis ofdisability. Legislation and policy that positively promotesinclusive education will include both an overall commitmentto education of all children and an inclusive approach, as wellas specific commitments to the inclusion of children withdisabilities with the supports they require.

In the next chapter we draw on this framework ofbenchmarks/standards for inclusive education systems andsuccess indicators for EFA to outline next steps inestablishing a CRPD-compliant EFA.


CHAPTER 8

Recommendations:Towards aCRPD-Compliant EFA



Chapter 8Recommendations:Towards aCRPD-Compliant EFA

The over-riding recommendation of this study is thatgovernments, donor and international agencies mustcreate an inclusive EFA: in its governance, policy, planning,financing, delivery, implementation and monitoringframework. The CRPD provides the set of outcomes,benchmarks, indicators and obligations to do so. We makefour main recommendations to guide this effort:

• Strong and effective governance, policy and planning forinclusive education,

• Targeted investments for education system reform – bygovernments, donors and international agencies,


• Effective implementation and delivery systems at theschool district level, and

• Disability-inclusive monitoring and reporting framework.

Our findings and recommendations align closely with thefindings and recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteuron the Right to Education in a special report on “The Right toEducation of Persons with Disabilities” (Muñoz, 2007).

Strong and Effective Governance, Policyand Planning for Inclusive Education

Strong and Effective Governance, Policy andPlanning

1. Establish political leadership and governmentresponsibility for inclusive education.

2. Establish a national/state-level ‘Partnership forInclusive Education’ with representatives ofgovernment, educators and civil society.

3. Develop and implement national/state-level plans forinclusive education that focus on:• legislation for inclusion and non-discrimination,and guidelines for accommodation

• ensuring government education department isresponsible for education of all children

• identifying children with disabilities and access,quality and outcomes of education

• outreach to parents• training of teachers• providing supports• accessible facilities• transportation to/from school• transitions• public awareness• human rights complaints system• a knowledge network for inclusive education

1. Create a governance mechanism with senior politicalleadership and government representation that includesrelevant government ministries/departments responsiblefor ECCE, education, health and social supports,transportation, finance and any other departmentsrelevant to establishing an inclusive EFA.

2. Establish ‘Partnerships for Inclusive Education’ atnational and/or state and district levels to identify keyissues and develop national/state and district-level plans,with:

• Self-advocacy and family organizations;

• Government departments including those responsiblefor ECCE, education, health, finance, etc.; and

• Providers of education (ECCE providers, teachers,administrators, health and social support providers).

These partnerships are essential so that civil society,government and education stakeholders can identify therange of issues and develop effective plans.

3. Develop National/state-level Plans for InclusiveEducation, in collaboration with these partners. Plansshould focus on needed steps for:

• Law reform to ensure inclusion and non-discrimination in education,

• Identifying children with disabilities in and out ofschool, and data collection on access, quality andoutcomes,

• Outreach programs to parents, and self-advocate andparent engagement and leadership for inclusiveeducation,

• Training of ECCE program providers and teachers,

• ECCE program-based and school-based health andsocial supports (aids and devices, therapies) deliveredin a way that enables inclusion,

• Accessible ECCE facilities and schools,

• Transportation to and from ECCE and school,

• Managing learner/student transitions between: ECCE,primary school, intermediate and secondary school,


post-secondary education, adult education, and thelabour market and adult life,

• A knowledge network to access information on bestpractices and inclusive programming,

• Public awareness programs to build support forinclusive education,

• Independent human rights system for individualcomplaints, legal advocacy support, and investigationof systemic discrimination, and

• Monitoring and reporting on access, quality andoutcomes.

4. Ensure all legislation related to ECCE, primary,secondary, post-secondary and adult educationmandates inclusive education, without discrimination onthe basis of disability.

5. Ensure that education legislation for primary andsecondary schooling is inclusive of children withdisabilities, and that the responsible Ministry/Departmentfor Education has the mandate, authority, accountabilityand tools to design inclusive education systems.

6. Ensure that independent human rights institutionsprovide for both individual complaints of discriminationin education on the basis of disability, and powers forinvestigation of systemic discrimination on this basis.

7. Establish a statutory Guideline for inclusion andaccommodation of students with disabilities in alleducation programs – early learning through post-secondary and adult education.

8. Ensure a teacher-training system for inclusive education– pre-service and in-service.

9. Mandate an ‘inclusive education lens’ for all educationpolicy development, planning, financing, implementationand monitoring.

10. Establish identification and data collection systems toidentify children, youth and adults with disabilities – withreference to gender, type of disability, and supportneeds.



11. Establish district-level mechanisms for delivery oftraining and program supports for inclusion(professional development, needed aids and devices forchildren, program-based delivery of individual supports,therapies, and transitions – from ECCE to primary school,primary to intermediate and secondary, and secondaryto post-secondary training, and labour forceparticipation).

12. Create a knowledge network for inclusive ECCE throughprimary to post-secondary and adult education – toprovide easy access to information on best practices forinclusive programs, and curriculum materials.

13. Mount a sustained public awareness program to raiseawareness among the general public, educators andpeople with disabilities and their families about inclusiveeducation – its promise, possibilities, and its status as ahuman right.


Targeted Investments for Education SystemReform – by Governments, Donors andInternational Agencies

Invest inTransforming Education Systems forInclusion – Governments, Donors, andInternational Agencies.

1. Provide public funding for making education systemsinclusive (partnerships, planning, needed investmentsin a public system for all, transitioning from separatespecial education systems based on disability,delivering inclusive education at the school and schooldistrict level, and monitoring and reporting on access,quality and outcomes).

2. Donor agencies should invest in partnerships forinclusive education planning, and provide aid only foreducation plans that are inclusive.

3. The OECD andWorld Bank should develop guidelinesso that aid for education goes to inclusive systems.

4. UNICEF and UNESCO should assist countries indeveloping national/state plans and strategies forinclusive education, and help create a globalknowledge network for inclusive education.

Experience of EFA to date demonstrates that existingfinancing mechanisms of governments, bilateral donor andinternational agencies are not resulting in equal access orquality education for children, youth and adults withintellectual or other disabilities. Scans of policy and financingprograms of both donor and international agencies (like theWorld Bank) demonstrate growing commitment to inclusiveeducation. However, these commitments are not yet beingtranslated into effective planning and financing.

While it was beyond the scope of this study to examineparticular financing mechanisms, our findings suggest theneed for financing reform at national/state levels, donor andinternational agencies.


1. Government, donor and international financing ofeducation for children, youth and adults with disabilitiesmust focus on a public system for all, and endinvestment for separate special education systems basedon disability. Short-term financing will be necessary totransition from existing separate special educationsystems. Financing a separate system to meet needs ofall those children and youth with disabilities out ofschool violates the CRPD and is not fiscally viable.Thisdoes not mean that investments should not be made toenable choice for some deaf, blind and deaf/blindchildren and youth, who may benefit from opportunitiesfor learning together. However, this can beaccomplished within the facilities and framework of themainstream public system.

2. Public financing for education, including financingthrough donor and international financial institutionsmust include resources for:

• Establishing and maintaining the Partnerships forInclusive Education, as above.

• All the elements of a National/state-level Plan forInclusive Education, as identified above.

• Effective implementation and delivery.

• A monitoring and reporting framework.

3. Donor agencies and international agencies must providefor more systems-level investments to transformeducation systems. Donors are increasingly developingpolicies on disability, but these have not yet translatedinto adequate national/state-level planning or financingfor inclusive education reform. Most financing hasfocused on specific programs for targeted groups, whichusually has the effect of financing separate specialeducation systems – whether through NGOs or the publiceducation system. Specific recommendations include:

• Donor and international agencies should develop a‘disability and inclusion lens’ to guide all DevelopmentAssistance for education investments in developingcountries.

• Donor and international agencies should invest incapacity of all partners to undertake development of


National/state-level inclusive education planning,financing, implantation, and monitoring and reporting.

• Targeted financing for disability and education shouldbe guided by National/state-level plans for inclusiveeducation.

4. International institutions including UN agencies, theOECD and theWorld Bank should take lead roles indeveloping clear guidelines for Official DevelopmentAssistance for inclusive education systems planning andfinancing.

5. UN agencies, in particular UNICEF and UNESCO, cancontribute to effective investments by developing toolsand guidance for national/state-level education planning,financing and implementation; and assisting in thedevelopment of a global knowledge network for inclusiveeducation.

Effective Implementation and DeliverySystems at the School District Level

Putting Inclusive Education into place in SchoolDistricts

1. Identify all children with disabilities and reach out toparents.

2. Provide resources to parent/family groups to developtheir leadership for inclusive education.

3. Provide training in inclusion to ECCE programs andteachers.

4. Create accessible ECCE programs and schools.

5. Create programs that assist children and youth makethe transitions through the education system.

6. Provide teachers with access to information andknowledge about how to make inclusion work.


In implementing of national/state-level plans, our studysuggests the following priorities at school district levels:

1. Implement outreach and identification strategies forchildren in the 0-6 age group.

2. Deliver parent engagement and leadership development.

3. Provide training and leadership development forproviders of ECCE programs, and primary and secondaryteachers.

4. Undertake adaptation and retrofitting of school facilities,including provision of needed aids and devices.

5. Designate the mechanisms and authority to managetransitions – from ECCE to primary school, primary tointermediate and secondary, and secondary to post-secondary training, and labour force.

6. Provide access at the school and school district level toknowledge networks for best practices in pedagogy,curriculum and inclusive school development.

7. Deliver public awareness programs targeting teachers,administrators, and general public with positiveinformation and messaging about disability, inclusion,and importance of ECCE and schooling.

A Monitoring and Reporting Framework

Monitoring and Reporting on the EFA

1. Governments should Report on EFA – using the UNConvention benchmarks and indicators for inclusiveeducation – with a focus on access to education,quality, and outcomes for children, youth and adults.

2. The UN should work with Governments to create acommon definition of disability that can be used innational surveys.

3. UNESCO should do more to report on disability andeducation in their Global Monitoring Reports onchildren and education.


One of the main observations in our study has been theabsence of systematic monitoring and reporting on educationaccess, quality and outcomes for children with disabilities inECCE and primary education – priority goals of EFA and theMDGs. As we have noted, there has been growing attentionto profiling children with disabilities but this is not sufficient.Nor, in the UNESCO GMRs is it a replacement for orequivalent to the systematic reporting on children (largelywithout disabilities) and girls in education. Civil society,governments, donor and international agencies cannoteffectively dialogue about, plan and finance inclusiveeducation without a coherent monitoring and reportingframework.

The CRPD now makes reporting on the realization of thehuman rights it recognizes an obligation for governments.UN agencies like UNESCO and UNICEF have a correspondingmandate. As an inclusive education system is recognized inthe CRPD as essential to realizing the right to education forpeople with disabilities, this gap in information and reportingon access to, quality and outcomes of education learners andstudents with disabilities must be closed. We recommend thefollowing:

1. Governments should establish a data gathering andreporting system based on the outcomes, benchmarksand indicators for inclusive education systems presentedin Chapter 7.


2. International, comparable statistics – on definitions andmeasures of disability, access, quality and outcomes –are essential. To this end, we recommend that the UnitedNations Statistical Commission identify and address theissue of demographic data of persons with disabilities asone of its priority ‘issues of special concern.’ Thenecessary steps must be taken with the UN Economicand Social Council, States Parties and UN agencies, inparticular UNESCO and UNICEF, for development,improvement and comparability of national disabilitystatistics. In so doing, we recommend the Commissionmake identification of children with disabilities andaccess, quality and outcomes of ECCE and primaryeducation a priority. We make this recommendation forpriority focus so that the MDG for universal primaryeducation can be inclusively monitored and reportedupon. Another reason is that ECCE and primaryeducation have such long-term impacts on furthereducation, labour market access, social inclusion, andhealth and well-being.

3. UNESCO should take immediate steps to improveprofiling and reporting for the Global Monitoring Reportson EFA – with a priority focus on access to, quality andoutcomes for children with disabilities in ECCE andprimary education. Internationally comparativemeasures and datasets will take some time to develop.In the meantime, there are a growing number of reliablenational data sets on disability and education that can bemined for reporting purposes, even if comprehensivecountry-by-country reporting must await furtherdevelopment by the UN Statistical Commission.

In summary, the rights, perspective, experience, needs andpotential of people with disabilities have for far too long beenleft out of the design of education systems, and theaccountability for their performance. The CRPD provides anew foundation for the EFA, and fills the missing gap forpeople with disabilities. It provides States Parties, donoragencies and international institutions with a comprehensiveset of outcomes, benchmarks and indicators to govern,design, finance, implement and monitor inclusive educationsystems. Moreover, the CRPD makes it their obligation to doso. We offer the recommendations above in order to assistthese actors in creating a pragmatic, CRPD-compliant,roadmap for reform.

Conclusion



Conclusion

In the year Salamanca was declared, millions of childrenwith intellectual and other disabilities were just a few yearsold. Whatever has happened for them in the past fifteenyears, it has left an indelible mark on their lives.

In 1994, this group was the age at which early childhood caremight begin if their parents had a chance to get them into aprogram. A few years later, they might have been in aregular classroom in primary school and since then movedon to intermediate and secondary school with their peers.We know that just a few months ago a very small numbergraduated with their secondary school diploma. They mayalready have a paying job or are starting post-secondarytraining, making friends that will last a lifetime.

Sadly, this is not the scenario for the vast majority of youngpeople with intellectual disabilities who turned seventeen oreighteen in 2009. In fact, it is very likely that 95% didn’t evermake it to an ECCE program back in 1994, much less toprimary school a few years later. Nor did they graduate thisyear. Their prospects for social and economic inclusion,health and well-being are dismal.

Inclusion International launched this study because as peoplewith intellectual disabilities and as families, it is our lives, ourprospects, our individual and family well-being that is atstake when it comes to education. To us, education is not apolicy, not a system, not a career. Just like it is for anyoneelse, a basic education is one of the only chances we get tomake a good life in communities where we all belong andare welcomed as citizens. For the vast majority of us, wesimply don’t get the chance.

That is why the Salamanca Statement held out such promisefor us. It provided an international platform and globalstandards to make inclusive education a universal possibility.This study helped us to look back at the developments sincethe Salamanca Statement, from the vantage point of the EFAgoals and the right to education in inclusive systems that theCRPD recognizes.

From the research we reviewed, the surveys and countryprofiles we conducted, the interviews and focus groups wecarried out, there is an undeniable truth. Governments,donor and international agencies have simply not establishedthe needed instruments of change – in governance, design,financing, implementation and monitoring of educationsystems. This is not to suggest that there has not beenprogress since Salamanca. Indeed there has, and without thevision set by that Statement we would not have a basis tocritically examine what has happened since.

What did our study find about why these instruments ofchange have not been put into place? The explanation is notthat we lack examples or knowledge. Our study makes clearthat in the past fifteen years, children and youth withintellectual and other disabilities, parents, educators andpolicy makers have demonstrated that inclusion works. Wehave numerous examples of those with the most significantdisabilities being fully included and supported in regularclassrooms with their peers. And we have a growingknowledge base of best practices in law, policy andimplementation that can be drawn upon.

Nor is the explanation that there is lack of policycommitment. We found that a majority of countries havesome policy or commitment to inclusive education.

What has been missing since Salamanca are two things.

First, we have been lacking a shared analysis of the systemicbarriers that maintain exclusion on what can only be termeda catastrophic scale. We choose that term carefully.Generations of people with intellectual disabilities have beendenied education rights and opportunity, with lifelongconsequences. Our study confirms and adds to emergingfindings from other recent global studies about systemicbarriers to inclusive education:

• There is a political vacuum of leadership andaccountability for inclusive education, without whicheducation systems will not be reformed.

• Children with disabilities in many developing countriesremain invisible to the education system – not registeredat birth, not identified for ECCE and primary educationand so, not included.



• Families are not supported to have high expectations fortheir child with a disability, and inclusive education formost remains beyond imagination. Consequently,effective demand is minimal.

• For the most part, teachers lack the training, leadership,knowledge and supports to adapt curriculum and makeinclusive classrooms work.

• In the vast majority of cases they are working in anenvironment that massively compromises the quality ofeducation for students with disabilities: lack oftransportation for learners/students to and from school,inaccessible facilities, and lack of ECCE program-basedand school-based disability-related aids, health andsocial supports.

• Those who need the knowledge for inclusive policy andpractice to work – parents, teachers, administrators andpolicy makers are not linked up in effective local-to-global knowledge networks for inclusive education.

• The ‘machinery’ of an inclusive education system has notbeen established in most cases – the neededgovernance, policy, planning, financing, implementationand monitoring.


• Finally, the general public seems caught in a ‘solidarity ofdenial’ about the realities of exclusion and the right ofchildren with disabilities to be educated alongside theirpeers. Lack of public support for inclusion is one of thebiggest barriers to confront. It perpetuates negativestereotypes and undermines political leadership.

Second, what has been missing since Salamanca are theperformance benchmarks and success indicators to drivegovernance, design, financing, implementation andmonitoring of inclusive education under EFA. Furthermore,to date, the obligation and accountability for governments,donors and international agencies for delivering according tosuch a framework has been lacking.

However, as we found in this study, the CRPD now providesboth the framework and the obligations. We finally have theroadmap for completing what Salamanca began.

How can we use this roadmap to achieve what Salamanca,EFA and the CRPD envision? We think there are four mainthings to be done.

• Establish strong and effective governance, policy andplanning for inclusive education.This must include seniorpolitical leadership and partnerships for inclusiveeducation that effectively engage civil society.

• Governments, donor and international agencies mustcreate targeted financing mechanisms for the variousdimensions of inclusive education plans as we haveoutlined those in this study.

• Effective delivery systems must be established at theschool district level to coordinate efforts.

• Finally, governments, donor and international agenciesmust develop a disability-inclusive, and CRPD-compliant,monitoring and reporting framework for EFA.

Today, there is a whole new generation of children withintellectual disabilities who are at an age they might beginearly childhood education. They have parents who mightimagine they could go on to primary school in a couple ofyears.

We urge governments, donors and international agencies notto fail us this time.


Appendices

Country and Organization Name of Collaborators

Austria

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Finland

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russia

Scotland

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Regional coordinator: Ingrid Koerner

Bernhard Schmid

Mariyana Vasileva

Camille Latimier, Jan Siska, Marta Tepla,Petra Novakova

Helena Hallstrom

Ulrich Niehoff, Theo Frühauf

Thomai Mavraki

Éva Jaksa, Nóra Fehér

Fiona Duignan, Deirdre Carroll

Roberto Speziale

Irina Rulle

Vaida Arbociene, Dana Migaliova,Natalija Olésova

Raymond Ceccotto, Roland Anen

Marthese Mugliette, George Borg

Ivar Stokkereit, Vibeke Seim-Haugen,Helene Holand

Anna Firkowska-Mankiewicz

Sonia Fontes, Sandra Marques, Ana RitaPeralta and the staff of FENACERCI

Letitia Baba

Denise Roza

Kay Tisdall

Mika Petrovičová, Miroslava Petrovičová,Iveta Mišová, �ubica Vyberalová,Erik Žovinec

Samira Varmaz, Tomaž Jereb

Azahara Bustos

Pie Blume, Judith Timoney

Christa Schönbâchler, Heidi Lauper

Europe

Lebenshilfe Wein, Austria

BAPID Bulgarian Association for Persons with Intellectual Disabilities

SPMPCR Spole nost pro podporu lidí s mentálním postižením v eskérepublice

FDUV Förbundet De Utvecklingsstördas Väl

Lebenshilfe

POSGAmeA Panhellenic Federation of Parents and Guardians ofDisabled People

EFOESZ Ertelmi Fogyatekosok Orszagos Erdekvedelmi Szvotsege

Inclusion Ireland

ANFFAS Associazione Nazionale Famiglie di Persone con DisabilitàIntellettiva e/o Relazionale

Latvian association Rupju berns

VILTIS Lithuanian Welfare Society for Persons with Mental Disability

APEMH Association des Parents d’Enfants Mentalement Handicapés

Movement in Favour of Rights for Persons with a Disability

Personal story

NFU Norsk Forbund for Utviklingshemmede

Polish Association for Persons with Mental Handicap

FENACERCI Federação Nacional das Cooperativas de SolidariedadeSocial

The Rehabilitation Fondation "Speranta"

Perspektiva

Teacher

ZPMPvSR Združenie na pomoc u om s mentálnym postihnutím v SR

SOZITJE National Association for Mentally Handicapped Persons

FEAPS Confederación Española de Organizaciones en favor de lasPersonas con Discapacidad Intelectual

FUB The Swedish National Association for Persons with IntellectualDisability

insieme Schweiz

APPENDIX 1LIST OF COUNTRIESAND PARTICIPANTS INTHE GLOBAL STUDY


Bangladesh

Bhutan

Malaysia

Sri Lanka

Philippines

India

New Zealand

Algeria

Bahrain

Egypt

Iraq

Jordan

Kuwait

Lebanon

Libya

Morocco

Oman

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Sudan

Syria

Tunisia

Yemen


Asia-Pacific

CSID, and the Leonard Cheshire Disability, South Asian Regional Office

Published report

United Voice – a self-advocacy society of people with learning disabilities.

Leonard Cheshire Disability Resource Centre, Galle

Victorias Foundation Inc, Visayas Ear Care Centre

Parivaar, TNSCCP and the Ministry of Human Resource Development

IHC New Zealand INC

MENAThe Middle East / North Africa

Bahrain Association for Behavior & Communication, Bahrain Al Amal Center– Mother & Child Welfare Association, and Bahrain Parents Association forPeople with Disability

NAS Disability Alliance, and SETI: Naguib Khuzam

Hiba Center for Down Syndrome

Family Disability Alliance

Kuwaiti Parents Association for Handicapped

City International School, the Heritage College, Youth Association for theBlind, Lebanese Association for Self Advocacy, Lebanese Physical HandicapUnion, and Association des Parents d’Enfants Mal Entendants au Liban

Down’s Syndrome Association of Libya, and Altahadi Association forDisabled

Partner organization

Handicapped Association of Oman


Sultan Center of Autism



UTAIM Union Tunisienne d’Aide aux Insuffisants Mentaux

Yemen Handicapped Care and Training Center

Regional Coordinator: Osamu Nagase

Rabiul Hasan and Vardhani Ratnala

Melanie A. Barcelona, Mavis Campos,Dinah L. Dano, Joanna Leane

JP Gadkari

Trish Grant

Regional Coordinators:Fadia Farah and Rima Al-Salah

Aisha

Sumaia Hussain, Badria Slease,Farida AlMoayed, Jassim Syadi,Mohammed Al Manaie, Zahra AlZira,Imad Attar, Christine Gordon

Ashraf Marie, Naguib Khuzam,Gihan Abu Zaid

Sahira Moustafa

Reham Umaish and Alia Zrikatt

Hashem Taqi, Rehab Boresli

Reem Salem, Ghinwa Hamadeh,Souha Fleifel, Rina Corbani, AmerMakarem, Roudayna Accad, ChaficaGharbiyeh

Fatma Bin Amer, Basam MoustafaAisha, Baseer Elfaitouori

Samira AlQashimi

Samira Bint AlFaysal

Hisham Ben Nasr and Salwa Mellef

Youssef Ismail Haj Ali

APPENDIX 1 (continued)LIST OF COUNTRIESAND PARTICIPANTS INTHE GLOBAL STUDY



Regional Coordinator: Inés E. de Escallón

Luis RodríguezMaría Rosa ChaquírezMaría Alejandra ArcardiniVerónica GalettoMaría Eugenia Yadarola

Marcela MoralesEduardo ViscarraRuth Magne LópezJannet Santa Cruz YañezCecilia LaimeFilemón Arano

Michael BachAnna MacQuarrieAnne KrestaGordon PorterCameron Crawford

Claudia de Ávila, Martha Sepúlveda,Claudia Pérez, María Edith Sierra, BrendaHernández, Mónica Alexandra Cortés

Felicia GonzálezFamilies:Isabel Lorena Chacana, Adriana Zúñiga,Palmira Eugenia Arenas, Hirelia Tobar Pino,Irma Araneda Pérez, Patricia GallardoMéndez, Carolina Acosta Salinas, LilianSánchez PizarroSelf advocates:Christopher Fuentes, Carolina PeñalosaArenas, Natalia Carvajal TobarJuan Francisco Cid, Alejandro JofrèGallardo, Carolina AlarcónRodrigo Esparza, Ana Marìa González

Americas

FUSDAI Fundacion Sindrome de Down-Cordoba, Edudown. Mendoza,Fundación Incluir. Gualeguaychú. Entre RiosAsidolar: La Rioja.Panda- San JuanNacer- CorrientesAsoc. Esperanza- MisionesApatri 21- San LuisASDRA- Buenos AiresADEEI – Buenos AiresFUNDAL- Buenos AiresInstituto Superior de Formación Docente n°9La Plata – ASOCIACION AMAR- Buenos AiresPUENTES DE LUZ- San Martín de los AndesSec. Desarrollo Social Junin de los Andes.Fundación Tea- Río GallegosFundación Steps Buenos AiresEscuela Especial N° 10 de Rio GallegosADEEI - Filial ChacoDirección de Educación Especial de FormosaAsociación Colibrí Directora Salta

CEINDESASOCIACION REHABILITACIÓN INTEGRAL EN LA COMUNIDAD – RICBOLIVIACentro Arnoldo Schwimmer (Cochabamba-Bolivia)Asociación de padres con hijos con Discapacidad ASPACHIDEM(Cochabamba-Bolivia)

FEDAPAESAPAES Associacao do Pais e Amigos dos Exceptionais de Sao PauloFEDAPAES AutodefensoresFEDAPAES Network of schoolsSecretária de Educação Especial do Ministério da Educação do BrasilEscola Gilberto Jorge

CACL Canadian Association for Community LivingCommunity Living ManitobaCommunity Living OntarioCommunity Living Northwestern TerritoriosCommunity Living SaskatchewanCommunity Living Yukon Territory

Asdown Colombia, Fundown Caribe, Fundación Familias Down de Cali,Nordown Cúcuta, Fundown Duitama, INSOR Instituto Nacional paraSordos

UNPADE

Argentina

Bolivia

Brazil

Canada

Colombia

Chile




Teachers in inclusive schools:Patricia Araneda, Daniella QuirogaPave, Mónica Butamanco, MabelGonzález, Elena Ramírez ÁvilaStudents from the UniversidadMetropolitana de Ciencias de laEducación de Chile:Mónica Campos, Jennifer RojasCornejo, Cecilia Cortés Muñoz

Ana Lucia Arellano, PilarSamaniego, Liliana de Rudich,Edith Patiño, Patricia Hernández,Maricel Dávila, Tamara Toledo

Raquel JelinekSheila Aquique ParadaSilvia Castillo PolancoGuadalupe Chávez GarcíaBlanca Espinosa PeregrinoPatricia GarcíaAbigaíl Hernández MejíaGabriela Lazo HelgueraGalit Margolis KrantzGabriela Martínez OlivaresGloria Olivera VillaseñorClaudia Peña TestaPatricia Ramírez Flores

FEPAPDEMFundación FINE

CONFE Confederacion Mexicana de Organizaciones en Favor de la Personacon Discapacidad IntelectualComunidad Hagáis, AguascalientesCreo Campeche, CampecheUnidos Pro Down, ChiapasAsociación de Padres de Personas con Necesidades Especiales, ChihuahuaKadima, todos por la inclusión, Estado de MéxicoCentro de Atención Múltiple No. 10, Estado de MéxicoEducación Personalizada año 2000, Estado de MéxicoApoyando a Angelitos con Autismo, Distrito FederalCentro de Adiestramiento Personal y Social, Distrito FederalCentro de Apoyo Psicopedagógico Aragón, Distrito Federal AdministraciónFederal de Servicios Educativos en el Distrito Federal y la Dirección deEducación EspecialCentro de Atención al Autismo, Distrito FederalCentro de Capacitación CONFE, Distrito FederalCentro de Educación y Desarrollo Humano de la Universidad del Valle deMéxico, Campus Tlalpan, Distrito FederalCentro de Habilitación e Integración para Invidentes, Distrito FederalCentro de Investigación y Servicios en Educación Especial, Distrito FederalClínica Mexicana de Autismo, Distrito FederalComunidad Crecer, Distrito FederalFundación Pasos, Distrito FederalIntegración Down, Distrito FederalLa Casita de San Ángel, Distrito FederalPor la Inclusión, Distrito FederalServicios de Atención y Evaluación a Niños y Niñas Especiales, DistritoFederalAsociación de Familias en Pro del Discapacitado Intelectual, GuerreroCentro de Recursos e Información para la integración Educativa, GuerreroEquipo Técnico de Educación Especial, GuerreroAndares, Nuevo LeónInstituto Guadalupe, Nuevo LeónCentro de Educación Integral Avanzada, Nuevo LeónAsociación Pro Deficiente Mental de Oaxaca, OaxacaCentro de Atención Múltiple Jean Piaget, Turno Matutino, PueblaCentro de Atención Psicológica y Tutelar Especializada, PueblaIntegra, PueblaValora, PueblaAsociación de Padres de Familia de Hijos con Discapacidad Intelectual“Benito Juárez”, Quintana RooAsociación Pro Niños Especiales, Quintana RooFederación Sinaloense de Asociaciones a favor de Personas conDiscapacidad Intelectual, SinaloaCentro Atención Múltiple Rosario Reynosa, TamaulipasInstituto Down de Xalapa, VeracruzAprendamos Juntos, YucatánAsociación Yucateca de Padres de Familia en Pro Deficiente Mental, Yucatán

Chile (continued)

Ecuador

Mexico





Mexico(continued)

Peru

St. Lucia

Suriname

USA

Costa Rica

El Salvador

Guatemala

Integración Zacatecana, ZacatecasLa Subsecretaria de Educación Básica, y la Dirección General deDesarrollo Curricular

Patronato Peruano de RehabilitaciónMinisterio de Educación

Report prepared for World Bank on ‘Diagnosis of Inclusive Education inthe Caribbean1

Report prepared for World Bank on ‘Diagnosis of Inclusive Education inthe Caribbean2

Published reports

Central America

Ministerio de Educación Pública de Costa Rica:Departamento de III Ciclo y Educación Diversificada.Universidad Estatal a Distancia de Costa RicaParents, principals and school staffEscuela José Figueres Ferrer, Escuela Granadilla Norte, EscuelaRepública de México, Kinder Maternal Montesoriano

ASCATED

Clemencia Elisa Vallejos Sánchez,Pedro Angulo Pinto, Lidia MantillaMendoza, Nora Vera Huanqui

Regional Coordinator:Gabriela de Búrbano

Yarith Rivera, Directora de la Direcciónde Desarrollo CurricularGioconda Mora Monge, Dirección deDesarrollo Curricular (Coordinadora de laComisión Nacional de EducaciónInclusiva)Ruth Vega Villalobos, Departamento deEducación ReligiosaMilagro Mora Zúñiga, Departamento dePromoción del Desarrollo HumanoEvelyn Alfaro Alvarez, Departamento dePromoción del Desarrollo HumanoLorena Orozco Alvarado. Departamentode Salud y AmbienteMayra Jiménez Méndez, Departamentode Bibliotecas EscolaresJosefina Bonilla Rivera, Departamentode Educación EspeciaYeimy Quesada CamposLady Meléndez Rodríguez, Encargada delPrograma Educación EspecialMaría Gabriela Marín Arias. Encargadade Cátedra de Educación EspecialCarolina Velásquez, Asistente deInvestigación del Programa EducaciónEspecialManuel Antonio Arce Bonilla, ProfesorCPI San RafaelFrancisco Hernández Salazar, Estudiantedel servicio educativo del CPI San RafaelCarlos Fernando Bermúdez Vives, AsesorNacional de Artes Plásticas, MEPWilfer Villalta Guillén, Asesor Nacionalde III ciclo y ciclo diversificado, MEP

Ada Montano and Edgar Durán

Gabriela de Burbano, Carmen VásquezRodríguez, Roel Aceituno, MiltonMoscoso, Jóvenes VoluntariosDiscovery, Argentina de Sojuel, Abdy deVillatoro, Marlyn Girón de Gil, Reyna




Honduras

Nicaragua

Panama

Cameroon

Ethiopia

Malawi

Mauritius Island

Sierra Leona

South Africa

Tanzania

Zambia

Zanzibar

OtherContributors

Federación Nacional de Padres de Personas con Discapacidad de Honduras

ASNICLa Red de jóvenes de Promoción y Defensa de los Derechos HumanosLos PipitosADIFIM Asociación de Discapacitados Físico - MotoresASOPHEB Asociación de Madres y Padres de Niños y Niñas con Espina BífidaANSNIC Asociación Nacional de Sordos Organización de Ciegos MaricelaToledo OCN

Secretaria Nacional de Discapacidad, Fundación Caminemos Juntos

Africa and the Indian Ocean

Spire International Inc.

ENAID

FEDOMA Federation of Disability Organizations in MalawiMACOHA Malawi Council for the Handicapped

APEIM

Erikshjälpen, SwedenPartner organisation TRACED

ZANFOB Zambia National Federation of the BlindZambia Agency for Persons with DisabilitiesZANAFCPFDZAB Zambia Association for the BlindMinistry of Education, Provincial Offices, Central Province, KabweZambia Association for Children and Adults with Learning Disabilities

ZAPDD

Philippa Lei, Senior Child Rights Policy Adviser World Vision UKCatherine Naughton, Director CBM EU Liaison Office Brussels, BelgiumGarren LumpkinMarkku Jokinen, President of the World Federation of the DeafAnna Rostedt, Development Coordinator ErikshjälpenSunanda Mavillapalli Leonard Cheshire DisabilityAmina Osman, UNICEFSusan Treverton-Bird

Pacheco, Damaris Vásquez, VirginiaGalindo, Melania de Leal, ElmoRogelio, Olga Vergara, Patricia May,Mariela Fernández, Elizabeth Castro

Suyapa Padilla

Indiana María FonsecaRosario GarcíaGabriel RiveraYamileth MayorgaJhony Hodgson, Ministerio deEducación

Manuel de J Campos LRosario Natters de Córdova

Regional coordinators:James Mung’omba and VanessaDos Santos

Larissa Jones

Tsige Amberbir

Ferozia Hosaneea

Donna Lene

Vanessa Dos Santos

Anna RostedtMr Mbonia

Mulenga Jane Chanda ClementMusonda Obina Mweawa HenryKabwe Annie Betty MuzumaraBarbra PhiriJames Mung’omba.


APPENDIX 2REFERENCESTO DISABILITY IN UNESCO’S GLOBALMONITORING REPORTS ON EDUCATION FORALL

UNESCO Global Monitoring Reporton Education For All

Inclusion of Children With Disabilities

2009 “Overcoming inequality: whygovernance matters”

2008 “Education for All by 2015: Will we makeit?”

2007 “Strong foundations: Early childhoodcare and education”

• Disability is one of three main barriers to achievinguniversal primary education, along with childlabour and ill health.

• Achieving EFA goals for children/youth withdisabilities requires a cross-sector approach topolicies and investments to address structuralbarriers for this group (e.g. lack of transportation,inaccessible schools, shortage of trained teachers,negative societal attitudes about disability).

• Governments are failing to adequately account forthe barriers facing marginalized groups likechildren with disabilities.

• The CRPD is recognized as an international humanrights instrument relevant to EFA goals, however,Governments need to promote inclusive policies.

• Despite more children with disabilities gettingincluded in education, the quality of theireducation is minimal because of lack of trainedteachers.

• EFA goals were created for all children butchildren with disabilities remain a marginalizedgroup with many out of school.

• Estimates that more than one third of the 77 millionchildren still out of school are children withdisabilities. Estimates that in Africa, fewer than10% of disabled children are in school.


APPENDIX 2 (continued)REFERENCESTO DISABILITY IN UNESCO’S GLOBALMONITORING REPORTS ON EDUCATION FORALL



2006 “Literacy for Life”

2005 “Education for All: The QualityImperative”

2003/2004 “Gender and Education for All:The leap to equality”

• The report acknowledges the debate between‘mainstream’ and ‘special’ education, but does notprovide a comprehensive analysis of barriers.

• The report refers to the high percentages ofchildren with disabilities excluded from school as amain source of poor literacy. More appropriatecurriculum is needed, but there are limitedguidelines for combating exclusion.

• Disability is mentioned in the 9 EFA flagshipprogrammes and the OECD has established 3categories of disability

• Inclusive education is a means of ‘Better Educationfor All’ by focusing on the best environment for thelearner. Greater implementation will requirelearning about best approaches and existinginequalities.

• Acknowledges that to reach EFA goals, greaterattention needs to be given in reform efforts tochildren with multiple disadvantages, includingchildren with disabilities.

• Girls with disability face high rates of exclusionfrom education.

• Families are the main support but have limitedexternal assistance, and face stigmatization on thebasis of a child’s disability.

• There is an interconnected cycle of disability andpoverty which must be taken into account inplanning for inclusion of children with disabilities ineducation.

• The Right to Education for Persons withDisabilities: Towards Inclusion – launched in 2002as an EFA Flagship Initiative


APPENDIX 2 (continued)REFERENCESTO DISABILITY IN UNESCO’S GLOBALMONITORING REPORTS ON EDUCATION FORALL



2002 “Education for All – Is the world ontrack?”

EFA Flagship Initiative

• Children with disabilities “were among the issuediscussed” in reference to achieving the Dakargoals.

• Disability incorporated into one of nine EFAFlagship Programmes “EFA and the Rights ofPersons with Disabilities: Towards Inclusion” tobring a focus to disability.

• Acknowledges value of Amartya Sen’s‘capabilities’ approach to development as thebasis for expanding freedom. This approachrecognizes that investments in education shouldbe designed to develop people’s capabilities,including unique capabilities affected by aperson’s disability. This means allocatingresources depending on people’s needs and whatthey require to maximize their developmentalpotential.


End NotesIntroduction1 See http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF in English

other languages http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ulis/cgi-bin/ulis.pl?catno=98427&set=4AA5300D_1_401&gp=1&lin=1&ll=1.

2 See Dakar Framework for Actionhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001211/121147E.pdf.

3 See http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/bkgd.shtml.

In Education http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/education.shtml.4 See http://www.un.org/disabilities/.5 See http://www.ii.inclusioneducativa.org.

Chapter 11 See http://www.ii.inclusioneducativa.org/Inclusion_International.php?region=Inclusion_International&country=Inclusion_International&experience=15_Years_After_Salamanca.

2 See www.ii.inclusioneducativa.org.3 See http://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/ice/48th-ice-2008.html.

Chapter 21 See http://www.inclusion-europe.org/documents/Education_Position_Paper_final.pdf.

Chapter 31 World Vision, Education’s missing millions: including disabled children in educationEFA FTI processes and national sector plans (London:WorldVision, 2007).

2 Cited in Philippa Lei, “Making the Grade? Donors, disabled children and education.”Presentation. (London: WorldVision UK, September 2009).

3 For example, the 2009 Global Monitoring Report references data from aWorld Bankanalysis on children with disabilities and education drawn from surveys in 14developing countries However, these surveys estimate that only 1-2 percent of thepopulation have a disability in many developing countries in Africa, Asia and LatinAmerica. This estimate is far below the recognized global estimates of at least 10% ofthe population with disabilities even in industrialized countries. See UNESCO, EFAGlobal Monitoring Report 2009 Overcoming inequality: why governance matters(Paris: UNESCO, 2008, pp. 82-83); Deon Filmer “Disability, Poverty, and Schooling inDeveloping Countries: Results from 14 Household Surveys,” TheWorld BankEconomic Review (Vol 22, Number 1, 2008: 141-163); and Daniel Mont, MeasuringDisability Prevalence, SP Discussion Paper No. 0706 (Washington:TheWorld Bank,2007).

4 The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is anorganization of 30 mostly high-income countries www.oecd.org

5 See for example, UNICEF, A Human Rights-Based Approach to Education for All (NewYork: UNICEF, 2007); and, Children with Disabilities: Ending Discrimination andPromoting Participation, Development, and Inclusion (NewYork: UNICEF, 2007).

Chapter 41 J. D.Willms, ”Standards of Care: Investments to Improve Childrens’ EducationalOutcomes in Latin America.” Paper presented atYear 2000 Conference on EarlyChildhood Development, April 2000. (Washington:World Bank, 2000).

2 Don Labon and Peter Evans, “Recent Developments in OECD Member Countries,” inOECD Proceedings: Implementing Inclusive Education (OECD, Paris, 1997).

3 Willms op. cit.4 Labon and Evans, op. cit.5 Michael Fullan The New Meaning of Educational Change (NewYork:Teachers CollegePress, 2001).


6 Gordon Porter, “Disability and Education: Toward and Inclusive Approach”(Washington: Inter-American Development Bank, 2001)

7 Fullan, op. cit.8 Porter, op. cit.9 Fullan, op. cit10 Labon and Evans, op. cit.

Chapter 51 See www.ii.inclusioneducativa.org.2 See Mithu Alur andTony Booth (eds.), Inclusive Education: The Proceedings of NorthSouth Dialogue I (Delhi: UBS Publishers Distributers, 2005); Mithu Alur and MichaelBach (eds.), From Rhetoric to Reality:The North South Dialogue II (Delhi: Viva, 2005);In Mithu Alur andVianneTimmons (eds.), Crossing Boundaries and Sharing Ideas:Inclusive Education (Delhi: Sage, 2009).

3 See www.gyermekekhaza.hu.4 SeeWorld Bank, Inclusive Education Fund: The Uruguayan Experience. (Retrieved athttp://siteresources.worldbank.org/DISABILITY/Resources/Regions/LAC/InclusiveEduUrugEng.pdf.)

5 See Ministry of Education and Research (Italy), “The Development of Education 2004-2008, National Report of Italy.” Prepared for UNESCO International Conference onEducation 2008 (Rome: Author, 2008).

6 A comprehensive study of this initiative has recently been published. See Mithu Alurand Michael Bach, The Journey to Inclusive Education in the Indian Sub-Continent(NewYork: Routledge, 2010).

7 See http://www.gnb.ca/0000/publications/mackay/mackay-e.asp.8 The Guideline can be found at http://www.gnb.ca/hrc-cdp/PDF/Guideline-Accommodating-Students-Disability-New-Brunswick.pdf.

9 Applying theories of ‘scaling up’ to inclusive education systems change is exploredin more detail in Michael Bach, “Scaling up inclusive education: steps towards amacro-level theory of development.” In Mithu Alur andVianneTimmons (eds.),Crossing Boundaries and Sharing Ideas: Inclusive Education (Delhi: Sage, 2009).

Chapter 61 Research in the 1980s and 1990s indicated “overwhelming evidence” of negativeattitudes of teachers towards inclusive education. See Gary Bunch and KevinFinnegan, “ValuesTeachers Find in Inclusive Education.” Presented at InternationalSpecial Education Congress 2000, Manchester, UK. More recent comparativeresearch suggests attitudes of teachers toward inclusive education are becomingmore positive, and that this may reflect positive trends in some countries towardsthe value of inclusion more generally. However, development of positive attitudes isstill uneven, and researchers suggest more attention to this issue is needed inteacher education. See Umesh Sharma, Chris Forlin,Tim Loreman and Chris Earle,“Pre-ServiceTeachers’ Attitudes, Concerns and Sentiments about InclusiveEducation: An International Comparison of the Novice Pre-ServiceTeachers,”International Journal of Inclusive of Special Education (Vol. 21, 2, 2006).

Appendix 11 See Canadian Association for Community Living, “Diagnosis of Inclusive Educationin the Caribbean,” Report prepared for theWorld Bank (2005).

2 See Canadian Association for Community Living, “Diagnosis of Inclusive Educationin the Caribbean,” Report prepared for theWorld Bank (2005).

Bibliography

Alur, Mithu. 2003. Invisible Children: A Study of Policy Exclusion. New Delhi:Viva Books.

Alur, Mithu and Michael Bach. 2005 (eds.) From Rhetoric to Reality: The NorthSouth Dialogue II. New Delhi: Viva Books.

Alur, Mithu and Michael Bach. 2010. The Journey to Inclusive Education in theIndian Sub-Continent. NewYork: Routledge.

Alur, Mithu andTony Booth. 2005 (eds.) Inclusive Education:The Proceedings ofNorth South Dialogue I. Delhi: UBS Publishers Distributers.

Alur, Mithu andVianneTimmons. 2009 (eds.) Crossing Boundaries and SharingIdeas:Inclusive Education. Delhi: Sage.

AusAID. 2008. Development for All:Towards a disability-inclusive Australian aidprogram 2009-2014. Retrieved at: www.ausaid.gov.au.publications

Bach, Michael. 2009. “Scaling up inclusive education: steps towards a macro-level theory of development.” In Mithu Alur andVianneTimmons (eds.),Crossing Boundaries and Sharing Ideas: Inclusive Education. Delhi:Sage.

Banco Mundial. Reportes de Inclusion International para los paísesCentroamericanos Panamá, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador.Retrieved at: http://www.inclusioneducativa.org/eelpdl.php?id=2

Booth,Tony and Mel Ainscow. 2002. CSIE Index for Inclusion: DevelopingLearning and participation in schools.

Bunch, Gary and Kevin Finnegan. 2000. “ValuesTeachers Find in InclusiveEducation.” Presented at International Special Education Congress 2000.Manchester, UK.

de García, Pilar Samaniego. 2009. Personas con discapacidad y acceso aservicios educativos en Latinoamérica: Breve análisis de situación.Retrieved at: http://www.cermi.es/NR/rdonlyres/3CA9043F-5DE7-46D8-B717-DDA3E2C0C196/23496/cermies391vol.pdf

DFID. 2007. A DFID Practice Paper:Working on Disability in CountryProgrammes. Retrieved at:http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications/DisguideDFID.pdf

Eeson, Anne I. September 11, 2009. Outcomes Research that Support Inclusion.Retrieved at: http://www.spedlawyers.com/outcomes_research.htm

Eleweke, C. J. and M. Rodda. 2002. The challenge of enhancing inclusiveeducation in developing countries. International Journal of InclusiveEducation, 6,2: 113-126.

Filmer, D. 2005. Disability, Poverty and Schooling in Developing Countries:Results from 11 Household Surveys.World Bank Policy ResearchWorking Paper 3794.Washington, D. C. Retrieved at:www.worldbank.org.



Fullan, Michael G. 2001. The New Meaning of Educational Change,TeachersCollege Press.

Gardner, H. 1983. Frames of Mind:TheTheory of Multiple Intelligences. NewYork: Basic Books.

Groce,N. 1997. Girls andWomen with Disability: A Global Challenge. One-in-Ten14, 2: 2-5

Groce, N. and P. Bakhshi. 2009. “Literacy among Adults with Disability in theDeveloping Countries: An unexplored area of concern”. LeonardCheshire Centre for Disability and Inclusive Development.Working Pater9: University College London.

New Brunswick Human Rights Commission. Guideline-Accommodating-Students-Disability-New-Brunswick. Retrieved at:http://www.gnb.ca/hrc-cdp/PDF/Guideline-Accommodating-Students-Disability-New-Brunswick.pdf

Inclusion Europe. 2009. Included in Society. Retrieved at: http://www.inclusion-europe.org/main.php?lang=EN&level=1&s=83&mode=nav1&n1=163

Inclusion International. 2006. Hear Our Voices: A Global Report – People with anIntellectual Disability and their Families Speak Out on Poverty andExclusion.Toronto: Inclusion International. Retrieved at: www.inclusion-international.org.

L’Institut Roeher Institute. 2005. Indicators of Inclusive Education: FromLegislative and Policy Commitments to Outcomes for Pupils withIntellectual and Other Disabilities. Retrieved at: www.cacl.ca

Lei, Philippa. 2009. “Making the Grade? Donors, disabled children andeducation.” Presentation. London: WorldVision UK (September) .

Lei, Phillipa. September 2007. Education’s Missing Millions: including disabledchildren in education through EFA FTI processes and national sectorplans. UK:WorldVision. Retrieved at:http://www.worldvision.org.uk/upload/pdf/Education%27s_Missing_Millions_-_Main_Report.pdf

Lloyd. 2002. Excellence for all children – false promises!The failure of currentpolicy for inclusive education and implications for schooling in the 21st

century. International Journal of Inclusive EducationVol. 4, 2: 133-151.

Labon, Don and Peter Evans. 1997. Recent developments in OECD membercountries. OECD Proceedings: Implementing Inclusive ducation. Paris:OECD.

Marchen, J. 2004. “OtonabeeValley near bottom of provincial rankings: Resultsskewed by special needs students.” Peterborough Examiner (May 22), p.B8.

Miles, Susie. 2007. “Inclusive Education.” InTanya Barron and Penny Amerena(eds.). Disability and Inclusive Development. London: Leonard CheshireInternational.


Ministry of Education and Research. (Italy). 2008. “The Development ofEducation 2004-2008 National Report of Italy”, Rome: UNESCOInternational Conference on Education 2008. Retrieved at:http://www.ibe.unesco.org/National_Reports/ICE_2008/italy_NR08.pdf

Mont, Daniel. 2007. Measuring Disability Prevalence, SP Discussion Paper No.0706,Washington:TheWorld Bank.

Munoz, V. 2007. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education.Report to Human Rights Council. NewYork: United Nations. Retrieved at:http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G07/108/92/PDF/G0710892.pdf?OpenElement

Nagata, Kozue Kay. 2003. “Gender and disability in the Arab region:Thechallenges in the new millennium”. Asia Pacific Disability RehabilitationJournal Vol. 14,1: 10-17.

OECD. 2009. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic andTajikistan: Students with SpecialNeeds and those with Disabilities. Paris: OECD.

_____. 2007. Students with disabilities, learning difficulties and disadvantages:Statistics and indicators for the countries of the OAS. Mexico: EdebéEdiciones Internacionales.

_____. 1999. Inclusive Education atWork: Students with Disabilities inMainstream Schools. Paris: OECD.

_____. 1994. L'integration scolaire des infants et adolescent handicapés.Ambitions, théories et pratiques. Paris: OECD.

Peters, Susan J. November 2004. Inclusive Education: An EFA Strategy for AllChildren.Washington: World Bank.

Porter, G. L. 2001. Disability and Education:Towards an Inclusive Approach.Inter-American Development Bank. Retrieved at: www.iadb.org

Richler, D. 2005. ‘Quality education for persons with Disabilities’, papercommissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005:The QualityImperative. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved at: www.unesco.org

Robson, C. and P. Evans. 2003. Education Children with Disabilities inDeveloping Countries:The Role of Data Sets. Retrieved at:www.worldbank.org

Rousso, H. 2003. Education for All: A Gender and Disability Perspective.Washington D.C.:TheWorld Bank. Retrieved at:www.worldbank.org/disability

Sachs, J. 2005. The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities of OurTime. NewYork: Penguin Press.

Save the Children UK. 2002. Schools for All: Including Disabled Children inEducation. London: Save the Children. Retrieved at:www.savethechildren.org.uk


Scarf, Charlotte and Kelly Hutchinson. 2003. Knowledge Networks forDevelopment: A Participatory Design Approach. December 2-6,Alexandria, Egypt: International Conference on the Convergence ofKnowledge, Culture, Language and InformationTechnologies.

Sharma, Umesh and Chris Forlin,Tim Loreman and Chris Earle. 2006. “Pre-ServiceTeachers’ Attitudes, Concerns and Sentiments about InclusiveEducation: An International Comparison of the Novice Pre-ServiceTeachers.” International Journal of Inclusive of Special EducationVol. 21,2, 2006.

Spect,Werner et al. 2006. Quality in Special Needs Education: A Project ofResearch and Development. Austria: Centre for School Development.

Stubbs, Sue. September 2008. Inclusive Education:Where there are fewresources. Retrieved at:http://www.eenet.org.uk/theory_practice/IE%20few%20resources%202008.pdf

Swanson, Christopher B. November 3, 2008. Special Education in America:Thestate of students with disabilities in the nation’s high schools. Retrievedat: http://www.edweek.org/media/eperc_specialeducationinamerica.pdf

The Children’s Society. 2005. Disability Equality: Promoting positive attitudesthrough the teaching of the National Curriculum. Leeds: Author.

UN, 2007. From Exclusion to Equality: Realizing the rights of persons withdisabilities. Handbook for Parliamentarians on the Convention of theRights of Persons with Disabilities. Retrieved at:http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/toolaction/ipuhb.pdf

UNESCAP. 1995. Hidden Sisters:Women and Girls with Disabilities in the Asianand Pacific Region. Retrieved at:http://www.unescap.org/publications/detail.asp?id=641

UNESCO. 1994. The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on SpecialNeeds Education. Retrieved at:http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF

UNESCO. 1999. Welcoming schools – students with disabilities in regularschools. Retrieved at:http://www.westpac.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/appeal/IE/Publications_and_reports/Welcoming_schools.pdf

UNESCO. 2001. Understanding and responding to children’s needs in inclusiveclassrooms: A guide for teachers. Retrieved at:http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001243/124394E.pdf

UNESCO. 2002. Global Monitoring Report: Education for All is theWorld onTrack? Available at: http://www.unesco.org/en/efareport/reports/2002-efa-on-track/

UNESCO. 2003/2004. Global Monitoring Report: Gender and Education for All -The leap to equality. Retrieved at:http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001325/132513e.pdf


UNESCO. 2005. Global Monitoring Report: Education for All -The QualityImperative. Retrieved at:http://www.unesco.org/en/efareport/reports/2005-quality/

UNESCO. 2006. Global Monitoring Report: Literacy for Life. Retrieved at:http://www.unesco.org/en/efareport/reports/2006-literacy/

UNESCO. 2007. Global Monitoring Report: Strong Foundations – EarlyChildhood Care and Education. Retrieved at:http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001477/147794e.pdf

UNESCO. 2008. Global Monitoring Report: Education for All by 2015 –Will wemake it? Retrieved at: http://www.unesco.org/en/efareport/reports/2008-mid-term-review/

UNESCO. April 2008. Equity and Inclusion in Education:Tools to supporteducation sector planning and evaluation; Annex 2Tool C ProgressTowards Equity and Inclusion. Retrieved at:http://www.unesco.org/bpi/pdf/iatt_equity_inclusion_tools_042008_en.pdf

UNESCO. 2008. 48th session of the International Conference on Education,Geneva. National Reports on the Development of Education. Retrievedat: http://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/ice/48th-session-2008/national-reports.html

UNESCO. 2008. 48th session of the International Conference on Education.Geneva:Working Documents. Retrieved at:http://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/ice/48th-session-2008/working-documents/working-documents.html

UNESCO. 2008. 48th session of the International Conference on Education.Geneva: Information Documents. Retrieved at:

http://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/ice/48th-session-2008/working-documents/information-documents.html

UNESCO. 2009. Global Monitoring Report: Overcoming Inequality –WhyGovernance Matters. http://www.unesco.org/en/efareport/reports/2009-governance/

UNESCO. 2009. The Six Dakar Goals. Retrieved at:http://www.unesco.org/education/efa/six_goals.shtml

UNESCO. Institute for Statistics 2005.Children out of school: Measuringexclusion from Primary Education. Paris: Author.

UNICEF. 2009. “Meeting the needs of children and young people inimplementing the Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities,”Remarks by Hilde F. Johnson, UNICEF Deputy Executive Director, 3September 2009.

UNICEF. 2007. A Human Rights-Based Approach to Education for All. NewYork:UNICEF.

UNICEF. 2007. Children with Disabilities: Ending Discrimination and PromotingParticipation, Development, and Inclusion. NewYork: UNICEF, 2007.


Whitbread, Kathleen. September 11, 2009. What does the research say aboutinclusive education? Retrieved at:http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/lre.incls.rsrch.whitbread.htm

Willms, J. Douglas. 2006. Learning Divides:Ten Policy Questions About thePerformance and Equity of Schools and Schooling Systems. Montreal:UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

_____. 2000. “Standards of Care: Investments to Improve Childrens’ EducationalOutcomes in Latin America.” Paper presented atYear 2000 Conferenceon Early Childhood Development, April 2000.Washington:World Bank.

World Bank. April 2000. Education for All: From Jomtien to Dakar to Beyond.Retrieved at:http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2001/10/19/000094946_01100404003611/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf

World Bank. August 2003. Education for All: Including Children with Disabilities.Retrieved at:http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DISABILITY/Resources/280658-1172610312075/EFAIncluding.pdf

World Bank. 2008. The Road to 2015: Reaching the Education Goals.TheEducation for All – FastTrack Initiative. Retrieved at:http://www.education-fast-track.org/library/Annual_Report_2008_EFA_FTI.pd

WorldVision UK. September 2007. Education’s Mission Millions: includingdisabled children in education through the EFA FTI processes andnational sector plans. Retrieved at:http://www.worldvision.org.uk/server.php?show=nav.1780


Inclusion Inclusion Inclusion Inclusion InclusionAsia Pacific Interamericana Europe Africa Middle East North Africa

Produced in cooperation with:

Inclusion InternationalKD.2.03, University of East London, Docklands Campus,4-6 University Way, London E16 2RD, United Kingdom

Tel: (+ 44) 208 223 7709Fax: (+ 44) 208 223 6081

Email: [email protected]

Registered Charity No. 1106715