Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education

supporting inclusion, challenging exclusion

Extracts concerning inclusive education from the conclusions of the European Committee of Social Rights, 2003-2008

A

Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan

Armenia

(Conclusions 2007, vol.1, Conclusions on article 17 – Right of children and young persons to social, legal and economic protection, para. 1 – Assistance, education and training)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the Armenian report.

Education

The text of Article 17 of the Revised Charter has been revised considerably, in some respects in order to reflect the approach of the Committee under Article 17 of the 1961 Charter (e.g. reference to mothers has been omitted and now includes legal protection as well as social and economic). Article 17§1 now contains a reference to the right to education and paragraph 2 guarantees the right to free primary and secondary education. Therefore Article 17 as a whole requires states to establish and maintain an education system that is both accessible and effective. States need to ensure a high quality of teaching and that there is equal access to education for all children, in particular vulnerable groups, including children in rural areas.

Article 39 of the Constitution stipulates that everyone shall have a right to education and that basic general education shall be compulsory except for the cases precsribed by law. Education is compulsory until the age of 16, which is also the minimum age for employment, except for particular cases as set out in Section 19 of the Children’s Rights Act in which this minimum age may be reduced to 15.

However, the Committee notes from other sources that access and efficiency of the educational system in Armenia face a number of serious problems, such as a high rate of absenteeism, nonattendance and dropout in primary and secondary education due to the economic and financial situation of families depending on their children to share the burden of supporting the family and not being able to afford school uniforms and school supplies. Most schools do not have the possibility to function normally in winter and do not dispose of the necessary equipment and laboratories for appropriate instruction. Furthermore, low wages result in qualified teachers leaving schools and offering private tuition instead, thereby creating a two-tier system of education. The Committee also notes from the aforementioned sources that there is an increasing imbalance between city and village schools caused by a lack of teaching staff in rural areas. Finally, the Committee observes that even though the report states that the right to education is granted irrespective of nationality, race, sex, social origin etc., there is inadequate access by children belonging to minorities to education in their mother tongue. It also appears that the most vulnerable groups of children are enrolled in an increasing number in boarding institutions but that state resources are not sufficient for their full care and education.

The Committee acknowledges that in the year 2003, the Government has adopted a National Plan of Action of the Republic of Armenia for the Protection of the Rights of the Child, 2004-2015, which, inter alia, addresses possible amendments of the educational system. The major goals set out in the Action Plan as regards education are, inter alia, the creation of necessary conditions for efficient educational institutions, the development of a system which meets the full educational needs of children and the transfer of children from boarding to regular schools. The Committee asks the next report to provide information on the implementation of the measures envisaged under the Action Plan in practice and on other measures implemented in order to combat the abovementioned shortcomings in the educational system.

The Committee wishes to receive statistics in the next report on the number of public and private schools, the geographical distribution of schools in urban and rural areas, the average class sizes and the ratio teacher per pupil. It asks for figures on primary and secondary school enrolment as well as drop-out rates and for details on measures by which the Government plans to ensure that all children benefit from educational institutions, to prevent children from dropping out of schools and how it will tackle the problem of ensuring better access to schools, especially in rural areas. It also asks for information on measures aimed at raising the quality of education and facilities at schools and on mechanisms to monitor and ensure the adequacy of the educational system.

Finally, the Committee asks to receive information on measures taken to ensure equal access to education for children from vulnerable groups such as children from minorities, children seeking asylum, refugee children, children in hospital, children in care, pregnant teenagers, teenage mothers, children deprived of their liberty, etc. as well as measures to ensure that children belonging to these groups are integrated into mainstream educational facilities and ordinary educational schemes.

As regards the integration of children with disabilities into mainstream education, the Committee refers to its conclusion under Article 15 of the Revised Charter.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

Austria

(Conclusions XIX-1 2008, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Education and training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in Austria’s report.

Definition of disability

The Committee takes note that the report clarifies that the following two main concepts of persons with disabilities coexist:

The so-called “eligible” disabled person for whom a specific degree (at least 50%) of disability determined by medical experts is required to benefit from the Disabled Persons Employment Act (BEinstG), the Federal Disabled Person Act (BBG) and the Family Burdens Equalisation Act.
The so-called “AMS” disabled person for whom no specific degree of disability is necessary as the Public Employment Service (AMS) takes into consideration any health-caused impairments which reduce placement opportunities.

As regards the notion of “eligible” disabled person, the Committee notes that in July 2008 a new ordinance regulating the calculation of the degree of disability required to be considered “eligible” should replace the one of 1965. The Committee asks the next report to provide information on the new classification and its operation in practice with a view to its assessment during the next supervision cycle.

As regards the AMS definition, the Committee notes that the report acknowledges that as this definition concerns only registered unemployed disabled persons, no employment data are available for them. The Committee requests the next report to keep it informed about any measures taken to improve this situation.

Anti-discrimination legislation

The Committee acknowledges the entry into force on 1 January 2006 of a compendium of laws aimed at ensuring equal opportunities for people with disabilities. The Committee notes that the ban on discrimination of persons with disabilities also encompasses the family members of persons with disabilities.

The core of this compendium, as regards its relevance under Article 15§1, comprises:

the new Federal Equal Opportunities for People With Disabilities Act (BGStG), banning discrimination in key spheres of life other than work (including education at all levels, also university).
amendments to the Disabled Persons Employment Act (BEinstG), regulating the ban on discrimination also with regard to vocational training.
amendments to the Federal Disabled Persons Act establishing an Ombudsperson for disabled persons with a general advocacy role.

Complaints concerning discrimination under this new legislation may be lodged with courts, including the Constitutional Court and the High Administrative Court. The Austrian National Council of Disabled Persons (the umbrella organisation of associations concerned with disabled persons) is entitled to intervene in disability cases by way of third party intervention under the Disabled Persons Employment Act (BEinstG) and under the Federal Equal Opportunities for People With Disabilities Act (BGStG). Under the scope of the latter act (BGstG), the Austrian National Council of Disabled Persons is also granted the right to file a class action (Verbandsklage) for ascertainment of discrimination. The Committee wishes to be informed on the role, if any, of the Ombudsperson for the Disabled with regard to such third party interventions and class actions.

The Committee acknowledges that before going to court, for all cases of alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, it is necessary to institute arbitration proceedings before the Federal Social Service Authority (Bundessozialamt). Only when such arbitration fails, it is possible to lodge a complaint before a court. The costs of arbitration (interpreters, an external mediator if so requested by the parties) are paid by the state. This compulsory conciliation process is decsribed as successful by the report as it states that a settlement is reached in due time in the majority of cases. The Committee requests the next report to inform it about the number and outcome of such compulsory conciliation proceedings.

The Committee requests the next report to also inform it about the implementation in practice of the new legislation to the extent it covers education and vocational training. It also asks to be informed about any relevant developments in the case law in this regard.

Education

The Committee takes note of the replies to the questions raised in its previous conclusions (Conclusions XVIII-2).

The Committee notes from another source that there are significant differences between the Länder as regards the extent of the protection against discrimination on the ground of disability in access to services afforded, including education. The Committee requests the next report to clarify whether all Länder prohibit discrimination on the ground of disability in education.

Moreover, the above mentioned source and others, criticise the lengthy transitional period (ten years) provided by the Federal Equal Opportunities for People With Disabilities Act (BGStG) with regard to physical accessibility of the built environment (which is relevant under Article 15§1 for school premises). The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights has encouraged the Austrian authorities to offer schools further possibilities to increase access for individual pupils by making certain reasonable adjustments immediately.1 In this regard, the Committee reiterates that under Article 15§1, States must take measures (such as the accessibility of premises) in order to enable integration and must demonstrate that tangible progress is being made in setting up education systems that exclude nobody (Conclusions 2005, Cyprus).

The Committee notes in this regard from the comments made by the Austrian Government to the report by the Council of Europe Commissioner2, that a revision of the current legislative framework on non-discrimination was programmed for 2007. The Committee requests the next report to inform it about the outcome of such planned revision with regard to enhanced protection against discrimination on the ground of disability in education and its impact in terms of measures to enable integration of children and adults with disabilities in mainstream education facilities.

Vocational training

The Committee takes note of the following positive achievements in 2006:

skills-training allowances were granted to 4 920 disabled persons, constituting a plus of 23.9% compared to 2003;
training or further training was offered to 21 194 persons suffering from health-caused placement handicaps, constituting a plus of 44.5% compared to 2003;
70% of all attendants with disabilities or health-caused placement handicaps obtained technical training or further training, constituting a plus of 102,7% compared to 2003.

The Committee also notes that the placement rates after Public Employment Service (AMS) courses are slightly higher for “eligible” disabled persons than for persons with AMS-documented health-caused placement handicaps. The Committee refers to its abovementioned comments with regard to the coexistence of these two concepts of disability.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee defers its conclusion.

(Conclusions XVIII-2 2007, vol. 1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Vocational training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the Austrian report.

The Committee notes from the report that a new definition of disability is under preparation and it will take into account the international classifications such as that endorsed by the WHO (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health – ICF 2001).

The Committee asks the next report to provide information on this issue. The Committee also asks to be systematically informed of the total number of children with disabilities (up to 18 years of age), including those with intellectual disabilities.

The Committee takes note of the information provided on three provinces (Upper Austria, Styria and Tyrol) and asks it to be given systematically for all provinces.

Education

The Committee recalls that, as stated in the Autism-Europe decision (Autism-Europe v. France, Complaint No. 13/2002, decision on the merits of 4 November 2003, §48), “the underlying vision of Article 15 is one of equal citizenship for persons with disabilities and, fittingly, the primary rights are those of “independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community. Securing a right to education for children and others with disabilities plays an obviously important role in advancing these citizenship rights”. Under Article 15§1, the Committee therefore considers necessary the existence of non-discrimination legislation as an important tool for the advancement of the inclusion of children with disabilities into general or mainstream educational schemes. Such legislation should, as a minimum, require a compelling justification for special or segregated educational systems and confer an effective remedy on those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to education. Legislation may consist of general antidiscrimination legislation, specific legislation concerning education, or a combination of the two.

The Committee recalls that it previously noted that the Federal Constitution provides for equal treatment of persons with disabilities in all areas including education and vocational training. But it received no information which would enable the Committee to conclude that these provisions are sufficient for the purposes of Article 15§1. The Committee notes that the Federal Act on the Equal Status of Disabled persons was adopted outside the reference period and entered into force in 2006. However, the Committee finds that during the reference period there was no anti discrimination legislation for persons with disabilities in education. The Committee will analyse the new legislation in the next supervision cycle. It therefore asks the Government to provide all necessary information on the above legislation to the extent it covers education and vocational training and its implementation in the next report.

According to the report, 15 600 children with disabilities attend mainstream schools (primary, lower secondary and pre-vocational schools) and 13 300 attended special schools. At upper secondary level, students with sensory or physical disabilities are educated on special syllabus and schools may ask for additional financial or human resources. The choice between mainstreamed or special education is left to the parents. In reply to the Committee, the report indicates that clearing units, assisted by experts, assess pupils in the last years of school or when school is over to define a development plan.

The Committee asks whether the total figure of 28 900 children with disabilities in mainstream or special education schools corresponds to the total number of children with disabilities in the age of education. Additional resources are given to schools for pupils with special needs on the basis of a teacher/pupil ratio of 1:3.2. Primary teacher training is the only one including course on integrative educational methods. The Committee asks whether it is foreseen to improve teacher training also for the levels other than primary. The Committee notes that the information provided does not distinguish between the different kind of disabilities. It therefore asks the next report to provide information on access of children with intellectual disabilities to mainstream or special education. It also asks information on case law and complaints brought to the appropriate institutions concerning discrimination in access to education.

Vocational training

Persons with disabilities are generally offered individual skills training, training allowances, payment of training costs, orientation and mobility training. A 2003 amendment to the Vocational Training Act introduced the integrative vocational training system. Under this new system, persons with disabilities may have apprenticeship extended for one further year or the conclusion of a training contract for the acquisition of a partial qualification which allows them to enter the labour market. Integrative training is supported by the Public Employment Service and federal or local authorities through the cooperation of all actors involved (parents, enterprises, vocational schools). It also targets young unemployed with disabilities. Special skills training packages are offered to young people with disabilities needing an extended development process.

According to the report equal treatment is guaranteed also with respect to vocational training.

The Committee asks information to be provided in the next report on the effectiveness of the measures taken with respect to vocational training, in particular the number of persons with disabilities attending vocational training and the other forms of training available, the extent to which the training offer matches the demand, as well as the impact of training on the subsequent integration of persons with disabilities in the labour market. The Committees recalls that under Article 10 of the Revised Charter it regards vocational training as encompassing all types of higher education including university education. It considers that this interpretation applies mutatis mutandis to Article 15. It therefore asks information on participation of persons with disabilities to higher education.

The Committee notes that from the reports provided by certain Provinces that participants in vocational training were 288 in Upper Austria in 2004 and 252 vocational training institutions were involved.

The Committee concludes that the situation in Austria is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter on the ground that during the reference period the right of persons with disabilities to protection against discrimination in education was not guaranteed.

(Conclusions XVI-2 2003, vol.1 – Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para.1 – Vocational training arrangements for disabled persons)

The Committee notes the information in the Austrian report.

According to the report there are no definitive statistics on the number of persons with disabilities in Austria as people are defined as having a disability under different legislation for different purposes. However there is a formal registration procedure for people with disabilities under the Disabled Persons Employment Act, although registration is voluntary. On December 31 2000, there were 80 532 registered persons with disabilities within the meaning of the Disabled Persons Employment Act 54, 592 of whom were working (67,8 %). This represented 1,8 % of the total working population. In addition there were approximately 5 000 persons with disabilities working in special workplaces subsidised by Provincial Governments.

The Public Employment Service (PES) applies a wider definition of disability than that under the Disabled Persons Employment Act; approximately 4 400 persons with disabilities were registered as unemployed with the PES in 2001.

The Committee wishes to know what steps, if any have been made or are planned, to move away from a medical definition of disability and towards a more social definition such as that endorsed by the WHO in its International Classification of Functioning (ICF 2001).

The Committee repeats its request for information on whether and how the vocational skills of persons with disabilities are assessed.

Education and Vocational training facilities

The report provides details of the measures taken in order to promote the integration of young people into mainstream education facilities, including polytechnic schools and vocational schools. Further it provides information on the introduction of vocational guidance classes in schools and pre-vocational classes. The Committee asks how many students with disabilities are attending mainstream secondary and vocational schools and how many still attend separate special schools. It further asks in this respect whether the resources follow the child and whether parents are informed of this when deciding whether to opt for special or integrated education. The Committee wishes to know whether general teacher training incorporates special needs education as an integral component.

The Committee notes that vocational training grants are available for unemployed persons with disabilities but finds no other information in the report on vocational training for adults or the unemployed. It requests information on the various facilities available and measures to promote the integration of these groups into mainstream vocational training, as well as the number of persons with disabilities undergoing vocational training. The Committee previously noted that as a result of a recent amendment, the Federal Constitution provides for equal treatment of persons with disabilities in all areas including education and vocational training. It had asked for more details of this provision and how it operated in practice. The current report states that there are no special rules in this area and refers to the implementation of Council Directive 2000/78/EC on the establishment of a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. The Committee wishes to receive information on how equal access and equal treatment is guaranteed in education and vocational training in the next report and asks whether the relevant Constitutional provision may be litigated by individuals.

As regards the equal treatment of foreigners, the Committee refers to its conclusion under Article 10.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested the Committee defers its conclusion.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

Azerbaijan

(Conclusions 2008, vol. 1, Conclusions on article 9 – Right to vocational guidance)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in Azerbaijan’s report.

As Azerbaijan has not accepted Article 15 of the Charter, measures relating to vocational guidance for persons with disabilities are dealt with here.

Vocational guidance within the education system

a. Functions, organisation and operation

Under the Employment Act, secondary school pupils and students in higher education are entitled to free vocational guidance. Counselling forms part of the public services and is provided through the vocational guidance offices in the cities of Baku, Ganja, Nakhchivan and Mingachevir.

The Committee asks for information in the next report on the organisation of vocational guidance in the education system, including for the disabled persons, and for a decsription of how it operates in practice. It asks whether guidance services are provided within schools and education establishments.

Vocational guidance in the labour market

a. Functions, organisation and operation

Under the Employment Act, jobseekers, unemployed people and people without appropriate training are entitled to free individual or collective vocational guidance counselling in the country’s vocational guidance offices or the regional branches of the national employment service.

The Committee asks whether the vocational guidance on offer satisfies demand. It also asks for information in the next report on the organisation of vocational guidance in the labour market for the disabled persons.

Equal treatment of nationals of the other States Parties

Under Article 13 of the Labour Code and section 6.2.8 of the Employment Act, foreign nationals and stateless persons living in Azerbaijan have the same rights and duties as Azerbaijani citizens, without discrimination, in their dealings with the employment services.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee defers its conclusion.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

Belgium

(Conclusions 2008, vol. 1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community, para. 1 – Vocational training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in Belgium’s report as well as in the additional information submitted in May 2008.

In its previous conclusion (Conclusions 2007), the Committee asked for figures on attendance by children with disabilities in mainstream and special compulsory and upper secondary education, for all communities. It also asked for figures on vocational training and university education. The Committee notes that not all these figures have been supplied and therefore reiterates its request. It further recalls that where it is known that a certain category of persons is, or might be, discriminated against, it is the national authorities’ duty to collect data to assess the extent of the problem (European Roma Rights Centre v. Greece, Complaint No. 15/2003, decision on the merits of 8 December 2004, §27). The gathering and analysis of such data (with due safeguards for privacy and against other abuses) is indispensable to the formulation of rational policy (European Roma Rights Centre v. Italy, Complaint No. 27/2004, decision on the merits of 7 December 2005, §23).

Definition of disability

The Committee notes that as announced in Belgium’s previous report, the Flemish Agency for Persons with Disabilities has been operational since April 2006. According to the decree setting up this agency, disability is defined on the basis of the WHO International Classification of Functioning and Health (ICF 2001). The report adds that in order to qualify for the services (including vocational training courses) and financial assistance provided by the agency, persons with disabilities must meet a number of requirements, including residence in Belgium for a number of years (five years of continuous residence or ten years of non-continuous residence). The Committee refers to its conclusion on Article 10 with regard to equal treatment for nationals of other Contracting Parties and access to vocational training.

The Committee also notes that in July 2007 (outside the reference period), a Protocol on reasonable accommodation was signed by the Federal State, all the Communities, the Brussels-Region and the Commission on disabled persons of the Communities and that of the French Community. The Protocol contains a definition of disabled persons which will apply to all levels (Federal level and Communities), if ratified by all. The Committee asks the next report to provide information on the scope of application of the Protocol and on its impact in terms of integration of persons with disabilities in education and training.

Anti-discrimination legislation

In its previous conclusion the Committee held that Belgium did not have sufficient anti-discrimination legislation covering education. From the additional information provided, it notes that antidiscrimination law has been adopted in May 2007 (outside the reference period). It asks the next report to provide information on its scope of application. Meanwhile, the Committee finds that, during the reference period, the situation was not in conformity with the requirements of Article 15§1 of the Charter. In this framework, the Committee recalls that under Article 15§1, it considers necessary the existence of non-discrimination legislation as an important tool for the advancement of the inclusion of children with disabilities into general or mainstream educational schemes. Such legislation should, as a minimum, require a compelling justification for special or segregated education systems and confer an effective remedy on those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to education. Legislation may be general anti-discrimination legislation, specific legislation concerning education or a combination of the two (Conclusions 2007, General Introduction, Statement of Interpretation on Article 15§1).

Education

Despite the Committee’s request, no information is provided on the integration of children with disabilities into mainstream primary education. The Committee therefore reiterates its request (see also above).

The report supplies figures on secondary education in the Flemish Community. According to these figures the number of students with disabilities has increased both in mainstream education (ordinary schooling with support) and in special education. However, given the lack of other essential data (such as the total number of children in mainstream schooling and the number of children receiving special education), these figures are not sufficient to determine whether the right to education is effectively guaranteed for persons with disabilities.

According to the additional information provided, the Committee notes that the total number of persons with disabilities is unknown in the German Community as disabled persons are not obliged to register with the Office of the German Community for Disabled Persons. However, the report indicates that 5 048 disabled persons (representing between 7 and 10% of the German-speaking population) had registered with this Office in 2007. The Committee also wishes to know:

about any steps taken to generally promote integration into mainstream education;
whether or not the qualifications obtained at the end of their schooling are identical for all children;
the success rate for children with disabilities as regards access to vocational training, further education and entry into the ordinary labour market.

As regards its more specific questions on both mainstream and special education, the Committee refers to and reiterates the detailed questions asked in its previous conclusion (Conclusions 2007).

Vocational training

The Committee wishes to know whether the new anti-discrimination legislation covers secondary vocational education in all communities, and asks about the extent of mainstreaming in this area. It also reiterates its question on access to university education for persons with disabilities.

It refers to its previous conclusion for a decsription of the vocational guidance measures introduced in Walloon Region and Flemish Community, and takes note of the information on the German-speaking Community and the Brussels Region.

Moreover, the Committee notes from the report that as a result of the reorganisation of vocational guidance and training in Flanders (services co-ordinated by the Flemish Service for Employment and Vocational Training – VDAB – and co-operation with the new Flemish Agency for Persons with Disabilities), the number of persons with disabilities who have received job coaching-type training courses and have been able to follow various vocational integration paths has increased.

As the necessary information referred to above is lacking, it cannot be established that the situation in Belgium complies with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in Belgium is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter on the ground that, during the reference period, the anti-discrimination legislation covering education and training for persons with disabilities was inadequate.

(Conclusions 2007, vol.1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Vocational training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the Belgian report.

The report provides figures on persons with disabilities broken down by region. In the Walloon region there is an estimated number of 30 700 children with disabilities and 330 000 persons with disabilities aged 15-65 years who have a disability or long-term illness. In Flanders, in 2001 around 640 000 persons aged 15-64 have a disability or long-term illness. In the Brussels-Capital region, persons with disabilities amounted to 4000, 80 % of whom in working-age. The Committee asks for figures in the German-speaking community.

The report indicates that, in Flanders, disability is defined as any relevant and long-term limitation of individual chances of social integration due to intellectual, physical or sensory capacities. It also indicates that a decree of 2004, which was due to enter into force in 2006, along with the establishment of the Flemish Agency for Persons with Disabilities, introduced a new definition referring to the International Classification of Functioning and Health (ICF 2001) definition.

The Committee asks which steps have been made to move away from a medical definition of disability and towards a more social definition as that endorsed by the WHO in its ICF in the other communities.

Education

The Committee notes from the report that in both the Walloon and the Flemish communities the objective of the education for children with disabilities is to integrate them as far as possible into the regular school environment. However, no specific information is provided on mainstreaming at primary level. At secondary level mainstreaming is possible for children with disabilities through the special assistance of support teachers and technical aids. In 2003/2004 there were 908 students benefiting from integrated education in the Flemish Community and, in 2005-2006, 90 in the Walloon community. No information is available on the German-speaking community.

The Committee recalls that states must take measures (such as the support of teachers and the accessibility of premises) in order to enable integration and must demonstrate that tangible progress is being made in setting up education systems which exclude nobody. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of mainstreaming for all communities, the Committee asks the next report to provide this information, as well as, systematically, figures about attendance in mainstreaming compulsory and upper secondary schooling for all the communities. It also asks information on case law and complaints brought to the appropriate institutions.

In addition, the Committee asks the following questions about the modalities of mainstreaming:

whether and how the normal curriculum is adjusted to take account of disabilities;
whether and how individualised educational plans are crafted for students with disabilities;
whether general teacher training incorporates special needs education as an integral component;
whether and how resources follow the child (including support staff and other technical assistance) and whether measures are in place to facilitate the integration of children with disabilities into mainstream education, like e.g. to adapt schools to make them physically accessible;
whether and how testing or examination modalities are adjusted to take account of disability and whether the fact that examinations are taken under non-standard conditions is revealed to third parties;
whether the qualifications are the same for all children or whether different qualifications ensue and if so, whether these qualifications are officially recognised and validated and whether they have the same functional value to the individual as the mainstream qualification. In order to evaluate this, the Committee is interested to learn what the relative progression rates are for such children into employment or further education.

In reply to the Committee, the report indicates that, in the Flemish community, special education is provided to children with disabilities who are in need of special assistance and adapted teaching. At secondary level, different kinds of special education on the basis of the disability exist and are provided by 110 schools. In the year 2003-2004 special secondary education was attended by 16 792 children with disabilities (i.e. 3.78 % of the total number of students in secondary education).

The Committee asks the next report to provide information on special education and figures about attendance for all the communities. In addition, the Committee asks the next report to provide information on the following issues:

whether the Ministry of Education has primary responsibility;
how the curriculum is designed and whether the curriculum and the abovementioned individual study plans and rehabilitation programmes are validated/adopted by the Ministry for Education;
what kinds of qualifications does the curriculum lead to and whether they are recognised in order to enable progress into further education or to gain entry to vocational education or the open labour market;
what the success rate is in progressing into vocational training, or further education or into the open labour market;
whether the quality of education is monitored by mainstream monitoring mechanisms.

The Committee reiterates its question as to whether general teacher training includes a module on special educational needs in all the communities.

Vocational guidance and training

The Committee asks information on the existence of antidiscrimination legislation with respect to secondary vocational education in all communities, as well as to the extent of implementation of mainstreaming.

In the Walloon region, vocational guidance to persons with disabilities may take different forms provided by various actors, such as the Walloon Agency for Persons with Disabilities (AWIPH), the FOREM, the Specialised Vocational Guidance Centres, etc. Special units devoted to guidance of persons with disabilities, as well as a free call number intervened to reinforce the means available.

In Flanders, vocational guidance is provided by the Centres for specialized vocational training for persons with disabilities (CGVB). There are 17 such centres whose task is to provide information, diagnosis and orientation for individual paths, also in the context of the Insertion Path Service (SPI – Service Parcours d’Insertion). According to the report, in 2004, 3 422 persons with disabilities subscribed to the Flemish Fund, were provided with guidance. The Flemish Fund, which will become the Flemish Agency for Persons with Disabilities, evaluates the disability and also provides further guidance.

The report indicates that in the Walloon Region persons with disabilities can follow vocational training once compulsory education is completed. Vocational training may be followed in ordinary structures or in the structures of the AWIPH, i.e. the CFP (Centres de formation professionnelle). In 2004, 825 persons with disabilities attended these centres. In addition, the AWIPH established co-operation agreements with many other vocational training institutions or bodies in order to increase the offer. The report indicates that no figure is available on participation of persons with disabilities in ordinary vocational training structures.

Taking into consideration the estimated number of persons with disabilities, the Committee nevertheless asks for an estimation of all participants to the different kinds of training available.

In Flanders, since 2001, VDAB concluded an agreement with the Flemish Fund in order to ensure that jobseekers with disabilities follow the same path as non-disabled job seekers. This implies that after guidance, the person may be oriented towards ordinary or special training within the ordinary vocational training courses of the VDAB (Flemish Service for Employment and Vocational Training), or vocational training for persons with disabilities in the Specialised Vocational training Centres (CBO). If needed, the person with disability will be oriented towards the Insertion Path Service (SPI – Service Parcours d’Insertion). This option has been included among the activities offered by VDAB in its “employment shops” in order to enlarge the possibilities of training and work for disadvantaged groups as disabled. According to the rules of the SPI a maximum effort must be done to orient persons with disabilities towards ordinary training provided by the VDAB or the ORBEM, eventually with special assistance.

Participation in these forms of training is provided to persons with disabilities who subscribed to the Flemish Fund and received an agreement to participate in training; however, also other categories of persons with disabilities are given the right to participate. All participants receive a salary during the training.

VDAB organizes its own training or training in co-operation with other institutions. In 2002, 170 976 job seekers, of whom 7 % were persons with disabilities (i.e. 10 000) participated in training modules. In 2004, 1 382 persons with disabilities followed ordinary VDAB training. Training in CBO was provided in 2004 to 2 715 persons with disabilities.

In the context of the forthcoming establishment of the Flemish Agency for Persons with Disabilities all guidance and training activities (CGVB, SPI, CBO and VDAB) will be gathered together in order to gain in efficiency. The Committee ask the next report to provide information on the result achieved through this re-organization.

In the Brussels-Capital region, vocational guidance and training is open to persons with disabilities. In addition, special vocational training for this public is organized by a special institution (Brussels-Formation). Finally, the Committee asks the next report to provide information on guidance and vocational training in the German-speaking communities.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes the situation in Belgium is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter on the ground that there is no sufficient anti-discrimination legislation covering education for persons with disabilities.

(Conclusions 2007, vol.1, Conclusions on article 17 – Right of children and young persons to social, legal and economic protection, para.1 – Assistance, education and training)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the Belgian report.

Education

Article 17§1 of Revised Charter contains a reference to the right to education and paragraph 2 guarantees the right to free primary and secondary education. Therefore Article 17 as a whole requires states to establish and maintain an education system that is both accessible and effective. States need to ensure a high quality of teaching and that there is equal access to education for all children, in particular vulnerable groups, including children in rural areas.

The Committee notes that, in accordance with the Constitution of Belgium (Article 24.3.1) everyone has the right to compulsory education free of charge. Education is compulsory, at least part-time, up to the age of 18. In Belgium education is a community competence and all communities guarantee and organise basic and secondary education according to the principles mentioned above.

The Committee recalls that under Article 17§1 equal access to education must be ensured for all children, in particular attention should be paid to children from vulnerable groups such as children from minorities, children seeking asylum, refugee children, children in hospital, children in care, pregnant teenagers, teenage mothers, children deprived of their liberty, etc. Children belonging to these groups must be integrated into mainstream educational facilities and ordinary educational schemes. Where necessary special measures should be taken to ensure equal access to education for these children. However, special measures for Roma children should not involve the establishment of separate schools or classes reserved to this group.

Every child in Belgium is granted access to education and schools are not allowed to use the absence of a residence permit to refuse enrolment. The Committee asks how equal access in guaranteed in the French Community. The Committee notes from the report that in the Flemish Community the 2002 Act on equal opportunities in education guarantees the right of every child to enrol in basic and secondary education. Pre-conditions to enrolment are age or the successful completion of previous education and the acceptance by parents of school regulations and project. Children may be refused enrolment only in a strictly limited number of cases and the governing body or the school board has to justify the refusal or the referral to another school in writing. Local consultation platforms (LOP – Lokale OverlegPlatform) exist with the task, inter alia, of mediating in cases of conflicts on equal opportunities. Pupils of parents who are of the opinion they are wrongfully refused or referred can file a complaint with the Pupils Rights Committee.

The Committee asks in every community whether all disadvantaged groups of pupils mentioned above, including Roma, are ensured equal access and mainstream as far as possible available.

As regards the integration of children with disabilities into mainstream education, the Committee refers to its conclusion under Article 15 of the Revised Charter.

(Conclusions XVI-2 2003, vol.1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para.1 – Vocational training arrangements for disabled persons)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Belgian report.

Education and Vocational training facilities

The Committee recalls that due to the federal structure of Belgium, education and training are the competences of the communities. The education system consists of basic education, secondary education and university and non-university higher education. The Committee refers to its conclusion under Article 10§1 for a decsription of the secondary education system and higher education system. The Committee recalls that the emphasis is placed on integrating persons with disabilities into mainstream educational facilities.

As regards the Brussels-Capital Region, the report provides little information on the measures in place to promote the integration of young persons or adults into mainstream training facilities, nor on the number attending such training facilities. Information is provided on specialised centres, which inter alia, provide training, but not on the number of persons attending these centres.

As regards vocational training in the Walloon Region (under the aegis of the Walloon Agency for the Integration of Disabled Persons), the Committee notes that, in 1999, 4 635 persons requested vocational rehabilitation and 1 341 persons were accepted for training; 593 persons participated in training in enterprises and 518 persons underwent training in special centres. In 2000, 966 persons requested vocational training. There are approximately 696 000 persons with disabilities in the Flemish Community of whom approximately 496 000 are between 14 and 65 years. The Regional Fund for the integration of persons with disabilities has approved 12 centres for the training of persons with disabilities who cannot undertake mainstream training. These centres provided training for 415 persons in 2000.

As regards the German-speaking Community, the report details the various types of training available; training in enterprises, retraining, and training in sheltered workshops, and number of persons who underwent such training (118). The community will also pay for training undertaken in other parts of Belgium or in Germany. Overall the information provided is not sufficient for the Committee to assess the adequacy of vocational training opportunities in Belgium for persons with disabilities. It therefore asks that the next report provide information on the number of persons with disabilities of working age, the number of specialised vocational training facilities in the different regions and the corresponding number of places, the measures in place to promote the integration of persons with disabilities into mainstream vocational training facilities and the number so integrated. It also requests information on the situation of persons with disabilities undergoing vocational training within the school system; measures to assist young persons with disabilities attend mainstream vocational/secondary education facilities, and the number so integrated.

The Committee wishes to know whether general teacher training incorporates special needs education as an integral component.

As regards the equal treatment of nationals of other Contracting Parties and access to vocational training the Committee refers to its conclusion under Article 10.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested the Committee defers its conclusion.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

Bulgaria

(Conclusions 2003, vol. 1, Conclusions on article 17 – Right of children and young persons to social, legal and economic protection, para. 2 – Free primary and secondary education)

Regular attendance at school

The text of Article 17 of the Revised Charter has been revised considerably, in some respects in order to reflect the approach of the Committee under this provision of the 1961 Charter (e.g. reference to mothers has been omitted and now includes legal protection as well as social and economic). Paragraph 1a now contains a reference to the right to education and paragraph 2 guarantees the right to free primary and secondary education.

Therefore Article 17 as a whole requires states to establish and maintain an education system that is both accessible and effective. In assessing whether the system is effective the Committee will examine under Article 17:

whether there is a functioning system of primary and secondary education;
the number of children enrolled in school as a percentage of the number of children of the relevant age;
the number of schools;
class sizes;
the teacher pupil ratio;
whether there is a mechanism to monitor the quality of education delivered and to ensure a high quality of teaching in both public and private schools;
whether education is compulsory in general until the minimum age for admission to employment;
whether there is a fair geographical distribution of schools in particular between rural and urban areas;
whether, considering that equal access to education should be guaranteed for all children, particular attention is paid to vulnerable groups such as children from minorities, children seeking asylum, refugee children, children in hospital, children in care, pregnant teenagers, teenage mothers, children deprived of their liberty etc. and whether necessary special measures have been taken to ensure equal access to education for these children;
the cost of education, whether basic education is free of charge, whether there are hidden costs such as books and uniforms, whether these are reasonable and whether assistance is available to limit their impact;
the number of children dropping out, not completing compulsory education or failing compulsory education, rate of absenteeism, measures taken to encourage school attendance and to reduce dropping out.

The Committee notes the information in Bulgaria’s report.

Section 53 of the Constitution states that everyone has the right to education. School attendance up to the age of 16 years is compulsory. Primary and secondary education in state and municipal schools is free of charge.

Financial assistance and other forms of assistance such as free schoolbooks are also available in certain circumstances to ensure attendance at primary and secondary school. The Committee wishes to receive further details of the circumstances in which assistance is available.

The Committee wishes to receive further information on:

the number of public/private schools,
the geographical distribution of schools,
average class sizes,
number of teachers, the ratio teacher per children,
any mechanism to monitor the adequacy of the educational system.

According to the Public Education Act 1991 pupils whose mother tongue is not Bulgarian, shall have the right, in addition to the compulsory study of the Bulgarian language, to study their own mother tongue in municipal schools. The Committee wishes to receive further information on the measures available for children from minorities, in particular the Turkish-speaking minority.

As regards children with disabilities (children with specific educational needs) and chronic ailments, the Committee notes that on the one hand the Public Education Act 1991 provides for the establishment of specialized schools and auxiliary units for the education of these children, while on the other hand the law on the Protection, Rehabilitation and Social Integration of Disabled Persons 1996 appears to favour integration. The Committee recalls that integrated education for children with disabilities and special needs should be the norm. It notes that according to the observations of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee1 very few children have so far been integrated and apparently only children with impaired hearing. There are, according to these observations, 138 special schools in Bulgaria (including socio-pedagogical boarding houses and reformatory boarding schools) which provided education for a total of 16 346 children, however only 618 children completed primary education and only 199 completed secondary education in 2000/01. Further according to the observations of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee children with intellectual disabilities living in institutions under the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy receive virtually no education or training.

The Committee notes that the situation is not in conformity with the Revised Charter, as children with disabilities are not guaranteed an effective right to education.

It requests the next report to provide information on the measures taken to integrate children with disabilities into mainstream education, the number of children so integrated, the number of children attending special schools, the number completing primary and secondary education in special schools and the measures taken to address the educational needs of the children with intellectual disabilities living in institutions.

Educational facilities are in principle, available for children in detention (socio-pedagogical boarding houses or reformatory boarding schools) to enable them to complete primary or secondary education and to acquire vocational qualifications.

Children seeking asylum have under the Law on Refugees the right to continue their studies until completion of their secondary education.

Children who have been granted refugee status are entitled to free textbooks. Special instruction of Bulgarian is available to children seeking asylum and refugee children.

According to the report, measures have been taken to ensure equal access to education for Roma children and encourage their attendance at school; the Committee wishes to receive more concrete examples of these measures, and information on their results. It notes in this respect that according to the observations from the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee for many Roma children school, even primary school is completely inaccessible and few attend school. Further it notes that separate schools for Roma children exist, although there are initiatives aimed at desegregating them. The Committee considers that while educational policies for Roma children may be accompanied by flexible structures to meet the diversity of the group and may take into account the fact some groups lead an itinerant or semi-itinerant lifestyle there should be no separate schools for Roma children. It wishes to receive further information on the desegregation of Roma schools. The Committee considers that policies on the education of Roma children should be in conformity with, inter alia, the principles laid down in Recommendation No R (2000) 4 of the Committee of Minister to member states on the education of Roma/Gypsy children in Europe and those of the Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities. The Committee finds that the situation is not currently in conformity with the Revised Charter in this respect.

Parents have a responsibility to ensure that their children attend compulsory schooling, and may be subject to a fine if their children do not attend school.

The Committee notes that the rate of school dropouts is significant but that measures are being taken to address this problem.

According to the data provided in the report, 96,3 % of children in elementary school, 82,4% in primary school and 64,7% in secondary school successfully completed the 2000/01 school year. However the observations from the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee cite statistics from the National Statistical Institute, according to which during the 2000/01 school year 28 332 children out of a total of 1 095 747 dropped out of school; 9 546 from grades 1 to 4, 9 782 from grades 5 through 8, and 8 468 from grades 9 through 12.

The report states that for 2001 the overall dropout rate was 1,01 %.

The Committee wishes to know for the next reference period the enrolment rate in compulsory education, the number of dropouts and repetitions.

The Committee notes that the law does not permit the permanent exclusion of a child from school.

The Committee concludes that the situation in Bulgaria is not in conformity with the Revised Charter as children with disabilities and Roma children are not guaranteed an effective right to education.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

C

Croatia
Cyprus

Croatia

(Conclusions XIX-1 2008, Conclusions on article 9 – Right to vocational guidance)

The Committee takes notes of the information provided in Croatia’s report.

As Croatia has not accepted Article 15 of the Charter, measures relating to vocational guidance for persons with disabilities will be dealt with under Article 9.

Vocational guidance within the education system

a. Functions, organisation and operation

The Committee points out that vocational guidance in the education system is the responsibility of the public employment services. However, the latter do work in partnership with local agencies for vocational guidance provided in primary and secondary schools for pupils and parents. The Committee asks whether schools have their own vocational guidance service, including provision for persons with disabilities.

Vocational guidance in the labour market

a. Functions, organisation and operation

The report decsribes the guidance activities carried out during the reference period. These included seminars, special programmes, cooperation between the public employment services and private agencies and the drawing up of new working methods.

The 2002 Act on the Occupational Rehabilitation and Employment of Disabled Persons considerably extended the role of the public employment services with regard to persons with disabilities. The task of the department that has been charged specifically with guidance for people with disabilities is to implement a new approach that facilitates their access to employment. According to the report, these people have restricted access to the labour market because the education system is not suited to their needs and they lack work experience. However, measures have been taken to improve the situation, such as specialised, tailored counselling, special training for counsellors and an analysis of the labour market, in accordance with the needs and the aptitudes of people with disabilities. The report shows that the number of persons with disabilities registering with the employment office decreased during the reference period whereas the number of people who found a job increased. The Committee asks for the next report to decsribe any progress made in the area of guidance for persons with disabilities as a result of the measures taken.

b. Expenditure, staffing and number of beneficiaries

In 2005, 5,892 people with disabilities were registered with the public employment services and 1,034 of these found a job that year. In 2006, 5,790 persons with disabilities were registered and 1,211 found jobs. The Committee asks for the next report to state how many people with disabilities are given vocational guidance.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee defers its conclusion.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

Cyprus

(Conclusions 2008, vol. 1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community, para. 1 – Education and training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in Cyprus’s report and the additional information submitted by the Government on 18 March 2008 in reply to further questions addressed to it by the Committee.

It notes that according to the report, during the reference period updated figures were not yet available as regards:

the total number of persons with disabilities, including the number of children;
the number of students with disabilities following mainstream vocational facilities;
the number of adults with disabilities participating in mainstream vocational training facilities and the possibilities for them to transfer from special to mainstreaming vocational training facilities.

The Committee points out that should this information not be provided in the next report, nothing will establish that the situation of Cyprus is in conformity with Article 15§1.

Anti-discrimination legislation

In its previous conclusion (Conclusions 2007), the Committee asked whether the Law on Education and Training of Children with Special Needs (Law No. 113(I)/1999) conferred an effective remedy on those who were found unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to education. According to the additional information provided by the Government, parents of children with special educational needs may appeal (within thirty days) against the decisions taken by the Special Education and Training District Committee. Following such appeal, if the Committee’s decision is confirmed, parents may still appeal to the higher body (the Central Committee for Special Education and Training.

As regards the explicit prohibition by law of discrimination based on disability in education and training, the Committee notes from another source that Law No. 42(I)/2004 on the combating of racial and other kinds of discrimination (Commissioner for Administration) includes non-discrimination on the ground of “special needs” (terminology used by the Law to refer to persons with disabilities). The Law establishes that the Commissioner for Administration is the national Equality Body empowered, inter alia, with the task of promoting equality of opportunity in numerous areas including education and access to vocational training.

Education and vocational training

The Committee notes from the same source mentioned above that in 2006 the Equality Body examined complaints of lack of suitable accommodation for dyslexic children in exams. In its decision dated 31 October 2006, the Equality Body criticised the Pancyprian School Exams Law (Law No. 22(I)2006). It found that this Law and the one on Education and Training of Children with Special Needs (Law No. 113(I)/1999) introduced indirect discrimination on the ground of special needs in the field of education and asked the Attorney General to revise the laws. The Committee notes from the additional information submitted by the Government in reply to its specific questions in this regard that the 22(I)2006 Law was amended with regard to national exams following the Equality Body’s recommendations and specific instructions concerning the use of computers with a speller and other facilities have been addressed to all Special Education and Training Committees. The Committee requests the next report to highlight any envisaged or adopted amendment of the Law on Education and Training of Children with Special Needs.

The Committee also notes that in 2006 a governmental body applied to the Equality Body for an opinion as to whether terminating the training of a trainee who had acquired a disability during training would constitute discrimination prohibited by law. On 20 September 2006, the Equality Body held that it would indeed amount to less favourable treatment, which is prohibited by law, and recommended that the issue of training be seen separately from the issue of employment for a specific task.1 The Committee wishes the next report to provide information on any follow-up to this decision of the Equality Body.

Finally, the Committee asks the next report to also indicate whether persons with disabilities or other bodies lodged any other complaint with the Equality Body regarding their effective right to access education or vocational training. It also asks whether the Equality Body carried out any investigation or survey in this regard and what were the conclusions thereof.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee concludes that the situation in Cyprus is in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter.

(Conclusions 2007, vol.1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Vocational training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the Cypriot report.

According to the Labour Force Survey, there were 53 369 persons with disabilities in 2002 (12.2 % of the population). The Committee asks for the total number of persons with disabilities, including the number of children (up to 18 years of age).

Education

It should be noted that, in the view of the Committee, Article 15 applies to all persons with disabilities regardless of the nature and origin of their disability and irrespective of their age. It thus also covers both children and adults who face particular disadvantages in education, such as persons with intellectual disabilities. The Committee refers its previous conclusions (Conclusions 2005, Cyprus) where it considered in detail education for children with disabilities as organised on the basis of the Education and Training of Children with Special Needs Law No. 113(I)/1999. While recalling that such legislation lays priority on mainstreaming, it asks whether it also provides for non-discrimination of children with disabilities in education and training and, in particular, whether it confers an effective remedy on those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to education.

The report indicates that, during the reference period, there were 4 123 children with disabilities attending mainstreaming education and 295 of them in special schools, mainly children with learning disabilities. In reply to the Committee, the report explains that children with special needs attending mainstream schools are the majority (77 %); they follow the same curriculum which is adjusted to respond to their needs through an individual action plan. Teachers will make every effort to ensure the child is fully involved in the class activities; if required special assistance is provided. They receive the normal qualifications needed for further studies or entry into the open labour market. The success rate is 77 %.

The report indicates that it is the Ministry of Education who has primary responsibility for special education. There are no special curricula, but these contain a major element of self-help and independence and are adapted on the basis of the needs of the children through an individual education plan. The following are special education institutions: the Schools for the Blind (30 students and 60 pupils in mainstreaming), the School for the Deaf (17 students), the special schools for those to whom the report refers as “trainable” children (295 children). The Committee asks whether the use of the notion of “trainable” implies that some groups of children with disabilities are considered as “non trainable” and therefore denied the right to education.

Vocational training

The Committee refers to its previous conclusion as regards to the organization of vocational training (Conclusions 2005, Cyprus) and notes from the report that the situation as not changed in this respect. Vocational training is also provided in mainstreaming vocational schools. The Committee asks how many students with disabilities follow this option.

In reply to the Committee, the report details the number of persons with disabilities and staff available in the special institutions, which provide inter alia vocational training (the Centre for the Vocational Rehabilitation of persons with disabilities, the Mental Health Services and the Athalassa Hospital, and the Ioannou Foundation).

The Centre for the Vocational Rehabilitation provides training in accordance with the market needs; it offers courses in sectors such as leather goods/shoemaking, furniture, industry, etc., which last about 12 months. Trainees receive a daily allowance. The Government policy is the redistribution of counselling and rehabilitation activities from central providers to a comprehensive community based Health Mental Services in all districts.

Roughly about 450 persons received vocational training and rehabilitation in 2003-2004. Other 29 persons attended vocational training of their own choice on the basis of the programme devoted to this, which also provides reimbursement for the cost of the training.

The Committee reiterates its question on the number of adults with disabilities participating in mainstream vocational training facilities and the possibilities for them to transfer from special to mainstreaming vocational training facilities.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the requested information, the Committee defers its conclusion.

(Conclusions XVI-2 2003, vol.1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para.1 – Vocational training arrangements for disabled persons)

The Committee notes the information in the Cypriot report. The Committee recalls that the situation was previously found to be in conformity with the Charter, but had sought further information on several issues. New legislation, the Law providing for Persons with Disabilities No. 127(I)/2000 was adopted during the reference period. This defines disability as follows:

“ ‘Disability’ with respect to a person, means any type of limitation or handicap which causes permanent, or of indefinite duration, physical, mental or psychological impairment, which taking into account the history and other personal characteristics of that person, reduces or essentially makes impossible the performance of one or more activities or functions considered normal or essential for the quality of life of every person of the same age not suffering from such a limitation or handicap.”

According to the 1992 population census the total number of persons with disabilities was 23 785 (4 % of the population). The number of persons with disabilities of working age was 22 689 (aged 15 years or above), 73,6 % were not working, 25,2 % were in employment and 1,2 % were unemployed. 75,8 % of those in employment were male. The Committee notes that a Council of Persons with Disabilities has been established which is a central coordinating and advisory body dealing with all issues related to disability. It consists of representatives of the government, social partners and organizations representing persons with disabilities. It will advise on national policy on disability, make recommendations for the introduction of legislation and monitor existing measures and programmes.

The Committee had requested further information on the assessment of the vocational skills of persons with disabilities. The report states that there is no official procedure for the assessment of persons with physical disabilities The Committee wishes to know whether such an assessment is likely to be introduced and what the role of the employment service would be in this respect.

Education and Vocational training facilities

The Committee notes that new legislation regarding special education entered into force during the reference period: Law regarding Special Education No.113 (I) 99. The legislation governs the education of persons between the ages of 3 and 18 years who due to a disability have special needs. The law provides for the integration of young persons with special needs into mainstream schools through the provision of assistance or special classes in mainstream schools. However, the Committee notes that this may depend on the mainstream school being “suitably equipped”. It requests further information on this proviso and further as to whether parents may sue the authorities where there is a lack of appropriate provision.

Children whose needs cannot be met in mainstream schools are educated in special schools. A Central Committee on Special Education supervises the activities of district committees, who are responsible for assessing each child’s needs.

The Committee wishes to know whether general teacher training incorporates special needs education as an integral component.

The Committee takes note of the number of children, young persons and adults in special education institutions and other institutions. It notes again that the number of places exceeded the number of persons attending the institutions. It also notes the number of persons with disabilities undergoing training in courses of their own choice (and through self employment and supported employment). It finds the number of persons with disabilities undergoing training in courses of their own choice to be low and wishes to receive further information on measures to enable the integration into mainstream vocational training facilities as well as the total number of persons with disabilities undergoing training in ordinary facilities.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of information requested the Committee defers its conclusion.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

D

Denmark

Denmark

(Conclusions XIX-1 2008, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Education and training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in Denmark's report.

The Committee notes that according to a survey from the National Institute of Social Research about 25% of 16-to-64 year olds had a disability or a long-term health problem in 2006. The Committee recalls that in its previous conclusion (Conclusions XVIII-2), it had noted that the definition of disability in Denmark is based on an environmental perception of disability, a “handicap” caused by the surrounding society’s lack of ability to meet the needs and requirements of people with disabilities.

Anti-discrimination legislation

The Committee recalls that under Article 15§1 it considers necessary the existence of non-discrimination legislation as an important tool for the advancement of the inclusion of children with disabilities into general or mainstream educational schemes. Such legislation should, as a minimum, require a compelling justification for special or segregated educational systems and confer an effective remedy on those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to education. Legislation may consist of general anti-discrimination legislation, specific legislation concerning education, or a combination of the two (Conclusions 2007, Statement of interpretation on Article 15).

In its previous conclusion (Conclusions XVIII-2), the Committee had noted that although Danish legislation on education provided all children with the right to free compulsory education, this did not amount to non-discrimination legislation. It therefore had concluded that the situation was not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter, asking the next report to inform it about progress concerning non-discrimination legislation which appeared to be underway.

In reply to the Committee, the report highlights that an Act on education for young people with special needs was passed in June 2007. The Committee notes that this act addresses primarily young persons, who have intellectual disabilities or persons with special needs, who are unable to complete the mainstream education programme. According to the report, approximately 4,100 young people will be concerned by the implementation of the act.

Since the adoption of this specific legislation falls outside the reference period, the Committee will analyse it during the next supervision cycle covering Article 15 and notes that during the reference period the situation in Denmark continued not to be in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter on the ground that there was no anti-discrimination legislation in the field of education.

As regards the new act of June 2007, the Committee asks the Government to provide comprehensive information on its scope as well as on its impact in practice. In particular, it asks whether non-discrimination on the ground of disability is generally provided for with regard to the field of education. It also specifically asks whether the new legislation requires a compelling justification for special or segregated educational systems and confers an effective remedy on those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to education.

Education

To evaluate the effectiveness of mainstreaming, in its previous conclusion (Conclusions XVIII-2), the Committee had asked for information on attendance of children with disabilities in mainstream compulsory and upper secondary schooling, as well as on any case law and complaints brought to the appropriate institutions.

In reply to the Committee, the report states that children with disabilities attend mainstream primary schools to the extent possible. Compensatory measures, i.e. special aids, special planned teaching materials are made available to approximately 12% of all children in mainstream schools. Children with disabilities who have complex needs are educated in special schools which may be schools twinned with ordinary schools or in special classes in ordinary schools. In 2005/2006 approximately 3.2 % of children received this sort of special education in the public sector. In the private schools the percentage was 0.63. The report remains silent with regard to upper secondary schooling.

As to remedies, the report indicates that decisions concerning children with severe physical and/or intellectual special needs, can be complained against before an impartial complaints board appointed by the Ministry of Education. An estimation from fall 2007 shows, that 313 complaints had been received at the complaints board (equivalent to 1.56 % of the total number of complaints concerning public schools). The report also states that a considerable amount of the complaints are solved on the basis of settlements between parents and the municipality.

Vocational training

The Committee noted in its previous conclusions (Conclusions XVI-2 and XVIII-2) that mainstreaming also applies to vocational training and that students with disabilities – physical and intellectual – are offered special educational assistance in general upper secondary education, vocational education and training and higher education. However, it is not possible to have special educational assistance for adult education. Persons with disabilities who are in employment and undertake further education are entitled to special assistance (Act on Compensation to Disabled people in Employment).

The Committee notes from the report that there has been an increase in the number of hours of personal assistance for disabled persons, from just about 1,080,000 hours in 2003 to just under 1,275,000 hours in 2005. 3,501 persons have been awarded personal assistance in 2005, representing an increase of 11% compared to the previous year. There has also been an increase in the number of grants for personal assistance of a total of 79 persons for vocational and further education in 2005. The report points out that other than these estimates, no other additional data (as referred to those provided in the previous report) were available. Noting the progress highlighted, the Committee asks the next report to provide information on the number of people with disabilities attending vocational training or rehabilitation, receiving a rehabilitation grant as the predominant subsidy or a grant for vocational training at further educational level and at higher educational level.

Furthermore, since no reply was provided to its previous question concerning the impact of the measures taken with respect to vocational training on the subsequent integration of persons with disabilities in the labour market, the Committee reiterates this question. It also reiterates its question concerning the availability of judicial or administrative remedies for those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to vocational training. It refers to its conclusion under Article 15§2 as regards its assessment of remedies available to a disabled person who is refused support for wage-supported employment.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in Denmark is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter on the ground that, during the reference period, there was no legislation explicitly protecting persons with disabilities from discrimination in education.

(Conclusions XVIII-2 2007, vol. 1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Vocational training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the Danish report.

In 2004, the number of persons with disabilities was about 700 000. The Committee notes that the definition of disability in Denmark is based on an environmental perception of disability, a “handicap” caused by the surrounding society’s lack of ability to meet the needs and requirements of people with disabilities.

Education

The Committee recalls that, as stated in the Autism-Europe decision (Autism-Europe v. France, Complaint No. 13/2002, decision on the merits of 4 November 2003, § 48), “the underlying vision of Article 15 is one of equal citizenship for persons with disabilities and, fittingly, the primary rights are those of “independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community. Securing a right to education for children and others with disabilities plays an obviously important role in advancing these citizenship rights”. Under Article 15§1, the Committee therefore considers necessary the existence of non-discrimination legislation as an important tool for the advancement of the inclusion of children with disabilities into general or mainstream educational schemes. Such legislation should, as a minimum, require a compelling justification for special or segregated educational systems and confer an effective remedy on those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to education. Legislation may consist of general antidiscrimination legislation, specific legislation concerning education, or a combination of the two.

The Committee notes that although legislation on education provides all children with the right to free compulsory education, this does not amount to non discrimination legislation. The Committee further notes that such legislation is currently under consideration. It wishes to receive information on the progress on this. Meanwhile, it concludes that the situation is not in conformity.

The Committee notes from an additional source that all education establishments must be physically accessible. Children with disabilities attend mainstream schools to the extent possible. Compensatory measures, i.e. special aids, special planned teaching material etc, may be made available. 10 % of all children in mainstream primary schools receive special assistance. Children with disabilities who have complex needs are educated in special schools which may be schools twinned with ordinary schools or in special classes in ordinary schools. Approximately 1.9 % of children receive this sort of special education.

The report indicates that general teacher training does not include courses in special needs education, but continuing education is provided where necessary. Moreover, a revision of the teacher training act will be undertaken and the inclusion of special needs education as a part of the general training is under consideration.

Following primary education, young persons with disabilities follow the same path as other young persons, i.e. they may undertake a youth education course leading to an upper secondary school leaving examination or a higher preparatory examination or undertake vocational education/or training courses. In most cases it is the individual school/educational institution which is responsible for offering disabled pupils the necessary compensation.

Vocational training

The Committee noted in its previous conclusion that mainstreaming also applies to vocational training (Conclusions XVI-2). The report indicates that students with disabilities – physical and intellectual – are offered special educational assistance in general upper secondary education, vocational education and training and higher education. However, it is not possible to have special educational assistance for adult education. Persons with disabilities who are in employment and undertake further education are entitled to special assistance (Act on Compensation to Disabled people in Employment).

The report indicates that, in 2004, 54 persons with disabilities received personal assistance in vocational training. A project to extend assistance to persons with intellectual disabilities has also been launched; the Committee asks for information about its results.

The Committee notes from the report that rehabilitation consists of job oriented activities as well as financial support which help a person with limited capacity for work to enter or remain in the job market. The local authority decides on the necessary rehabilitation, which can take the form of support for education, training for a job or training taking place in a specific firm.

In reply to the Committee, the report indicates that no statistics are available about the number of people with disabilities attending vocational training or rehabilitation since no such figures are collected. Nonetheless, it provides the number of full time persons who, in 2004, received a rehabilitation grant as the predominant subsidy (23 189). It also gives an estimate of the number of persons with disabilities who receive a grant for vocational training at Further Educational level (3 000) and at Higher Educational level (1 000). The general subsidy system for students following higher education has been improved with respect to persons with disabilities in 2004.

The Committee asks information to be provided in the next report about the effectiveness of the measures taken with respect to vocational training, in particular their impact on the subsequent integration of persons with disabilities in the labour market. It also asks what judicial or administrative remedies are available to those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to vocational training.

The Committee concludes that the situation in Denmark is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter on the grounds that there is no anti-discrimination legislation in the field of education.

(Conclusions XVI-2 2003, vol.1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para.1 – Vocational training arrangements for disabled persons)

The Committee notes the information in Denmark’s report.

The Committee wishes to know what steps, if any, have been made or are planned, to move away from a medical definition of disability towards a more social definition such as that endorsed by the WHO in its International Classification of Functioning (ICF, 2001).

Education and Vocational training facilities

The Committee recalls from previous reports that training policy for persons with disabilities stresses their integration into ordinary training arrangements. Information has previously been provided on training in the context of school education for young persons and on adult labour market training courses (AMU).

All educational establishments must be physically accessible.

Following primary education young persons undertake a youth education course leading to an upper secondary school leaving examination or a higher preparatory examination or undertake vocational education/or training courses, or a course at a production school.

The Committee wishes to know whether general teacher training incorporates special needs education as an integral component.

The current report again states that all Vocational Education and Training institutions (VETs) are obliged to have facilities for persons with disabilities – these are in general for young persons but can also provide continuing education. It states that the number of persons undergoing training in these institutions was 12 238 in 1999 and 13 342 in 2000. The Committee wishes to receive further information on the success rate of measures to encourage the integration of persons with disabilities.

Higher education establishments are individually responsible for granting special assistance to students with disabilities.

Young people who are unable to complete a youth education course in the ordinary education system may instead receive training organised in accordance with the Danish Special Education for Adults Act, which is organised by the individual county authorities.

The Committee wishes to receive updated information on the measures in place to encourage the integration of adults with disabilities into mainstream training. It notes that for continuing training special measures are in place, and that personal assistance for further training is available where the person is already in employment. The Committee wishes to receive information how persons with disabilities are protected against discrimination in access to vocational training.

The current report provides an estimate of the number of persons who attended rehabilitation either at a centre for rehabilitation (20 522 in 2000) or outside (16 498 in 2000). The Committee wishes to receive information on the objectives, form and content of a rehabilitation course.

The Committee recalls that according to the Danish authorities there are no precise statistics on the number of persons with disabilities receiving vocational training/rehabilitation, as vocational training figures include not only persons with disabilities but also persons who are deemed socially disadvantaged. Neither are there statistics available on the number of persons with disabilities of working age. No distinction is made in Danish law between persons with disabilities and those who have reduced working capacity for other reasons. The Committee therefore requests that the next report provide information on the total number of persons with special needs receiving training/rehabilitation in special facilities or in mainstream facilities with special assistance and the number of requests made for rehabilitation or training from this group.

No information on the expenditure for the vocational training of persons with disabilities as a percentage of the overall training budget is provided, the Committee asks that the next report provide figures for the expenditure on measures for persons with special needs. The Committee recalls that it noted in the previous conclusion that a rehabilitation allowance is paid to persons with disabilities who attend an educational, training, or vocational rehabilitation programme. This is in addition to the other types of financial assistance that are available for adults undergoing educational courses. The Committee asked for further information on the conditions for the granting of rehabilitation allowance. The report states that the allowance is granted where:

the individual has a reduced working capacity;
it is likely that training will lead to full or self-support;
the vocational training is not sufficient to ensure social integration

The Committee asks for clarification of the criteriae.

The allowance is intended to cover living expenses and is equivalent to the highest level of unemployment benefit (13 000 Danish crowns (DKK ; 1 748 €) in 2002). The Committee notes that 20 522 persons received rehabilitation allowance in 2000.

From other sources the Committee notes that in addition to the state education grant and loan scheme young persons with disabilities who are studying may be eligible for a rehabilitation allowance, for persons under 25 years the amount is half the adult allowance.

In response to a question put by the Committee previously the report states that following an accident at work or occupational disease an employer can be ordered to pay for hospital treatment or rehabilitation/ retraining which are required to ensure the best possible recovery during the period when the claim is being assessed. The employer can only be ordered to pay costs, which cannot be covered under the Act on Public Sickness Security or as part of the treatment in hospitals.

As regards the equal treatment of nationals of other Contracting Parties the Committee refers to its conclusion under Article 10.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested the Committee defers its conclusion.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

E

Estonia

Estonia

(Conclusions 2008, vol. 1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community, para. 1 – Education and training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in Estonia’s report.

According to the report, in 2006, the total number of persons with disabilities was 107,513 persons, 43,671 of whom were working age persons (aged between 16 and 64). There were 1,872 disabled children aged between 0-6 and 3,938 disabled children aged between 7-15 (i.e. a total of 5,810 disabled children) among the recipients of social benefits. It also notes from the report that in the academic year 2005/2006, there were 27,689 children with special needs. The Committee wishes to receive clarification on the actual number of persons with disabilities (children and adults) and the proportion of these persons living in institutions.

Definition of disability

The Committee recalls that according to the Social Benefits for Disabled Persons Act, a disability is the loss of or an abnormality in an anatomical, physiological or mental structure or function of a person, as a result of which the person needs regular personal assistance, guidance or supervision. Moderate disability is granted to a person who needs regular personal assistance or guidance outside his or her residence at least once a week; severe disability to a person who needs personal assistance, guidance or supervision in every twenty-four hour period; and profound disability to a person who needs personal assistance, guidance or supervision twenty-four hours a day. Pursuant to Section 2 of the above mentioned Act, three parameters are considered when determining whether a person is disabled and what the degree of the disability is: the functions and structure of the body, the individual operational capacity and the participation of the person in community life.

The Committee notes from the report that in 2006, the Estonian Chamber of Disabled People prepared a 64-hour training programme for local government and education specialists (a total of 50 people) to inform them about different types of disabilities, the needs and problems of disabled students and to improve the knowledge of social workers and teachers about disabilities. The project was launched in 2007. The Committee asks the next report to inform it about the impact of this project on the education and training of persons with disabilities.

Anti-discrimination legislation

In its previous conclusions (Conclusions 2005 and 2007), the Committee asked whether the 1992 Education Act and the Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act explicitly prohibit discrimination on the ground of disability.

In reply, the report highlights that the Constitution (Article 12) bans discrimination in all spheres of activities which are regulated and protected by the state. There are no detailed legal provisions to address cases of discrimination on grounds other than sex and/or in fields other than employment. In this regard, the Committee notes from another source that a draft Law on Equal Treatment was submitted to Parliament in 2007 (outside the reference period) and that this will ban discrimination on any ground in almost all spheres of social life.

The Committee reiterates that it considers the existence of non-discrimination legislation to be an important tool for the advancement of the inclusion of children with disabilities into general or mainstream educational schemes. Such legislation should, as a minimum, require a compelling justification for special or segregated educational systems and confer an effective remedy on those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to education (Conclusions 2007, General Introduction, Statement of Interpretation on Article 15§1).

The Committee asks the next report to indicate whether the new Law on Equal Treatment has been adopted and if it includes provisions explicitly protecting persons with disabilities against discrimination in education and training. Meanwhile, the Committee considers that the anti-discrimination legislation in the field of education and training is inadequate.

The Committee takes note of the information provided on the powers of the Chancellor of Justice. It reiterates that it wishes to be informed about any relevant case law on discrimination based on disability relating to education and training.

Education

The Committee refers to its previous conclusions (see Conclusions 2005 and 2007), for a decsription of the legal framework and institutional set-up of education in Estonia. It notes from the report that in the 2005-2006 academic year, 21,406 children with special needs studied in ordinary schools and 6,283 in special schools. The Committee also notes that there are 49 special schools in Estonia.

In its previous conclusion (Conclusions 2007), the Committee noted from another source that children with intellectual disabilities were considered to be mostly segregated in special schools. It therefore asked the Government how the quality of education, sufficient resources, and monitoring is ensured in special institutions, recalling that Article 15§1 requires the inclusion of children with disabilities into general or mainstream educational schemes.

In reply to the Committee, the report reiterates that educational policy in Estonia focuses on inclusion. Every child, including with mental disabilities, has the right to study in a school near to his/her home. The school is obliged to admit the child, create the conditions for the child to study according to his or her abilities and apply support systems if necessary. The report specifies that if the school is unable to create such an environment, it must refer the child to a regular school that complies with the necessary requirements, but it may also refer him/her to a special school. The report then points out that the number of mentally disabled students in special schools is decreasing (2,674 in 2005 and 2,659 in 2006) and the number of students integrated into regular classes is increasing (450 in 2005 and 2006, whilst they were 376 in 2004), and teaching children in regular schools in separate groups is also on the rise (460 in 2005 and 2006, whilst they were 397 in 2004). The implementation of support systems, creation of individual study programmes for students with special needs and the quality of teaching in mainstream schools and in schools for children with special needs is regularly inspected.

Vocational training

The Committee refers to its previous conclusion as regards the decsription of the vocational training system, as well as all types of higher education including university education, which it considered to be in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter. However, the Committee had asked whether the Vocational Educational Institutions Act explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. The report replies by referring to the Constitution. In this regard, the Committee reiterates its above comments on the draft Equal Treatment Law under preparation.

The Committee notes the issuing of Regulation no. 25 on the Conditions and Procedure for Persons with Special Needs Studying in Vocational Educational Institutions, by the Minister of Education and Research in August 2006, which stipulates that activities supporting individual development must be guaranteed to students with special needs acquiring vocational education. The Regulation specifies that individual study plans must be prepared and implemented, regular appraisals must be conducted and transition into working life in cooperation with a company and, if necessary, access to the services of support staff must be organised. The Committee asks the next report to decsribe the impact of this Regulation on the opportunities for persons with disabilities to acquire vocational education. In this regard, the Committee has noted from the report that in 2005-2006, only 2% of all vocational students were students with special needs. Those studying in ordinary vocational schools were between 600 and 700 (the number of graduates in 2005 was 203 whilst 479 continued their studies); whilst 131 students with disabilities studied at the Astangu Vocational Rehabilitation Centre (the only special vocational rehabilitation institution in Estonia), with 26 students graduating from the diagnostic training groups and 47 from vocational training groups.

The Committee also notes that in 2005 56 employed persons with disabilities benefited of a state subsidy (9,600 EEK for three years) to continue training for professional reasons (in 2006, the same subsidy was granted to 51 employed persons with disabilities); whilst a rehabilitation allowance (paid for the active rehabilitation of persons with disabilities of 16 to 65 years of age in rehabilitation institutions) was paid to 1,848 persons with disabilities in 2005 (in 2004 the same allowance had been paid to 1,815 persons with disabilities).

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in Estonia is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter on the ground that the anti-discrimination legislation covering education and training for persons with disabilities is inadequate.

(Conclusions 2007, vol.1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Vocational training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the Estonian report.

According to the report, in 2004, the total number of people at working age who receive incapacity pension or disability benefit was 62 876. The total number of children with disabilities (up to 18 years of age) who received allowances was 6 889. The Committee asks for information on the total number of children with disabilities.

Education

It should be noted that, in the view of the Committee, Article 15 applies to all persons with disabilities regardless of the nature and origin of their disability and irrespective of their age. It thus also covers both children and adults who face particular disadvantages in education, such as persons with intellectual disabilities. The Committee recalls from its previous (see Conclusions 2005, pp. 176-182) conclusion that the legislation in force (the 1992 Education Act and the Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act) guarantees equal access to education to every children and in this context promotes inclusive education for children with disabilities. The Committee asks whether these acts prohibit explicitly non-discrimination and if they require a compelling justification for placing children in special or segregated educational systems.

The report indicates that any complaint of discrimination, including on the ground of disability, can be directed to the Chancellor of Justice, an independent body which has the special powers of an Ombudsman and is authorized to issue binding decisions in cases of discrimination. The Committee asks whether the victim can also initiate civil proceedings, including in order to securing his or her rights to compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the discrimination. It also asks for case law on discrimination relating to education and training to be provided in the next report.

The Committee recalls its previous conclusion (ibid.) where it already took into consideration integration of children with disabilities into mainstream education. In reply to the Committee, the report provides additional information. Under both the 1992 Education Act and the Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act, every child has the right to be admitted to the school which is nearest to his/her home. The ordinary education system includes an obligation on schools to provide various support, such as remedial study, special education teachers, psychologists. If the ordinary school has no appropriate facilities for special needs, it has the obligation to find another school which meets the requirements and suits the pupil. According to the Preschool Childcare Institutions Act, pre-school children with disabilities may attend ordinary facilities with some form of support, special groups in childcare institutions, and special kindergartens. In 2004, there were 1668 children in special groups and 238 children in special kindergartens. Every child has an individual development plan to help him/her integrate into the ordinary system.

Children with disabilities may follow three different curricula: the basic one, a simplified curriculum and a curriculum for pupils with moderate and severe disabilities. These last two curricula are meant for pupils with permanent learning disabilities who also need an individual educational plan. Generally, these pupils attend special grades of ordinary schools or schools for children with special needs. Basic education can be acquired on the basis of the various curricula but the qualification acquired is similar and allows further studies. Basic school final exams can be taken on special conditions and the grading system is flexible. In special schools examinations are organized by the school itself.

According to the report, in 2004, 20 000 children with temporary or permanent learning disabilities or disabled children studied in ordinary grades with adapted curricula if necessary. 5 600 children studied at schools for children with special needs. Special schools are evenly distributed on the Estonian territory. The Ministry for Education has the primary responsibility for ensuring accessibility of schools, as well as providing financing for additional expenses incurred due to special needs.

General teacher training includes a module on special educational needs. In-service training for active teachers is available on special educational needs, counselling and provision of learning support.

The Committee notes from another source that the reform introducing mainstreaming has benefited only partially children with intellectual disabilities, who are still to a large extent segregated in special schools. Many mainstream schools will not enroll children with intellectual disabilities on the ground that they cannot provide the support needed. No statistics are available on the mainstreaming of children with intellectual disabilities, though their participation increased by 25 % in the period 1998-2002. In 2002-03, 5 166 students with intellectual disabilities attended special schools; those with severe or profound disabilities were often placed in residential institution, where the quality of teaching and resources are low.

The Committee notes from this information that the system remains largely non inclusive for children with intellectual disabilities and it asks the Government to comment on the situation. In particular, it asks how the quality of education, sufficient resources, and monitoring is ensured in special institutions. It recalls that Article 15§1 requires the inclusion of children with disabilities into general or mainstream educational schemes and that the lack of “inclusiveness” may give rise to a finding of non conformity.

Vocational training

The Committee recalls from its previous conclusion (ibid.) that all pupils with special needs who have acquired basic education, including on the basis of simplified curricula, are guaranteed with equal opportunities for acquiring vocational education (Government regulation “The conditions and arrangements for the study of the disabled in vocational educational institutions”, which is based on the Vocational Educational Institutions Act). The Committee asks whether this act prohibits explicitly non-discrimination.

The Committee refers to its previous conclusion as regards the decsription of the system. Additionally, the report indicates that, in 2003-2004, 24 vocational education institutions were attended by 925 pupils with special needs. They are admitted on the basis of an individual rehabilitation plan and are provided the support needed; aids; communication support; and personal assistants. Transition programmes to help the move from training to employment are also available. The only special vocational rehabilitation institution, the Astangu Vocational rehabilitation Centre, was attended by 132 students in 2004. Several training options are available, which correspond to the type of basic education received by the students.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information, the Committee concludes that the situation in Estonia is in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

F

Finland
France

Finland

(Conclusions 2008, vol. 1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community, para. 1 – Education and training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in Finland’s report and the additional information submitted by the Government on 19 May 2008 in reply to a further question addressed to it by the Committee.

According to the report, in 2005, the total number of persons with disabilities eligible for statutory disability benefit was 254,000 (entitlement to the benefit requires a substantial disability). Moreover, recipients of benefits under the Services and Assistance for the Disabled Act and the Act on Special Care for the Mentally Handicapped were 120,000. Non-discrimination legislation

The Committee recalls from its previous conclusions (Conclusions XVI-2 and 2007) that the Constitution guarantees equal treatment for persons with disabilities and that the 1998 Basic Education Act (Section 17) guarantees equal education to every child and in this context promotes inclusive education for children with disabilities.

In its previous conclusion, the Committee asked whether the latter act as well as the Act on Vocational Education (No. 630/1998) explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability. The report does not provide a reply to this question, however the Committee notes from another source that the Non-Discrimination Act (No. 21/2004) prohibits discrimination inter alia on the basis of disability in access to education, all types of vocational training and retraining. The Committee asks the next report to clarify whether aspects other than access to education, vocational training and retraining are also explicitly covered by the non-discrimination legislation.

Education

As regards admission and/or transferral of students to special-needs education, the Committee had noted that the Basic Education Act provides for the possibility of lodging an appeal against the decision taken against the will of parents/carers with the state provincial office and that a further appeal against such decision could be lodged with an administrative court. The Committee had asked the report to clarify whether the victim could ask for compensation for the damage suffered as a result of discrimination, as well as information on the existing relevant case law. Since the report does not provide the corresponding information, the Committee reiterates its requests.

In relation to the issue of special-needs education, the Committee notes from the report that in 2005 the percentage of students transferred to such education increased by 7.5% compared to the previous year. It also takes note that the largest proportion of the students transferred had learning difficulties caused by emotional disturbances or social maladjustments. The report also points out that during the school year 2004-2005 more than every fifth student received part-time special needs education for the same reasons. According to the additional information provided by the Government, in 2006, little less than half of the students receiving special needs education were integrated entirely or partly in supported mainstream education. Slightly more than half studied in special groups in comprehensive schools or special institutions. In 2006 there were 176 such institutions. The amount of students in these institutions was slightly under 8,000. Compared to the year 1999 the number of students has decreased by 4,000.

The Committee reiterates its request to obtain information concerning:

figures on mainstreaming in general upper secondary education, including an estimation of how many students have intellectual disabilities;
information on whether general teacher training includes a module on special educational needs.

Vocational training

The Committee notes from the report that in 2005 vocational and career planning services were provided to 6,500 persons with disabilities, representing 20.2% of the total number of persons benefiting from such services (in 2006 the figures decreased: 5,700 persons with disabilities, representing 18.2%).

The Committee also notes from the report that vocational education may be supplemented by training try-outs aimed at giving disabled students an opportunity to orient themselves to workplaces within their fields of interest. The students’ aptitudes for a particular field are studied and verified during these try-outs. The Committee wishes to receive further information on such training and its outcome.

The report points out that rehabilitative instruction and guidance is intended to prepare students with disabilities (particularly those with severe disabilities who cannot participate in education leading to a vocational upper secondary qualification) for work and independent life. Individual rehabilitation plans are prepared to help each student. Teachers providing rehabilitative instruction are supported by multi-skilled support staff (in general one support person for three to five students). The Committee requests the next report to provide figures concerning such instruction (number of disabled persons attending such courses and percentage of those entering into some kind of work relationship thereafter).

Finally, in its previous conclusion the Committee recalled that under Article 10 of the Revised Charter it regards vocational training as encompassing all types of higher education including university education. It considers that this interpretation applies mutatis mutandi to Article 15. Not having received any information in this regard, it reiterates its question concerning access of persons with disabilities to higher education.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee concludes that the situation in Finland is in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter.

(Conclusions 2007, vol.1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Vocational training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the Finnish report. According to the report, in 2004, the total number of persons with disabilities eligible for statutory disability benefit was 203 000. 72 000 (31 %) were of working age (16-65). Entitlement to the disability benefit requires a substantial disability. In addition, there are other persons who need support and services for different functions.

The report indicates that there is no single definition of disability, but that each piece of legislation concerning persons with disabilities refers to its own definition. Nonetheless, the principle underlying every policy measures for persons with disabilities is guaranteeing them with the right and opportunity for integrated living.

Education

The Committee recalls that, as stated in the Autism-Europe decision (Autism-Europe v. France, Complaint No. 13/2002, decision on the merits of 4 November 2003, §48), “the underlying vision of Article 15 is one of equal citizenship for persons with disabilities and, fittingly, the primary rights are those of “independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community. Securing a right to education for children and others with disabilities plays an obviously important role in advancing these citizenship rights”. Under Article 15§1, the Committee therefore considers necessary the existence of non-discrimination legislation as an important tool for the advancement of the inclusion of children with disabilities into general or mainstream educational schemes. Such legislation should, as a minimum, require a compelling justification for special or segregated educational systems and confer an effective remedy on those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to education. Legislation may consist in general antidiscrimination legislation, specific legislation concerning education, or a combination of the two.

The Committee recalls from its previous conclusion that the Constitution guarantees equal treatment for persons with disabilities. It also notes that the 1998 Basic Education Act (Section 17) guarantees equal education to every child and in this context promotes inclusive education for children with disabilities. The Committee asks whether this act explicitly prohibits non-discrimination and if it requires a compelling justification for placing children in special or segregated educational systems. It also asks whether mainstreaming is guaranteed in general upper secondary education.

Pupils who have a moderate learning or adjustment difficulties are entitled to special-needs education alongside other teaching; they have not however the status of children in special-needs education. Pupils who owing to a disability, illness, delayed development, or emotional disturbance may be admitted or transferred to special needs education. As far as possible special-needs education shall be organized in conjunction with other education or else in a special needs classroom or, when mainstreaming is not possible, in some other appropriate facility. The primary objective is that children with disabilities attend the nearest school as any other child.

For pupils in special-need education, school authorities must prepare an individual teaching plan which defines those interpretation and assistant services and other teaching and student welfare services, means of communication and aid material, which are necessary for the pupil’s participation in school.

Children with disabilities are also entitled to start school one year earlier to compensate for their disabilities; moreover, morning and afternoon activities funded by state funds can be arranged for pupils in special-need education.

Parents or carers of the pupil are consulted before his admission or transfer to special-needs education. Section 42 of the Basic Education Act provides for the possibility of lodging an appeal against the decision taken against the will of parents/carers with the state provincial office. A further appeal against the decision taken by the state provincial office can be lodged with an administrative court. The Committee asks whether the victim may ask for compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the discrimination, as well as information on the existing case law.

According to the report, in 2003, altogether 124 137 pupils received part-time special-needs education. A total of 36 839 pupils, i.e. 6.2 % of the age group had been attending or transferred into special-needs education. The Committee asks what percentage of these pupils receives education through the mainstream education system structure, as well as the percentage among them of children with intellectual disabilities. It also asks the next report to provide figures on mainstreaming in general upper secondary education. The Committee reiterates its question as to whether general teacher training includes a module on special educational needs

Vocational training

The Committee notes from the report that mainstreaming applies also at secondary vocational education. General vocational institutions arrange special-needs education primarily in teaching groups common to all students or in special groups. Vocational special education institutions cater for the most difficult students and are responsible, also financially, for providing them with the adequate resources to follow education. The Committee asks whether the Act on Vocational Education (No. 630/1998) explicitly prohibits non-discrimination, as well as provides remedies against discrimination.

Students with disabilities are provided with an individual teaching plan, which defines the support measures needed, such as interpretation and assistant services and other teaching and student welfare services, means of communication and aid material, which are necessary for their participation in teaching. The Act on Services and Assistance for the Disabled contain provisions on services and support measures for persons with disabilities. Students are entitled also to free of charge residence halls, daily meals and the necessary weekly travel at home.

According to the report, in 2005, about 14 500 students were in special-needs education, of which 10 600 studied at general vocational education institutions and 3 900 in special education institutions.

The Committees recalls that under Article 10 of the Revised Charter itregards vocational training as encompassing all types of higher education including university education. It considers that this interpretation applies mutatis mutandis to Article 15. It therefore reiterates its question about access of persons with disabilities to higher education. The report provides also information on other kinds of vocational training provided in the context of rehabilitation available to persons with disabilities. Vocational rehabilitation may be organised by the labour administration, municipalities, and the Social Insurance Institution of Finland. Education and training arranged as vocational rehabilitation may be vocational education or training (basic, further or supplementary training) or general education. The Social Insurance Institution compensates the rehabilitee for reasonable and necessary costs of education and training through the payment of a rehabilitation allowance. In 2004, 3 000 young persons under 25 years of age received vocational rehabilitation through the Social Insurance Institution.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information, the Committee concludes that the situation in Finland is in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter.

(Conclusions 2007, vol.1, Conclusions on article 17 – Right of children and young persons to social, legal and economic protection, para.1 – Assistance, education and training)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the Finnish report.

Education

The Committee notes from another source that, in accordance with the Constitution of Finland, everyone has the right to basic education free of charge. Provisions on the duty to receive education are laid down by law. According to the Constitution, the public authorities shall, as is provided in more detail by the law, guarantee for everyone an equal opportunity to receive other educational services in accordance with their ability and special needs, and an opportunity to develop themselves without being prevented by economic hardship. This provision, which is enacted in section 16, subsection 2, of the Constitution, gives individual citizens the right to lifelong education. The right is not guaranteed as a subjective right in the way basic education is guaranteed, but the provision implies that the public authorities are under an obligation to make the practical arrangements required to ensure that a variety of educational services are available in the country.

According to the Act on Basic Education (No. 1288/1999), a child who attends class shall have a statutory right to receive education and counselling based on the curriculum on working days. The education shall be arranged so that it corresponds to the child’s age and capabilities. The Act on Upper Secondary Schools (No. 629/1998) and the Act on Vocational Education (No. 630/1998) regulate secondary education.

The Committee notes from another source that the legislation on education provides for education in Sami; however, in practice, teaching in Sami is mostly available at lower comprehensive level. Upper secondary schools do not provide education in Sami because the leaving examination is taken in Finnish or Swedish.

As regards Roma children, they belong to statutory education, but their attendance is low and drop-out particularly high. Out of the estimated 10 000 Roma children of statutory school age only 1 700 are in comprehensive schools and only 250 of them are taught Romani language. Several measures, such as the development of teaching material in Romani, the specific training of teachers, as well as methods to prevent social exclusion and drop-out, have been implemented. The Committee asks the next report to provide information on the results achieved, as well as whether Roma children are generally integrated into mainstream education or attend special classes.

As regards the integration of children with disabilities into mainstream education, the Committee refers to its conclusion under Article 15 of the Revised Charter.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee concludes that the situation in Finland is in conformity with Article 17§1 of the Revised Charter.

(Conclusions XVI-2 2003, vol.1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para.1 – Vocational training arrangements for disabled persons)

The Committee notes the information in Finland’s report.

The Committee wishes to know what steps, if any, have been taken or are planned to move away from a medical definition of disability towards a social definition such as that endorsed by the WHO in its International Classification of Functioning (ICF, 2001).

Education and Vocational training

In Finland there are 218 providers of basic vocational education and 12 specialized vocational training institutions for persons with disabilities. There were 9 500 persons undergoing vocational training in the specialized institutes in 2000. The Committee notes that this is a substantial increase on 1996-1997 and wishes to receive the Government’s comments on this. It further wishes to receive information on the number of persons with disabilities in the 218 ordinary institutions and the measures in place to enable the integration of persons with disabilities into these establishments.

As regards general secondary education the Committee wishes to know how many young persons with disabilities attend mainstream facilities and how many attend special facilities and what measures are in place to encourage integration. It also wishes to receive information on measures taken to enable persons with disabilities attend university. Vocational training and rehabilitation is also provided by the National Pension Institution (Kela) and the Labour Market Administration (for adults). According to the information provided in the report, 8 248 persons job seekers with disabilities started labour market training in 2000 and 1 329 job seekers with disabilities started other types of training. The Committee again requests more complete information on the different types of vocational training available to persons with disabilities and the different types of benefits/allowances available. Further it seeks information on the expenditure on such training and the proportion of such expenditure of the overall budget for vocational training.

The Committee notes the information provided in the report on the qualifications of staff involved in the vocational training and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities. The Committee wishes to know whether general teacher training incorporates special needs education as an integral component.

The Committee notes under Article 15§2 that the Constitution protects persons with disabilities from discrimination and guarantees equal treatment. The Committee wishes to know whether these guarantees extend to access to education and training.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in Finland is in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

France

(Conclusions 2008, vol. 1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community, para. 1 – Education and training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes notes of the information provided in France’s report as well as the additional information submitted on 13 October 2008.

The report indicates that during the reference period:

it was estimated that there were 255,500 young persons (aged under 20) with disabilities (despite the Committee’s request, there is no information on how many of them suffered intellectual disability);
151,500 young persons with disabilities were educated in mainstream schools (104,800 in primary and 46,700 in secondary);
76,300 disabled children were educated in special medical-social or hospital-based establishments (70,100 of whom were in special establishments, even though the latter had a total capacity of 108,000);
about 15,000 – 20,000 disabled children of compulsory school age were not at school (a quarter of whom were awaiting a solution while the others, who apparently were severely mentally retarded, were in establishments offering educational activities designed to develop their cognitive functioning.

Definition of disability

The Committee observes that the Act of 11 February 2005 adopts the approach of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and states that, for the purposes of the legislation, disability constitutes any activity limitation or restriction on participation in social life suffered by individuals in their environment as a result of a substantial, lasting or permanent change to one or more physical, sensory, mental, cognitive or psychological functions, multiple disability or activity-impairing disease.

Anti-discrimination legislation

The Committee notes the entry into force of Act 102/2005 of 11 February 2005 on equal rights and opportunities, participation and citizenship of persons with disabilities. The Committee observes that the new legislation provides satisfactory coverage of the subject matter of Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter.

Education

Under Act 102/2005 of 11 February 2005:

Individual education in an ordinary class should be the rule. Disabled pupils are legally entitled, like any other pupil, to be registered in the school or educational establishment of their sector, which is their reference establishment.
All pupils with disabilities (whether they attend an ordinary school or a special medical-social establishment) must have a personal education plan (PPS), as one element of their personal remedial plan, drawn up by a multidisciplinary team from the département disabled persons’ unit (MDPH) and notified to the parents or the family’s legal representative by the rights and autonomy commission of the MDPH.
On the basis of the PPS, the rights and autonomy commission of the MDPH decides on the pupil’s type of education and any aid and support that might be necessary. In the event of disagreement between parents and the commission, a qualified person is appointed to conciliate. Parents may also appeal against the commission’s decisions to the same authority or to the courts.
Whatever the place of education, each disabled pupil has a specialist teacher appointed to act as reference person. Reference persons are responsible for ensuring that personal education plans are properly applied and that relations are maintained with pupils and their parents throughout the whole period of education. They convene and chair regular meetings of the education monitoring team, which maintains contact with each child and the parents and is composed of all those (including persons outside the education department, concerned with the PPS. The monitoring team assesses the PPS and its progress at least once a year and may suggest modifications to the multidisciplinary team.

The report states that the new arrangements were introduced at the start of the school year in 2006 (i.e. at the end of the reference period), but have not yet been fully implemented. The Committee asks for information on the implementation of these new arrangements and their impact in terms of integrating young disabled persons into the various tiers of education – primary, secondary and tertiary.

According to the report, mainstream schooling can take two forms:

So-called “individual” schooling in mainstream classes, if necessary with the aid of special equipment or teaching auxiliaries, and/or the support of special teachers. In 2005-2006, 104,000 pupils with disabilities (65,000 in primary and 39,000 in secondary) received full or part-time individual schooling in an ordinary class. The number has apparently doubled since 1999.

So-called “collective” schooling of a group of up to 12 children with the same type of needs in special units within mainstream schools. The education is organised and provided by a special teacher. As part of his or her personal plan, each child within such units will also spend time in mainstream school classes. In 2005-2006, more than 47,000 pupils were educated in such integrated collective units, of whom 39,300 were in 4,000 integrated units (CLIS) in primary schools and 8,400 in 900 educational units (UPI) in junior and senior secondary schools.

The report acknowledges that the number of secondary, UPI, units is inadequate to ensure that all disabled pupils can continue on to secondary education. Even though by the start of the 2006-2007 school year, the figure had risen to 1,028, it is planned to open 2,000 by 2010. The Committee wishes to be informed of progress on this initiative, which according to the report should enable a much greater number of mentally impaired pupils to be educated in junior and senior vocational schools. It also asks for statistics in the next report on the actual number of such pupils benefiting from the planned opening of these additional UPI places.

The Committee notes the answers in the report to its questions on special education in the last conclusion (Conclusions 2007). It notes that the education ministry is responsible for teaching whereas the management of the establishments concerned, which are financed from the health insurance budget and provided by voluntary associations, comes under the ministry of health. As some of its previous questions remain unanswered, the Committee reiterates in particular the following:

what sort of qualifications special education syllabuses lead to;
whether these qualifications are recognised for the purposes of continuing to further education or entering vocational education or the open labour market;
the success rate in progressing to vocational training, further education or the open labour market.

Moreover, the Committee notes from the report that since 2001 the number of places in special establishments has fallen by 6% and this decline seems to have been offset, since 2006, by places offered by so-called educational and domiciliary care services (SESSAD). The Committee asks for precise figures on SESSAD places, including the number of places taken by young mentally disabled persons. It also asks what measures are planned to reduce the total number of disabled persons who are not being educated.

Vocational training

As the report contains no new information on the subject the Committee repeats its questions (Conclusions 2007) concerning:

the number of persons receiving initial and continuing training in mainstream and specialised establishments;
the number of requests for admission to mainstream and specialised establishments;
arrangements for facilitating the integration of disabled persons and ensuring that the great majority of them can benefit from mainstream vocational training.

Follow-up of collective complaint Autism-Europe v. France (complaint no.13/2002, decision on the merits of 4 November 2003)

In its last conclusion (Conclusions 2007), the Committee noted that a series of measures were introduced to reduce the low level of schooling of persons suffering from autism. It also considered that some results had already been achieved. However, in the absence of all the relevant information, in particular statistics to show that those concerned really benefited from these measures, it concluded that the situation was not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter, on the ground that equal access to education (mainstreaming and special education) of persons with autism was not yet guaranteed in an effective manner.

The report states that the Autism Plan 2005-2007 planned to establish 1,436 places for autistic persons in special education establishments and 350 in educational and domiciliary care services (SESSAD). According to the additional information submitted in October 2008, the Committee notes the authorisation and financing of 1,180 such places in establishments for autistic persons, as well as the authorisation and financing of the 350 places in SESSADs. Moreover, 1 300 places in Maisons d’Accueil Spécialisées (“MAS”) and Foyer d’Accueil Médicalisé (“FAM”) for adults with autism were authorised and financed during the same three years. The Committee however asks how many such places were effectively created and how many autistic persons took advantage of them during the reference period since such essential information was not provided. The information therefore continues to be insufficient for the Committee to decide whether tangible progress has been made towards securing autistic children’s access to education. It repeats its request for information to enable it to determine whether and if so how the measures introduced and planned will really contribute to the schooling of persons suffering from autism.

The Committee notes that a new Autism Plan 2008-2010 has been announced. It will examine its content and impact during the next monitoring cycle concerning Article 15§1.

According to the report, the professional recommendations issued by the health authority responsible for the screening and early diagnosis of autism in children are based on the WHO definition of autism, as embodied in the 2005-2007 autism plan. However, the report does not say what changes have resulted in practice from the use of this definition. The Committee therefore reiterates its question.

The Committee finds that the additional information provided in the report is not sufficient to make it reconsider its previous conclusion on equal access of persons with autism to mainstream and special education.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in France is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter on the ground that it has not been established that persons with autism are guaranteed effective equal access to education (mainstreaming and special education).

(Conclusions 2007, vol.1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Vocational training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in France’s report.

Act No. 102/2005 for equal rights and opportunities, participation and citizenship of persons with disabilities was adopted in February 2005 (outside the reference period). Due to the fact that Article 15 will be again under examination in 2008, the Committee does not proceed with an analysis of this legislation in the present conclusion.

The report does not provide the total number of children with disabilities (up to 18 years of age). The Committee notes from other sources that this is estimated to be around 250 000. The Committee asks what of this percentage are children with intellectual disabilities.

Education

The report indicates that during the reference period there was antidiscrimination legislation providing, on the one hand, for criminal sanctions and, on the other hand, for remedies for the victims. The Committee asks whether any civil cases have been brought or whether criminal sanctions have been imposed under this Law.

The legal framework has been supplemented by Act No. 102/2005 for equal rights and opportunities, participation and citizenship of persons with disabilities. In 2004, the High Authority fighting against discrimination and for equality (HALDE) was also established. It is competent to examine all forms of direct and indirect discrimination, including on the grounds of disability. Its tasks are treating discrimination cases and promoting equality. The HALDE is a nonjudicial body with wide powers of investigation that can be seized by the victim, or a representative of the victim of discrimination. The HALDE may also decide to examine a discrimination case by itself when the victim agrees and it can play the role of mediator. The Committee asks the next report to provide information on the work of HALDE relating to disability discrimination.

In reply to the Committee, the report decsribes the efforts which have been carried out during the reference period to increase the number of the collective integration mechanisms (CLIS at primary level and UPI at secondary level). The number of UPIs increased to 597 in 2003 from 320 in 2002.

According to the report, mainstreaming of pupils in the ordinary school environment (both primary and secondary) increased from 89 000 pupils in 2002-2003 to 144 000 pupils in 2004-2205 (64 200 in the last conclusion). At primary level 59 898 of mainstreamed pupils have intellectual disabilities (62.1 %); 19 000 pupils go to school part time but they benefit from additional education, i.e. attending special education (établissements médico-sociaux). 1 587 do not benefit of any other form of education. 22 % of these children with disabilities do not have a personal education Plan. At secondary level, 12 369 have intellectual disabilities (33 %); 2 982 students with disabilities go to school part-time but receive additional forms of education and 478 do not receive any additional education. Finally, 30.7 % of these students do not have a personal education Plan.

The Committee observes that notwithstanding the progress, at secondary level, persons with disabilities attending ordinary education represent 0.67 % of the total number of students enrolled. It notes from other sources, mainly information from NGOs such as Autism-Europe that between 10 000-20 000 children are left with no provisions. It therefore asks what percentage of children with disabilities aged 6-18 are mainstreamed; how many children are excluded; and how it is foreseen to remedy, in particular for children with intellectual disabilities.

Specialised personnel dedicated to pupils with disabilities may consist of itinerant teachers, home schooling (SAPAD), and personal assistants (AVS – auxiliaires de vie scolaire). The number of personnel increased to reach 6 700, the majority of them working in the context of individual integration (4 400) and the rest in the CLIS and UPI. In 2004-2205, 13 167 pupils benefited from this service in comparison to 9 600 in 2003-2004. However, the report indicates that this means that only 16 % of primary level pupils with disabilities benefit from this form of support and 11.8 % of the secondary level students. The availability of the specialised personnel is crucial to mainstreaming; therefore the Committee asks what measures have been taken to raise the number of assistants.

The Committee observes that although the number of mainstreamed children grew, many of them are not guaranteed an effective education due to the low number of personal development plan and specialised personnel. It therefore requires information on further measures taken to redress the situation.

Initial teacher training touches upon the special needs of children with disabilities. Teachers who wish can receive specialised training (400 hours) on primary education for children with disabilities, this training having been reformed in 2004. Similarly, specialised training for the secondary level (150 hours) is available. Additional training on particular disabilities is also available.

Special education (établissements médico-sociaux) continues to cater for those persons with disabilities who cannot attend ordinary education. An effort has been done to diminish the places in establishments and develop more open forms of education such as extra-muros special education, home education. In 2001, 131 070 persons with disabilities attended specialised institutions, which is almost the same number as in the previous reference period. The report indicates that teachers working in the socio-medical institutions received the same training as general teachers and additional certificates to acquire competencies. There are about 5 000. Their competencies are regularly controlled. An individual project is elaborated for every child by the teachers, the competent bodies and the parents. The Committee asks whether these institutions cater for all persons with disabilities, intellectual or other, which are not included in ordinary education.

With respect to special education, the Committee asks the next report to provide information on the following issues:

whether the Ministry of Education has primary responsibility;
how the curriculum is designed and whether the curriculum and the abovementioned individual study plans and rehabilitation programmes are validated/adopted by the Ministry for Education;
what kinds of qualifications does the curriculum lead to and whether they are recognised in order to enable progress into further education or to gain entry to vocational education or the open labour market;
what the success rate is in progressing into vocational training, or further education or into the open labour market;
whether the quality of education is monitored by mainstream monitoring mechanisms.

Vocational training

Equal treatment for access to vocational training of persons with disabilities is provided by Act No. 391/2004 on long-life vocational training, as transposed in Article L 323-3 of the Labour Code. Act No. 102/2005 for equal rights and opportunities, participation and citizenship of persons with disabilities has strengthened this principle. The Committee observes the information provided about the role of the High Authority fighting against discrimination and for equality (HALDE).

The Committee notes that, like the previous one, the report provides a general decsription of the different institutions providing vocational training to persons with disabilities. It also gives the global number of participants (43 701 in 2004) which is similar to that of the previous reference period (44 296 in 2000). But it is again not clear whether this number includes those persons attending vocational training in the context of Adapted Enterprises (EA replacing AP) and the institutions for assistance to work (ESAT replacing CAT).

The Committee therefore reiterates its previous questions, namely: how many persons receive training through mainstream structures, how many through specialised structures, (both for initial and continuing training) how many requests are made for admission to mainstream and specialist provision. Further it asks for more details on the measures in place to facilitate integration and ensure that the vast majority of persons with disabilities are able to participate in mainstream vocational training.

The Committees recalls that under Article 10 of the Revised Charter it regards vocational training as encompassing all types of higher education including university education. This interpretation applies mutatis mutandis to Article 15. The report indicates that 8 000 students with disabilities attend higher education, 6 000 at universities. The State provides universities with specific funding to allow access of student with disabilities. The Committee observes this to be a low percentage and asks which measures are planned to improve the situation.

Follow-up to Complaint Autism-Europe v France (Autism-Europe v. France, Complaint No. 13/2002, decision on the merits of 4 November 2003)

The Committee recalls that in its decision on the merits of the Autism- Europe complaint it found the situation in France not in conformity with Article 15§1 whether alone or read in combination with Article E of the revised European Social Charter. The ground of non-conformity was that “the proportion of children with autism being educated in either general or specialist schools is much lower than in the case of other children, whether or not disabled. It is also established, and not contested by the authorities, that there is a chronic shortage of care and support facilities for autistic adults”. Moreover, the Committee found that “the French official documents, in particular those submitted during the procedure, still use a more restrictive definition of autism than that adopted by the World Heath Organisation and that there are still insufficient official statistics with which to rationally measure progress through time”.

The Committee observes that following the complaint a series of measures have been taken to remedy to the situation and some results have been henceforth achieved.

As regard the legal framework, the first step taken following the Committee’s decision was the Autism Plan 2005-2007, which provided for the increase of the places for persons with autism in special education and for a revision of the educational methodology. Both the WHO definition of autism and the prevalence rate most commonly used at international level were retained. The Committee asks whether this change has been taken into account in practice and what development it has brought. Inter-ministerial Circular No. 124 of 2005 further detailed the commitments in terms of developing places and the tools for better evaluating and tackling autism. Finally, Act No. 102/2005 for equal rights and opportunities, participation and citizenship of persons with disabilities entered into force. One of the main points of the new legislation is the priority given to mainstreaming with the obligation for every pupil to be enrolled in the nearest school, as well as the obligation to draw up an individual schooling project for every child with disabilities. Improving evaluation techniques, which is the task of the Departmental Houses for Persons with disabilities, research and statistics are also principles set out in the law.

In practice, the Government’s commitments in the Plan for the 2005-2007 period consisted in creating 801 new places for children and teenagers with autism; 1 200 places in special medical institutions for autistic adults (MAS and FAM); and a resource centre on autism in each region by the end of 2006. Moreover, persons with autisms could also benefit from the general measures for persons with disabilities, i.e. the creation of 3 750 places in SESSAD, 66 projects of CAMPS and 4 500 places for nursing services at home. The Plan also provided for the improvement of the early diagnosis, the evaluation of the educational methodology, and the creation of regional and national institutions dealing with autism.

The Committee observes from the additional report submitted by the Government on the follow-up given to the decision that the following results have been achieved:

recommendations on the early diagnosis of autism have been elaborated and are currently spread among medical and nonmedical staff;
the Departmental Centres for Autism (CRA) have been established;
801 places for children and 678 for adults were financed in 2005; respectively 250 and 400 in 2006; and a similar provision is expected for 2007;
recommendations on evaluation methods are still to be prepared;
national and local institutions are on the way of being established.

As regards mainstreaming of autistic persons, the report indicates that the implementation of Act No. 102/2005 should increase the integration of children with autism, but statistics are not yet available. Circular No. 124 in particular requires the Health and the Education Ministries to work together to allow a better co-ordination of special and mainstream education for this category of disabled. Finally, the publication in 2007 of a guide for teachers on students with behavioural troubles will be published.

The Committee takes note of the measures taken by the Government; however, it also observes that according to an official source, at the end of 2005, only 38 % (301) of the 801 places for autistic persons financed in 2005 have been actually established. Moreover, in order to achieve the 2005 objective only 170 places were foreseen for 2006 and 27 for 2007. From another table resuming the programme for the years 2005-2007 it appears no place is foreseen for 2007.

The Committee recalls that it found the situation critical at the time of its decision on the merits of the complaint in terms of the lack of places for autistics in special education (socio-medical institutions). Though there has been indeed progress, information is contradictory, especially for the years 2006/2007, and provides the Committee with no sufficient evidence that there has been measurable progress. In particular it is not clear whether the credits made available in 2005 to finance the Plan continued into 2006 and 2007 to achieve the initial objectives and what is foreseen beyond.

With respect to mainstreaming, the additional report indicates that the general progress in integration will certainly benefit persons with autism but no data is available. the Committee recalls that when it is generally acknowledged that a particular group is or could be discriminated against, the state authorities have a responsibility for collecting data on the extent of the problem (ERRC v. Greece, Complaint No. 15/2003, decision on the merits of 8 December 2004, §27). The gathering and analysis of such data (with due safeguards for privacy and against other abuses) is indispensable to the formulation of rational policy (ERRC v. Italy, Complaint No. 27/2004, decision on the merits of 7 December 2005, §23). The Government states that the lack of statistics will be solved by the new Act No. 102/2005. The Committee asks the next report to clarify this issue.

The Committee recalls that the measures taken must meet the following three criteria: (i) reasonable timeframe; (ii) measurable progress; and (iii) financing consistent with the maximum use of available resources. In the light of the information available it considers that the Government has failed to meet these three criteria.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in France is not in conformity with Article 15§1 on the ground that equal access to education (mainstreaming and special education) of persons with autism is not yet guaranteed in an effective manner.

(Conclusions 2003, vol. 1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community, para. 1 – Vocational training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee considers that the explicit reference to ‘education’ in Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter brings important aspects of the right to education for children with disabilities within the remit of that sub-paragraph. Already under Article 15§1 of the 1961 Charter, the Committee had assessed general education schemes to test them for their level of inclusiveness and had held that States were required to make tangible progress towards the development of inclusive education systems.

In so far as Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter explicitly mentions ‘education’, the Committee considers necessary the existence of non-discrimination legislation as an important tool for the advancement of the inclusion of children with disabilities into general or mainstream educational schemes. Such legislation should, as a minimum, require a compelling justification for special or segregated educational systems and confer an effective remedy on those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to education.

The Committee notes the information in the French report.

Act No.75-534 of 30 June 1975 (People with Disabilities (Policy) Act (Loi d’orientation en faveur des personnes handicapées) aims to ensure that every person with a disability attains the highest degree of autonomy, development and social integration. Section 1 provides that “The prevention and detection of handicaps and the provision of care, education, training and vocational guidance, employment, guaranteed minimum resources, social integration and access to sports and leisure activities, for young and adult persons suffering from physical, sensory or mental disabilities, constitutes a national obligation.”

According to the report there are an estimated 4 749 000 people with disabilities between the ages of 16 and 64 years in France.

The Committee wishes to know what steps, if any, have been made to move away from a medical definition of disability and towards a more social definition such as that endorsed by WHO in its International Classification of Functioning (ICF 2001).

Education

The Committee notes that the principle of integration is found in legislation. Act No 75-534 of 30 June 1975 provides that all children with disabilities have the right to education and fixes as a priority their integration into mainstream education. This principle was, according to the report, reaffirmed in Act No 89-486 of 10 July 1989 (Loi d’orientation sur l’éducation).

The project “handiscol” assists in the integration of children with disabilities into schools; it provides information, assistance in improving access to school establishments, training of teachers, the supply of support staff to accompany children who need to be accompanied etc. Different forms of integration are possible: individual or collective, ordinary or specialised, full time or part time. According to the report integration is a dynamic process, for example it may start off part time and then progress to full time.

An individual project must be drawn up for every child in conjunction with the child’s family, the teachers and other persons concerned, in liaison with the regional commission for special education (CDES).

In individual integration the child is integrated into a mainstream class, collective integration is realised through small classes of children with disabilities in a mainstream school with specialised teachers.

Currently collective integration takes place in primary schools (écoles élémentaires) and to a lesser extent in secondary schools (collèges). “Classes d’intégration scolaire” (CLIS) have been in place in primary schools since 1992 and have a maximum of twelve pupils recognised as having a disability by the CDES, they follow as far as possible the usual syllabus. These classes are specialised according to disability; intellectual (CLIS 1), auditory (CLIS 2), visual (CLIS 3) and Motor (CLIS 4).

In secondary schools (collèges) “unités pédagogiques d’intégration” (UPI) were established in 1995 to ensure the education of children with mental disabilities, in fact they are the continuation of the CLIS 1. These classes have a maximum of ten students aged between 11 and 16 years and are for those who are not yet ready to be fully integrated into the mainstream classes but who do not need “special schooling “. It is planned to extend these units and to provide facilities to persons with other types of disabilities (types 2, 3, and 4). The Committee wishes to be kept informed of all developments in this area.

The Committee wishes to receive information about collective integration in higher secondary schools (lycées) and infant schools (maternelles).

According to the report the number of children integrated (either collectively or individually) into mainstream schooling is as follows:

Individual integration in infant and primary schools:
- part time 6 000 pupils
- full time 18 000 pupils
Individual integration into secondary schools (collège and lycée):
- part time 1 200 pupils
- full time 15 000 pupils
Collective integration in primary schools:
- 20 000 pupils with mental disabilities
- 1 200 pupils with motor disabilities
- 2 000 pupils with sensory disabilities
Collective integration at secondary level (collège only):
- 800 pupils with mental disabilities.

The Committee wishes to be informed of the number of children with disabilities integrated into mainstream schooling, in particular the number of those at secondary level (collège). It further wishes to be kept informed of the measures taken to assist the integration process and the resources and funding available for this.

The Committee also notes that special schools exist “établissement médico-social” for children who cannot be integrated into mainstream schooling. According to the report, 129 350 children and young persons are educated in these establishments.

The Committee notes from the figures provided that the number of children integrated into mainstream education remains substantially lower than the number attending special schools. It therefore finds that progress in implementing the relevant legislation has been slow. It wishes to receive the Government’s comments on this. Meanwhile it defers its conclusion on this point.

With respect to the modalities of the right to an equal effective education in the mainstream the Committee wishes to receive information on the following issues: (1) whether and how the normal curriculum is adjusted to take account of disability, (2) whether and how individualised educational plans are crafted for students with disabilities, (3) whether and how resources follow the child (including support staff and other technical assistance) to enable such plans to be implemented, (4) whether and how testing or examining modalities are adjusted to take account of disability and whether the fact that examinations are taken under non-standard conditions is revealed to third parties who, the Committee feels, has no right to such information, (5) whether the qualifications that eventuate are the same for all children or whether different qualifications ensue. If so, are these qualifications officially recognised and validated and do they have the same functional value to the individual as the mainstream qualification. In order to evaluate this, the Committee is interested to learn what the relative progression rates are for such children into employment or further education.

With respect to special education the Committee is particularly interested in the following issues: (1) whether the Ministry of Education has primary responsibility as it should, (2) how the curriculum is designed and whether it is validated /approved by the Ministry for Education, (3) whether individualised education plans are crafted and the process by which they are determined, (4) what kinds of qualifications does the curriculum lead to and whether they are recognised in order to progress forward into further education or to gain entry to vocational education or the open labour market, (5) what the success rate is in progressing into vocational training, or further education or into the open labour market, (6) is the quality of education monitored by mainstream monitoring mechanisms.

The Committee asks whether regular teacher training incorporates special needs education as an integral component.

At third level education the integration of persons with disabilities takes place at the individual level only; measures to facilitate integration are the responsibility of the institution concerned. The Committee asks whether the state provides any assistance to third level institutions or to the individuals concerned in order to facilitate the attendance of these institutions by persons with disabilities.

The Committee observes that the cost of transport of persons with disabilities to school and university establishments is borne by the state.

Vocational training

Legislation provides for the vocational training and employment of persons with disabilities: Act No 87-517 of 10 July 1987 on the Promotion of the employment of disabled workers.

As regards vocational guidance the Vocational Guidance and Retraining Boards (COTOREP) which are established in every département provided employment guidance in 2000 to 78 725 persons in mainstream employment, 52 637 in sheltered employment and provided 17 558 persons with training guidance.

The Committee observes as regards vocational training that according to the report 44 296 persons with disabilities received vocational training in 2000 through different channels, mainstream and specialised. The Committee seeks confirmation that this figure does not include those undergoing vocational training in Ateliers protégés (AP) or Centres d’aide par le travail (CAT).

The Committee recalls from its conclusions under Article 10 that initial vocational training is provided in France both in schools (vocational and technical upper secondary schools) and through apprenticeship schemes. Continuing training is offered both in the private and public sectors. The report provides information on training provided by the Ministry of Labour through different programmes, by the regional councils (conseil régionaux) and by the association for the vocational training of adults.

Assistance for the vocational training of persons is available from the Association for the management of the disabled person’s integration fund (AGEFIPH). This assistance may take the form of financial assistance, technical assistance or personal assistance.

The specialised bodies offering vocational training are Ateliers protégés (AP) and Centres d’aide par le travail (CAT) (see conclusion under Article 15§2). Further occupational rehabilitation centres (CRP) provide vocational training to adults and centres médico-sociaux provide training to young persons.

On the basis of the information before it the Committee is unable to determine the adequacy of the structures in relation to needs; how many persons receive training through mainstream structures, how many through specialised structures, (both for initial and continuing training) how many requests are made for admission to mainstream and specialist provision. Further it asks for more details on the measures in place to facilitate integration and ensure that the vast majority of persons with disabilities are able to participate in mainstream vocational training. Lastly it wishes to receive information on the funding of vocational training and the proportion of the overall budget the training for people with disabilities’ budget represents.

The Committee recalls that the legal situation of persons with disabilities calls for comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, in particular in the field of education and training, providing for effective remedies. It notes that the principles of integration and inclusion are found in the relevant legislation and policies and that individuals can seek remedies before the courts in certain circumstances in cases of discrimination. However the Committee wishes to receive further information on the rights of individuals to bring legal action in these circumstances.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested on legislation to protect persons with disabilities from discrimination in access to education and further information on the practice of integration in the education and training fields, the Committee defers its conclusion.

(Conclusions 2003, vol. 1, Conclusions on article 17 – Right of children and young persons to social, legal and economic protection, para. 1 – Assistance, education and training)

The Committee notes the information provided in France’s report.

The Committee notes that in 2000 the Office of a defender of children’s rights entered into existence. The defender of children’s rights is an independent body to which children (or their legal representatives) who believe their rights have been violated may appeal, the defender may, inter alia, make recommendations to any public or private body.

Education

The text of Article 17 of the Revised Charter has been revised considerably, in some respects in order to reflect the approach of the Committee under this provision of the 1961 Charter (e.g. reference to mothers has been omitted and now includes legal protection as well as social and economic). Paragraph 1 a now contains a reference to the right to education and paragraph 2 guarantees the right to free primary and secondary education.

whether there is a functioning system of primary and secondary education;
the number of children enrolled in school as a percentage of the number of children of the relevant age
the number of schools
class sizes
the teacher pupil ratio
whether there is a mechanism to monitor the quality of education delivered both in public and private schools and to ensure a high quality of teaching
whether education is compulsory in general until the minimum age for admission to employment
whether there is a fair geographical distribution of schools in particular between rural and urban areas
whether, considering that equal access to education should be guaranteed for all children, particular attention is paid to vulnerable groups such as children from minorities, children seeking asylum, refugee children, children in hospital, children in care, pregnant teenagers, teenage mothers, children deprived of their liberty etc. and whether necessary special measures have been taken to ensure equal access to education for these children;
the cost of education, whether basic education is free of charge, whether there are hidden costs such as books uniforms, whether these are reasonable, and whether assistance is available to limit their impact
the number of children dropping out, not completing compulsory education or failing compulsory education, rate of absenteeism, measures taken to encourage school attendance and to reduce dropping out.

Education is compulsory in France for children between the ages of 6 and 16 years. Education is free of charge in public schools up to the age of 18, although fee-paying private schools also exist.

The Committee wishes to receive further information on:

the enrolment rate,
the number of public/private schools,
the geographical distribution of schools,
average class sizes,
number of teachers, the ratio teacher per children (average and maximum),
any mechanism to monitor and ensure the adequacy of the educational system.

The Committee wishes to receive further information on measures to ensure equal access to education for Roma children and children seeking asylum in France, and other children from minority groups. In addition it asks whether there are special programmes for pregnant teenagers/teenage mothers and sick children including children in hospital.

As regards the integration of children with disabilities into mainstream education the Committee refers to its conclusion under Article 15.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

G

Germany
Greece

Germany

(Conclusions XIX-1 2008, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Education and training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the report of Germany.

In 2005, the number of persons with severe disabilities was 6,765,355 (of whom 47.9% female and 52.1% male), corresponding to 8.2 % of the population (3,041,171 in the age bracket 15-64).

The Committee asks the next report to provide the following up-to date figures:

number of students (children and adults) with disabilities attending mainstream education and vocational facilities;
number of students with disabilities attending special school education or training facilities and the percentage of those entering the labour market following such education/training.

Non-discrimination legislation

The Committee notes that there has been no change in the situation which it previously (Conclusions XVI-2 and XVIII-2) considered to be in conformity with the requirements of Article 15§1.

Education

In its previous conclusion (Conclusions XVIII-2), the Committee had asked whether the principle of presumption of mainstreaming –unless compelling reasons justify special education- was transposed in legislation at the Länder level. The report replies in the affirmative. As to the Committee’s question on general teacher training and whether this incorporates special needs education as an integral component, the report also replies in the affirmative.

In reply to the Committee, the report indicates that in accordance with the university acts of the Länder, universities have to ensure that students with disabilities are not discriminated against, and that they can make use of the education offered at university without the help of others wherever possible. The examination regulations must take into account the special needs of students with disabilities in order to protect their equal opportunities, i.e. the various forms of disability must be adequately considered by the requirements for evidence of academic achievement and examinations.

Vocational training

The report indicates that in the vocational year 2004-2005, the Federal Employment Agency placed 73.2% of young applicants with disabilities in apprenticeships and 24.1% in alternative training courses, such as pre-vocational training measures. As a result, applicants with disabilities were placed at a very high rate of 97.3%.

Notwithstanding this positive score, the report points out that young people with disabilities encounter difficulties in finding a job because they lack a real workplace experience. To improve the situation “interlinked training” has been developed. This is a special form of training in specialised centres where young disabled persons are sent for most of the training in partner companies. This improves the practical orientation of the training, providing its beneficiaries with some experience in the labour market. The report highlights that a pilot project accompanied by scientific research has shown that young people trained under interlinked schemes were more successfully integrated than young people exclusively receiving training in a specialised facility.

The Committee observes that the awareness raising initiative “Job - Jobs without Barriers” designed to improve the situation of persons with (severe) disabilities in working life will be continued until 2010. The initiative involves numerous partners: employers, trade unions, associations and organisations of persons with disabilities, the Federal Employment Agency, rehabilitation funds, integration authorities, rehabilitation services and institutions as well as the Advisory Council for the Participation of People with Disabilities and other organisations. The Committee takes note of the substantial financing which has been apportioned for the continuation of the initiative and requests the next report to inform it about its concrete impact on the effective right to training of persons with disabilities.

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the report concerning specialised training centres (BBW) for young people with disabilities and vocational training centres (BFW) for the reintegration of adult persons with disabilities in the labour market and sheltered workshops. It asks the next report to indicate whether the offer of places available matched the demand. It also notes that no details were yet available concerning the total number and qualification of the personnel of these centres and asks the next report to provide such information.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in Germany is in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter.

(Conclusions XVIII-2 2007, vol. 1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Vocational training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the German report. The Committee also received additional information on Article 15 in general, and specifically on Germany, by the INGO members of the Grouping for the Social Charter of the Council of Europe.

In 2003, the number of persons with severe disabilities was around 6.6 million, i.e. 8 % of the population (47 % in the age bracket 15-65 and 51 % over 65). The Committee notes that the definition of disability in Germany was examined in the light of the ICF standards (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health) by a working-group and was considered to essentially meet them (e.g. the notion of participation). The Committee asks to be kept informed of any further developments in the definition.

Education

It should be noted that, in the view of the Committee, Article 15 applies to all persons with disabilities regardless of the nature and origin of their disability and irrespective of their age. It thus also covers both children and adults who face particular difficulties in education, such as persons with intellectual disabilities. The Committee notes that a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court1 considered that Article 3(3) of the Basic Law was infringed by the refusal to mainstream a girl with disabilities and her consequent admission to a special school. The Court decided that the exclusion of the child from mainstream education would amount to discrimination under Article 3(3) of the Basic law, unless special educational needs would justify it. In the particular case, it considered that the existence of such needs had not been sufficiently established by the authorities.

The Committee considers that the situation is in conformity with the requirements of Article 15§1, which is based on the presumption of mainstreaming, unless compelling reasons justify special education. It nonetheless asks whether the principle has been transposed into legislation at Lander level, as well as whether general teacher training incorporates special needs education as an integral component.

Mainstreaming is recommended by the Conference of the Ministers of Education and Culture of the Federal States. The Committee notes from the additional information provided by the German Government upon request that children with disabilities are also subject to compulsory education. 100% of these children between the age of 6 and 17 attend school. In 2003, 5.6 % of all pupils in Germany received special educational support. 13 % of these children were educated in integrated classes at general schools with pupils without such special needs. Wherever necessary, additional special educational support is offered in terms of a special teacher for a regular class, technical aids, or a reduced number of pupils in the class. Similarly, architectural adjustments are carried out. Children with disabilities are assessed through a comprehensive learning and development report instead of grades.

Vocational training

The report indicates that the purpose of training activities for persons with disabilities is to provide them with a qualification for a recognized occupation. In 2003, the ratio of applicants who have not been placed in training at the end of vocational guidance was lower for persons with disabilities (2.6 %) than for non-disabled young persons (6.2 %). Similarly, the training rate was higher (72.9 %) if compared to 48.1 % for non-disabled. During the period of reference, persons with disabilities undertaking training increased from 11 200 to 35 800. The Act to Promote Training and Employment for Persons with Disabilities, which entered into force in 2004, provides for measures aimed at increasing the offer of training places for persons with disabilities, in particular in companies. Specialized integration services have been put in place to help the Federal Employment Service in providing counseling and guidance, as well as transition from school to work (Book IX of the Social Code).

Employers, when filling vacant jobs, must consult with the workers’ representatives and the body representing employees with disabilities. Employers may receive subsidies and bonuses towards the cost of the vocational training given to persons with disabilities. Hiring severely disabled persons counts double in filling the quota with respect to persons with disabilities. Finally, to improve the prospects of employment at the end of training, companies are to be more actively involved in training activities of specialized training centers. In these cases, the Social Code provides for the combination of in-company and extra-company training. The specialized training centers remain responsible for the organization and the cost of the training.

The Committee asks the next report to provide information on the impact of the above-mentioned measures on vocational training. It also recalls that under Article 10 of the Charter it regards vocational training as encompassing all types of higher education including university education. It considers that this interpretation applies mutatis mutandis to Article 15 and therefore asks information on access to higher education for persons with disabilities.

Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee concludes that the situation in Germany is in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter.

(Conclusions XVI-2 2003, vol.1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para.1 – Vocational training arrangements for disabled persons)

The Committee notes the information in Germany’s report.

According to the Federal Labour Office there are approximately 6,63 million persons with disabilities in Germany – approximately 8 % of the population. 3,1 million or 46% are aged between 18 and 65 years. The report also states that 2,18 million are between 15 and 60 years. The Committee requests clarification of the statistics. In this respect the Committee notes that this only includes those who are considered as having “severe” disabilities within the meaning of Article 2 of Book IX of the Social Code – “severely disabled persons “are defined as persons whose level of disability is at least 50% or persons whose level of disability is between 30% and 50% and who is unable to find or keep employment without assistance.

The Committee wishes to know what steps, if any, have been taken or are planned to move away from the medical definition of disability and towards a more social definition such as that endorsed by the WHO in its International Classification of Functioning (ICF 2001).

Education and Vocational Training

The Committee notes that the number of children integrated into mainstream education varies considerably from Länder to Länder. The number of children so integrated and receiving assistance in mainstream schools is estimated to be 15 000 in total – 4% of all children with disabilities. The Committee finds this figure to be low and wishes to receive the Government’s comments on this as well as further information on the measures available to enable integration and the number of children attending special schools.

The Committee asks whether general teacher training incorporates special needs education as an integral component.

The German Constitution contains an express rule on non-discrimination on the grounds of disability – Article 3 section 3. The Committee notes from other sources that this provision has been invoked before the courts in connection with the right to receive integrated education. It wishes to receive further information on this. Training for young persons and adults. The report provides details of the measures taken to assist persons with disabilities undertake training. Training should wherever possible take place in mainstream settings ; however where this is not possible training may take place in specialised centres. There are 50 specialised centres with 13 000 places for young persons with disabilities and 27 centres with 15 000 places for adults. The report states that these centres are successful in so far as approximately 70 % of students find employment. In 1998 129 837 people with disabilities underwent training organised by the Federal Labour Office this included training in the specialised centres and training in sheltered workshops.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information on measures to promote the integration of children with disabilities into mainstream education the Committee defers its conclusion.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

Greece

(Conclusions XIX-1 2008, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Education and training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in Greece’s report.

The Committee observes that no up-dated figures are included in the report and highlights that in order to be able to assess the conformity of the situation with Article 15§1, it needs to be systematically informed of:

the total number of persons with disabilities, including the total number of children with disabilities;
the number of children with disabilities attending mainstream schools and training facilities;
the number of those attending special education and training institutions.

The Committee also reiterates its request for information on any relevant case law and complaints brought to the appropriate bodies with respect to discrimination on the ground of disability in relation to education and training.

Definition of Disability

As regards the definition of disability, the Committee refers to its previous conclusion (Conclusions XVIII-2), where it noted that relevant legislation incorporates the definition endorsed by the WHO in its International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF 2001).

The Committee asks the next report to indicate whether the new Law on the education of persons with special needs, which is under preparation (see below), also incorporates such definition.

Anti-discrimination legislation

In its previous conclusion (Conclusions XVIII-2), the Committee noted that there was no legislation protecting persons with disabilities against discrimination in education and concluded that the situation was not in conformity with the requirements of Article 15§1. Since no such legislation has been adopted during the reference period, the situation continues not to be in conformity with the Charter in this regard.

The Committee reiterates that it considers the existence of non-discrimination legislation to be an important tool for the advancement of the inclusion of children with disabilities into general or mainstream educational schemes (Conclusions 2007, General Introduction, Statement of Interpretation on Article 15§1).

The Committee notes from the report that a new draft Law on the education of persons with special needs is under preparation. The report does not specify whether it includes a provision explicitly protecting persons with disabilities against discrimination in education. The Committee asks the next report to do so while informing it on the final content of such Law if adopted.

Meanwhile, it takes note that the draft Law provides for the compulsory schooling of persons with disabilities and that according to the report this will entail that especially vulnerable categories of persons with disabilities (i.e. persons with severe and multiple disabilities, with autism, etc.), who might still remain out of the educational system, will be integrated in it. In this regard, the Committee reiterates its request for up-dated figures to allow it to systematically assess the situation in practice.

Education

The Committee refers to its previous conclusion for a decsription of the existing legal framework (Laws Nos. 2817/2000 and 3194/2003 on Special Education), which it considered to take an inclusive approach in principle. The Committee had however observed, on the basis of information contained in another source, that it appeared that in 2002-2003, educational programmes for children with severe disabilities were lacking and the number of persons with intellectual disabilities having attended any educational institution was low. In response to the Committee’s request to comment, the Government indicates that all individuals with mental disability (mental retardation) are compulsorily integrated into the special educational framework. No figure is included in the report to provide evidence in this regard. The Committee therefore requests that the next report contain up-to-date figures concerning the education of persons with intellectual disabilities.

As regards the measures taken for the improvement of the operation of the main body responsible for assessing intellectual disability and determining placement in the appropriate school - the Centres for Diagnosis, Evaluation and Support (KDAY) - the report informs that the new draft Law on the education of persons with special needs, which is under preparation (see above), provides for:

the increase in the number of the members of the diagnostic groups;
the increase in the number of the diagnostic groups in the existing KDAY;
the establishment of new KDAY throughout Greece so as to facilitate the servicing of the persons interested and satisfy the increased needs of the students;
the creation of committees consisting of a Special Scientific Personnel that will operate in the Regional Directorates of Primary and Secondary Education and examine the appeals against decisions of the KDAY.

The Committee asks the next report to include information on the implementation in practice of such measures if the new Law is adopted.

As regards its request concerning the inclusion of courses in special needs education in general teacher training, the Committee notes that the new draft Law mentioned above provides that all universities from where educators graduate, shall have compulsory modules on special education and training, as well as postgraduate courses. The Committee will assess the impact of such provision, if adopted, during the next reference cycle.

The Committee takes note of the positive ratio between educators and students in the educational structures of special education. It also notes the number of Special Education School Units (SMEA) and the number of Integration Classes (TE) that operated during the reference period. However, it reiterates that in order to evaluate the situation, it needs information on attendance of persons with disabilities in mainstream and special compulsory and upper secondary schooling.

Vocational training

In its previous conclusion (Conclusions XVIII-2), the Committee noted that mainstreaming applies to vocational training and refers to that conclusion for a decsription of the various vocational training opportunities for persons with disabilities.

The Committee also notes from information provided in the report under Article 15§2, that Law No. 3304/2005 on equal treatment explicitly prohibits direct and indirect discrimination in access to all kinds and levels of vocational orientation, vocational training, advanced training and vocational reorientation, including the acquisition of practical professional experience. The Committee refers to its conclusion under Article 15§2 for a decsription of the remedies available for those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to vocational training. It asks the next report to provide it with information on any relevant case law in this regard.

As regards vocational training organized by the manpower Employment Organisation (OAED) and the apparently difficult access to such training for persons with intellectual disabilities,1 the Committee had asked the Government to comment and to indicate the extent to which the training offer matches the demand, as well as the impact of training on the subsequent integration of persons with disabilities in the labour market. In the absence of information in the report in this regard, the Committee reiterates its requests.

The Committee takes note of the detailed information provided in the report on the method of examination-admission of candidates with disabilities to higher education, including university. It asks the next report to include information on the number students with disabilities actually attending and graduating from higher education and university.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in Greece is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter on the ground that there is no legislation explicitly protecting persons with disabilities from discrimination in education.

(Conclusions XVIII-2 2007, vol. 1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Vocational training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the Greek report.

The Committee also received additional information on Article 15 in general, and specifically on Greece, by the INGOs members of the Grouping for the Social Charter of the Council of Europe. According to this information statistically about 10 % of the population, i.e. 1.2 million people in Greece have an impairment. It also notes from this additional information that Law No. 2817/2000 on Special Education defines people with special educational needs as people who have serious learning and adjustments difficulties due to sensory, physical, cognitive, emotional and social impairments. The definition endorsed by the WHO in its International Classification of Functioning, disability and Health (ICF 2001) has also been incorporated into relevant law1.

Education

The Committee recalls that, as stated in the Autism-Europe decision (Autism-Europe v. France, Complaint No. 13/2002, decision on the merits of 4 November 2003, § 48), “the underlying vision of Article 15 is one of equal citizenship for persons with disabilities and, fittingly, the primary rights are those of “independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community. Securing a right to education for children and others with disabilities plays an obviously important role in advancing these citizenship rights”. Under Article 15§1, the Committee therefore considers necessary the existence of non-discrimination legislation as an important tool for the advancement of the inclusion of children with disabilities into general or mainstream educational schemes. Such legislation should, as a minimum, require a compelling justification for special or segregated educational systems and confer an effective remedy on those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to education. Legislation may consist of general antidiscrimination legislation, specific legislation concerning education, or a combination of the two.

The Committee concludes that the situation is not in conformity as there is no legislation protecting person with disabilities against discrimination in education.

It should be noted that, the Committee considers that Article 15 applies to all persons with disabilities regardless of the nature and origin of their disability and irrespective of their age. It thus also covers both children and adults who face particular disadvantages in education, such as persons with intellectual disabilities.

The Committee notes from the report that Laws Nos. 2817/2000 and 3194/2003 on Special Education provide persons with disabilities with education and vocational training from 4 to 22 years of age and beyond. Children with disabilities attend mainstream schools to the extent possible through either parallel support in ordinary classes or integration classes inside schools at primary and secondary level. According to the report, in the reference period at primary level there were 147 pre-primary integration classes and 1325 primary school integration classes; 68 children received parallel support. At secondary level, there were 173 High School integration classes and 10 children received parallel support.

Children with disabilities who have complex needs are educated in Special Education School units which go from pre-primary school to general and technical and vocational secondary schools. According to the report, in the reference period there were 118 pre-schools and 170 primary schools. 14 high schools were available at secondary level. Children with autism can attend mainstream or special education school units, of which 6 are fully dedicated to them.

However, the Committee observes from another source that, in 2002-2003 only 2859 persons with intellectual disabilities were in any education system, and that educational programmes were lacking for those with severe disabilities. The Committee asks the Government to comment on this. It notes that in principle the Greek educational system, takes an inclusive approach. However, it appears that there is a lack of educational provision for children of intellectual disabilities.

All education establishments must be physically accessible and where the child with disabilities cannot move education may be provided at home.

The report indicates that, on the basis of the legislation in force, 58 Centres for Diagnosis, Evaluation and Support (KDAY) are operating throughout the country. The KDAY are the main body responsible for assessing intellectual disability and determining placement in the appropriate school. From the information provided by the INGOs members of the Grouping for the Social Charter of the CoE on Greece, the Committee however notes that though these centres represent a progress, they do not exist in all prefectures and, if they were, there are long waiting lists. The Committee therefore asks what measures are planned to improve the functioning of these centres, as well as information on whether decisions made by them maybe appealed against.

Teacher training for children with autism and children with multiple disabilities took place during the reference period for a large number of teachers. The Committee asks, however, whether general teacher training include courses in special needs education.

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of mainstreaming the Committee asks the next report to provide information on attendance in mainstream compulsory and upper secondary schooling, as well as on whether the educational offer in both the mainstream and special education matches demand. It also asks for information on any case law and complaints brought to the appropriate institutions concerning discrimination in access to education.

Vocational training

The Committee notes that mainstreaming also applies to vocational training. According to the report, in the reference period there were 9 Technical Vocational School integration classes. Special Education School Units also include First and Second grade Special Education Technical Vocational Schools (secondary level) and Special Vocational Educational and Training Laboratories. The 9 Technical Vocational Schools target mainly persons with motor disabilities, while the 72 laboratories target persons with mental disabilities and aim at providing them with a vocational specialization. During the reference period 920 pupils attended the laboratories.

Persons with disabilities can also participate in vocational training organized by the manpower Employment Organisation (OAED); 10 % of places are reserved for them. In addition, until 2003 three Special Schools of Vocational Training for Persons with Special Needs organized training for those who could not participate in the programmes for the general population. Since then, only two schools (one in Athens and the other in Tessaloniki) are operative. The School for persons with Special Needs in the Model Small Industrial Unit (PVM) in Tessaloniki provides training programmes mainly for people with mental disabilities. About 110 persons per year are enrolled and provided with psycho-social support and counseling together with their families by specialized staff.

Six Offices for Special Social Groups located in the big cities and the local Employment Agencies of OAED in the other areas offer vocational guidance to persons with disabilities.

From the information provided by the INGO members of the Grouping for the Social Charter of the Council of Europe on Greece, the Committee notes that a double condition applies to adults wishing to participate in OAED training: first their capability must be assessed by a Social Security body and then they must register with OAED. According to the NGOs, the personnel assessing the working capability is seldom qualified to do so and moreover such assessment also determines people’s access to social benefits and pension funds. Participation in OAED training programmes is almost impossible for persons with intellectual disabilities. Most likely, these persons will not have any opportunity for training since there are only two Special Schools of Vocational Training for Persons with Special Needs, which are located in the main cities.

Noting the above information1, the Committee asks information to be provided in the next report on the effectiveness of the measures taken with respect to vocational training, in particular the extent to which the training offer matches the demand, as well as the impact of training on the subsequent integration of persons with disabilities in the labour market. It also asks what judicial or administrative remedies are available to those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to vocational training.

The Committees recalls that under Article 10 of the Charter it regards vocational training as encompassing all types of higher education including university education. It considers that this interpretation applies mutatis mutandis to Article 15 and therefore asks information on access to higher education for persons with disabilities. The Committee concludes that the situation in Greece is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter on the grounds that there is no legislation protecting persons with disabilities from discrimination in education.

(Conclusions XVI-2 2003, vol.1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para.1 – Vocational training arrangements for disabled persons)

The Committee notes the information in Greece’s report.

According to the report in order to be granted the status of a person with a disability the person concerned must have a disability rate of at least 50 % due to a chronic physical intellectual or mental complaint or damage. The Committee wishes to know more specifically what benefits registration confers.

The Committee wishes to know what steps have been taken, if any, or are planned, to move away from a medical definition of disability and towards a more social definition such as that endorsed by the WHO in its International Classification of Functioning (ICF 2001).

The total number of persons with disabilities who benefited from welfare scheme was 130 815 in 2001. The number of persons with disabilities who are registered by the Manpower Employment Organisation’s (OAED) records of the unemployed is 16 500.

No figures are supplied for the total number of persons with disabilities in Greece, nor the total number registered, nor the total number of working age. The Committee requests this information.

Assessment of vocational skills

The Employment Services of the OAED have specialist counsellors to assist persons with disabilities find appropriate vocational training, to assess their vocational skills and provide support during training and employment. The Committee requests information on the regional distribution of these services.

Education and Vocational Training

The OAED is the primary provider of vocational training for adults, continuing training and apprenticeships. In order to encourage integration of persons with disabilities into these services 10 % of places are reserved for trainees with disabilities (adults and unemployed young persons). The Committee wishes to be informed as to how many persons with disabilities receive training through mainstream courses.

There are three OAED specialised centres for the vocational training of persons with disabilities who cannot be integrated into mainstream facilities. Preparation for integration into the labour market is one of the objectives of these centres. 927 persons received training through these centres between 1997-2000 (annual average of 200-300).

In addition there are thirty nine bodies which operate specialised training centres for persons with disabilities. These bodies are legal entities of public and private law (NGO’s and Municipalities) but are supervised by the Ministry of Health and Welfare. They are also subsidised by the Ministry and EU.

Training is also provided by these bodies within the context of the OP “Exclusion from the Labour Market” as well as within the context of Horizon axis of the Community Initiative employment programme. Between 1997 and 2000, 400 training programmes were implemented for 3 500 persons with disabilities. It is estimated that currently these bodies provide services to more than 2 000 persons annually.

The report provides details of two Operational Programmes for the Vocational Rehabilitation of Special Categories of Persons (EPEAK I & II), persons with disabilities are included in the categories eligible to benefit from the programmes. One of the objectives of the programmes is the inclusion of persons with special needs in the educational system, in particular into Public Vocational Training Institutes (IEK) through the adaptation of the infrastructure and equipment and special educational programmes. The Committee wishes to receive information in the next report on the number of persons with disabilities who participated in the programmes.

The Committee found no information in the report on vocational training or education for young persons with disabilities within the secondary education system, it asks for this information to be provided in the next report along with information on measures to enable persons with disabilities attend universities.

The Committee notes that there have been efforts made to promote the vocational training of persons with disabilities in Greece. However it does not at present have enough information to assess the overall adequacy of the situation, in particular whether the number of places meets the demand.

The Committee notes the information provided in the report on the qualifications required for staff providing vocational training for persons with disabilities. It asks whether general teacher training incorporates special needs education as an integral component.

The Committee asks whether legislation protects persons with disabilities from discrimination in access to education and training.

Conclusion

Noting that Greece has failed to provide evidence of its compliance with this provision in its last seven reports, the Committee concludes that the situation in Greece is not in conformity with Article 15 §1 of the Charter.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

H

Hungary

Hungary

(Conclusions XIX-1 2008, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Education and training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the Hungarian report as well as in the additional information sent on 29 March 2008.

Anti-discrimination legislation

In its previous conclusion (Conclusions XVIII-2, Hungary), the Committee noted that since 2003, the Public Education Act provides, inter alia, for equal treatment of persons with disability in education.

Education

The Committee recalled in its previous conclusion (Conclusions XVIII- 2) that under Article 15§1, it “considered necessary the existence of non-discrimination legislation as an important tool for the advancement of the inclusion of children with disabilities into general or mainstream educational schemes. Such legislation should, as a minimum, require a compelling justification for special or segregated educational systems and confer an effective remedy on those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to education” (Conclusions XVIII-2, Statement of Interpretation on Article 15§1).

The Committee notes from the additional information submitted by the Government that following the adoption of amendments to the Public Education Act, school segregation has been prohibited and the categories of disadvantaged and cumulatively disadvantaged situations have been defined. The Committee further notes that since Autumn 2003 a National Education Integration Network provides support to teachers, focusing on integration preparation. The Committee asks the next report to contain further details, particularly as concerns the concrete impact in practice of both the amendments to the Public Education Act and the National Education Integration Network.

In this framework, the Committee reiterates that the according to the INGOs members of the Grouping for the Social Charter of the Council of Europe and other sources, the above mentioned legal framework does not seem to unequivocally favour mainstreaming as the enrolment of children with disabilities in a specific school is subject to the school’s capacity to provide the education required and the lack of such capacity (e.g. the scarcity of special educators or of sufficient funds) often constitutes a ground to refuse enrollment of children with intellectual disabilities. According to the same sources, the Ministerial Commissioner for Students’ Rights receives a significant number of complaints from parents of children with intellectual disabilities concerning the inadequate resources and services for the education of their children. Since the report does not contain any information in this regard, the Committee reiterates its request for information on the number and outcome of any complaint addressed to the Ministerial Commissioner for Students’ Rights from parents of children with intellectual disabilities.

As regards its previous questions on the practice of mainstreaming for persons with disabilities in general and its request for relevant figures, the Committee notes from the information submitted by the Government that out of a total number of 1 822 069 children and students, a total of 80 936 children and students attended special education. This figure does not differentiate between pupils/students with special needs in mainstream education and pupils/students in special education institutions. The Committee therefore requests the next report to clarify the amount of pupils/students with disabilities integrated in mainstream education as well as that of those in special education institutions.

Vocational training

As regards the right of persons with disabilities to training, the Committee notes from the information submitted by the Government that during the school year 2006/2007, 2 610 students with special needs attended a mainstream vocational school out of a total number of 123 708 students. It notes that the total number of students in special vocational schools was 9 558. The Committee asks what steps are envisaged or have been taken to increase the integration of students with disabilities in mainstream vocational training.

As regards figures concerning higher education, the information submitted reveals that the percentage of persons with disabilities continuing with education or vocational secondary school is still low: 1 076 students in special higher education out of a total of 246 017 and 1 327 students in special vocational secondary school out of a total of 287 880. Also in this regard, the Committee requests the next report to highlight the measures taken to encourage access to higher education in general and to mainstreaming in particular.

Finally, the Committee takes note of the Workplace Exercise Programme aimed at providing students with mental disabilities with the opportunity to get acquainted with specific workplaces during their education. The Committee asks the next report to provide relevant figures (e.g. how many such students are subsequently recruited to work in one of the workplaces where they spent part of their education?) on the impact of this programme on the integration of persons with disabilities in the labour market.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee defers its conclusion.

(Conclusions XVIII-2 2007, vol. 1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Vocational training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the Hungarian report.

In 2002, 748 200 persons had a disability or a long-term health problem, i.e. 11 % of the 15-64 year-old population. The Committee notes that the definition of disability retained in the legislation corresponds to the ICF standards (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health).

Education

The Committee recalls that, as stated in the Autism-Europe decision (Autism-Europe v. France, Complaint No. 13/2002, decision on the merits of 4 November 2003, § 48), “the underlying vision of Article 15 is one of equal citizenship for persons with disabilities and, fittingly, the primary rights are those of “independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community. Securing a right to education for children and others with disabilities plays an obviously important role in advancing these citizenship rights”. Under Article 15§1, the Committee therefore considers necessary the existence of non-discrimination legislation as an important tool for the advancement of the inclusion of children with disabilities into general or mainstream educational schemes. Such legislation should, as a minimum, require a compelling justification for special or segregated educational systems and confer an effective remedy on those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to education.

The Committee notes that the report does not provide any information on education mainstreaming, nor on special schools for persons with disabilities, in particular children. The Committee, however, received additional information on Article 15 in general, and also specifically on Hungary, by the INGOs members of the Grouping for the Social Charter of the CoE. From this information and from other sources, it observes that Hungary, beyond general anti-discrimination legislation, regulates equal treatment of persons with disabilities in the Act XXVI of 1998 on the Rights and Ensuring the Equal Opportunities of people with Disabilities (Disabled Persons Act). This act covers, inter alia, education and makes reference to the Public Education Act. The 2003 amendments to the Public Education Act introduced an explicit prohibition of discrimination on the ground of disability.

The INGOs report explains that education of students with special needs takes place in mainstream schools or special (segregated) schools. This covers early intervention, pre-school, primary and secondary or vocational education. Access is regulated on the basis of an assessment of the Professional Committee, which also recommend the school placement, the form of the education and the support needed. Parents have the legal right to appeal the Committee’s decision; they can also choose not to follow the proposal. Special schools draw a distinction between mild, moderate and severe disable children. While the first two groups are entitled to “developing school education” in mainstreaming but more often in segregated settings until they become 18 or 23 years old, the third group receive a few hours per week of individualized development, eventually at home.

All the education institutions which mainstream children with special needs must have the necessary conditions (material and personnel) to integrate effectively the children (Decree OM 2/2005 on the directive of educating children with special educational needs). Special educators are obliged to receive professional training every seventh year.

The Committee observes from another source that, though possible, the legislation does not favor unequivocally mainstreaming. According to the law, parents or guardians can only request the enrolment of their child at a specific school if the school has the necessary capacity, including staff and funding, for the type of education required. With respect to children with intellectual disabilities enrolment is often refused because of the lack of this capacity. Moreover, there are very few special educators in mainstream schools. In 2003, the mainstreaming of these children was high at preschool level (68 %), but decreased to 17.5 % at primary level. Education of children with intellectual disabilities remains highly segregated. Moreover, children with intellectual disabilities are generally segregated and those with severe/multiple disabilities or autism are often excluded from access to education, especially when they live in rural areas. Finally, the Committee notes that the Ministerial Commissioner for Students Rights appears to receive a significant number of complaints from parents of children with intellectual disabilities; complaints concern inadequate resources and services for the education of their children. The Committee asks the next report to provide information on these complaints.

The Committee also notes from another source that the National Disability Programme, provided by the Disabled Persons Act, covers education, but many of the goals in this field have not yet been implemented.

The Committee observes that, though a legal framework exists, it needs information on the practice in order to assess whether the situation is in conformity with the Charter. Accordingly, it asks the next report to provide information on the practice of mainstreaming for persons with disabilities, as well as on case law and complaints brought to the appropriate institutions. It also asks information about figures on mainstreaming and attendance of special schools.

Vocational training

The INGOs report, as well as other sources, indicates that 60 % of intellectual disabled persons (around 8000) follow vocational training often in segregated schools. Mild intellectual disable students may have the opportunity to attend mainstream schools though in small number (in 2002-2003 they were 500). Moderate intellectual disabled students attend capacity-developing special vocational schools, whose final certificate is not officially recognized on the labour market.

The Committee asks whether these special schools adequately prepare students for the labour market.

The Committee asks the next report to provide information on mainstreaming in vocational training, as well as the relevant figures. It also recalls that under Article 10 of the Charter it regards vocational training as encompassing all types of higher education including university education. It considers that this interpretation applies mutatis mutandis to Article 15 and therefore asks information on access to higher education for persons with disabilities.

Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee defers its conclusion.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

I

Iceland
Italy

Iceland

(Conclusions XIX-1 2008, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Education and training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in Iceland’s report.

In 2005 and 2006, 4.8% of the total population were recipients of disability benefit and rehabilitation grants and disability grant recipients. During the same period, such recipients accounted for 7.2% of the population aged 16-66. The figures are slightly higher than in 2004. According to the report, the increase, which consists of nearly 500 individuals, was greatest among those with disability ratings of 75% or more.

Definition of disability

The Committee notes from the report that whilst the definition of disability is not being revised, greater emphasis is being placed on people’s abilities rather than on their disabilities. The Committee asks the next report to clarify whether this new approach has an impact with regard to the area of education and training. The Committee refers to its conclusion under Article 15§2 as to the impact of this new approach in the field of employment.

Anti-discrimination legislation

In its previous conclusion (Conclusions XVIII-2), the Committee concluded that that the situation in Iceland was not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter on the ground that there was no antidiscrimination legislation in the field of education and training. The Committee explained that the existence of non-discrimination legislation is an important tool for the advancement of the inclusion of children with disabilities into general or mainstream educational schemes. Such legislation should, as a minimum, require a compelling justification for special or segregated educational systems and confer an effective remedy on those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to education. Legislation may consist of general antidiscrimination legislation, specific legislation concerning education, or a combination of the two (Conclusions XVIII-2, General Introduction, Statement of Interpretation on Article 15§1). The report informs that a working group appointed by the Minister of Social Affairs is expected to submit proposals on anti-discrimination legislation in summer 2008. While asking to be informed about the result of this initiative, the Committee concludes that the situation continues not to be in conformity with the Charter in this respect.

Education

In its previous conclusion (Conclusions XVIII-2), the Committee noted that legislation on education provides all children with the right to equal access to compulsory education and mainstreaming. However, to evaluate the effectiveness of mainstreaming, it asked for information on any case law and complaints brought to the appropriate institutions.

In reply to the Committee, the report indicates that generally few complaints are received by the appropriate bodies concerning refusal of admission to schools. It explains that in cases involving children in junior school, the local authorities’ school committees generally find an acceptable solution, so that the matter does not come to the attention of the ministry. At the senior school and tertiary level, matters do arrive to the ministry which strives to resolve cases so that individuals receive suitable placement in schools with the appropriate facilities.

The report highlights the following Supreme Court cases:

Case No. 51/2005, where the Court ruled that a Local Council and School building were discharged from paying a mother’s costs resulting from the fact that she was obliged to maintain another home because of her daughter’s attendance of a school for disabled persons in the capital. Such costs were regarded as being maintenance costs and not schooling costs.
Case No. 169/2007, where the Court ruled that the parents of a severely disabled child did not have an undisputable right to demand that their child be accepted by an ordinary junior school in her home area as pupils’ disabilities could be of such a nature as to make it impossible for them to pursue studies in an ordinary junior school. The evaluation of whether or not a pupil may receive teaching according to his needs in the school in the local government area should be made by the child’s parents, the teacher and other specialists.
Case No. 177/1998, where the Court considered that the lack of specific arrangements by the University of Iceland to meet the needs of blind students amounted to unfair treatment and the university had to award compensation to the student who had suffered such treatment.

The Committee asks the next report to continue to provide information on any relevant case law and complaints brought to the appropriate bodies with respect to discrimination on the ground of disability in relation to education and training.

It also highlights that in order to have a comprehensive picture of the situation and assess its conformity under Article 15§1 of the Charter, the Committee needs to be systematically provided with:

the total number of children with disabilities;
the number of children with disabilities attending mainstream schools facilities;
the number of those attending special education institutions.

Vocational training

The Committee refers to its previous conclusion (Conclusions XVIII-2) for a decsription of the vocational training and secondary education facilities which it considered to apply the principle of mainstreaming. It had however asked for information about the effectiveness of the measures taken with respect to vocational training, in particular their impact on the subsequent integration of persons with disabilities in the labour market.

The Committee takes note that the vocational training/rehabilitation centre, Örvi, in Kópavogur, reported that of the 56 persons who left its programmes of assessment and training in the period 2004-2007, 31 entered employment in the labour market and three went to study in a technical school. The centre Plastiðjan Bjarg – Iðjulund, in Akureyri, achieves similar results with its vocational rehabilitation and vocational training courses. Moreover, while referring to its conclusions under Articles 1§1 and 15§2 for a decsription of the new Labour Market Measures Act, No. 55/2006, the Committee notes the “Employment With Assistance” (EWA) measure has produced positive results in terms of introducing disabled people to the labour market. However, those who use the services of the habilitation centres do not as a rule enter the ordinary labour market, some of them who work in sheltered employment, have done so. About 50-60 persons are on the waiting list for EWA programmes, and about the same number are waiting for positions in places of sheltered employment. The Committee asks the next report to decsribe the impact of the new Labour Market Act with respect to vocational training of persons with disabilities.

In this regard, the Committee observes that yet again no statistical information is available on the number of persons attending vocational training. The Committee underlines that to have a comprehensive picture of the situation and assess its conformity under Article 15§1 of the Charter, it needs to be systematically provided with:

the number of children with disabilities attending mainstream training facilities;
the number of those attending special training institutions.

In its previous conclusion, the Committee also asked what judicial or administrative remedies are available to those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to vocational training.

In reply to the Committee, the report indicates that under Article 9 of the new Labour Market Measures Act, appeals may be lodged with the Unemployment Insurance and Labour Market Measures Complaints Committee against executive decisions taken by the Directorate of Labour. Rulings by the Complaints Committee are final at the executive level. Persons who consider they have been discriminated against can also apply to the courts in accordance with the normal rules.

Moreover, the Disabled Persons Act, No. 59/1992, also contains provisions which are intended to guarantee the rights of disabled persons if they consider violations of their rights have been committed. Section XV of the Act specifically addresses measures to protect their legal rights, with the appointment of special regional councils which are to protect the right of disabled persons to receive services, in addition to which special representatives of the disabled are engaged to monitor their circumstances and situation.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in Iceland is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter on the ground that there is no legislation explicitly protecting persons with disabilities from discrimination in education and training.

(Conclusions XVIII-2 2007, vol. 1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Vocational training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the Icelandic report. In 2004, the number of persons with disabilities between the ages of 16 and 67 was 13 510 (about 7 % of the population). The Committee notes that the definition of disability is currently under revision and it asks to be informed on the result of the process in the next report.

Education

The Committee recalls that, as stated in the Autism-Europe decision (Autism-Europe v. France, Complaint No. 13/2002, decision on the merits of 4 November 2003, § 48), “the underlying vision of Article 15 is one of equal citizenship for persons with disabilities and, fittingly, the primary rights are those of “independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community. Securing a right to education for children and others with disabilities plays an obviously important role in advancing these citizenship rights”. Under Article 15§1, the Committee therefore considers necessary the existence of non-discrimination legislation as an important tool for the advancement of the inclusion of children with disabilities into general or mainstream educational schemes. Such legislation should, as a minimum, require a compelling justification for special or segregated educational systems and confer an effective remedy on those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to education. Legislation may consist of general antidiscrimination legislation, specific legislation concerning education, or a combination of the two.

The Committee notes that although legislation on education provides all children with the right to equal access to compulsory education and mainstreaming is the practice, this does not amount to non discrimination legislation. It therefore concludes that the situation is not in conformity with the Charter.

The report indicates that general teacher training includes special needs education.

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of mainstreaming the Committee asks the next report to provide information on any case law and complaints brought to the appropriate institutions.

Vocational training

The report confirms that mainstreaming applies also at secondary level. No special schools exist and ordinary schools receive extra teaching hours to cater for the special needs of students with disabilities. Support may be individual or collective. In 2003, 62 pupils received special assistance according to their disability. As regards vocational training in general the report explains that no specific measure address mainstreaming for persons with disabilities. Rather their situation of these persons is individually assessed and, when necessary, they are referred to the appropriate resources. No statistical information is available on the number of persons attending vocational training.

Due to the increase in the number of persons with disabilities, as well as to the fact that many of those on disability benefits seldom go back into the labour market, the Government is studying a comprehensive method of enhancing vocational rehabilitation. The options currently available are mainly carried out in special institutions like rehabilitation centers providing education, training, or occupational adaptation.

Equal access to higher education is also provided through special study circumstances and special examination procedures. Students with disabilities can be informed about the different possibilities by the counseling services. Adult education is also available for persons with disabilities.

The Committee concludes that the situation in Iceland is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter on the grounds that there is no anti-discrimination legislation in the field of education and training.

(Conclusions XVI-2 2003, vol.1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para.1 – Vocational training arrangements for disabled persons)

The Committee notes the information in Iceland’s report.

In 2000 the total number of persons with disabilities between the ages of 16 and 67 was 9 329, i.e. 10,1 % of the population of working age.

Disability is assessed under the Social Security Act No117/1993. The assessment is based on the British All Work Test. Examination and assessment of vocational skills may be made by several bodies the Regional Employment Offices, Regional Offices for services to persons with disabilities and the State Social Security Institute. Special and priority assistance is given inter alia to persons with disabilities by the Regional Employment Offices who are obliged to cooperate with the other institutions providing services to people with disabilities.

The Committee wishes to know what steps, if any, have been taken or are planned to move away from the medical definition of disability towards a more social definition such as that endorsed by the WHO in its International Classification of Functioning (ICF 2001).

Education and Vocational Training

The policy behind the Disabled Persons Act 59/1992 is integration and independence. All institutions providing education are bound to observe the principle of equal access to education. Children are integrated into mainstream education as far as possible. The Committee notes in this respect that only 1 % of children undergoing compulsory education are in special schools or in specialised departments in mainstream schools.

As regards secondary education (non-compulsory) there were special departments in 17 secondary schools providing for 230 pupils with disabilities. In the second or third year of secondary school pupils can undertake vocational training. The Committee wishes to know whether all young persons with disabilities in secondary education attend these special departments or whether there are in addition separate special schools. It also wishes to receive information on access to universities for persons with disabilities.

The Committee asks whether general teacher training incorporates special needs education as an integral component.

Information is provided in the report on the different facilities, inter alia providing vocational training to persons with disabilities. However, these appear all to be special facilities and include institutions providing supported employment and sheltered workshops. No indication is given on the number of persons attending these facilities. The Committee asks for this information. The Committee also requests information on the measures in place to assist persons with disabilities attend mainstream vocational training along with the number of persons with disabilities attending mainstream vocational training courses. In the absence of this information it is difficult for the Committee to assess the situation.

The Committee notes that according to the report vocational training is available to all those who request it. According to the report in 2000 the expenditure on vocational training for persons with disabilities amounted to 2,25 % of the total spent on services and assistance for persons with disabilities. The Committee wishes to know whether this is the amount spent on special vocational training or whether this includes the amount spent on integrating persons into mainstream facilities. It also wishes to know what proportion this figure represents of the total budget for vocational training.

The Committee notes the information provided on the qualifications of staff working with people with disabilities.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested on integration into mainstream vocational training the Committee defers its conclusion.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

Italy

(Conclusions 2008, vol. 1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community, para. 1 – Education and training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in Italy’s report.

The Committee notes that the figure the report gives for the number of disabled persons is based on the same data as were available when the previous report was drawn up, namely a 2004-2005 ISTAT survey, according to which there were 2,609,000 people with disabilities (not including children under 6 years of age).

It is also stated in the report that it is possible to calculate by extrapolating official school statistics that some 42,460 of the children between the ages of 0 and 5 have a disability.

Definition of disability

According to the report, there has been no change in the criteria for a person to be considered disabled set by Framework Act No. 104/92 on social integration and the right of persons with disabilities. The Committee therefore refers to its previous conclusion on this point (Conclusions 2007), and repeats its request for information on the impact of the programme launched in 2004 by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policies, whose aim was to train the persons involved in applying the definition of people with disabilities in the light of the definition adopted by the WHO in its International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF 2001).

Anti-discrimination legislation

Act No. 67/2006 on the legal protection of persons with disabilities against discrimination, which came into force on 1 March 2006, supplements the provisions of Act No. 104/92 on the social integration and rights of persons with disabilities. The Committee considers that these two Acts are in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter from the legal standpoint. Act No. 67/2006 prohibits all discrimination and entitles persons with disabilities to equal opportunities in all areas of life except employment (which is covered by Legislative Decree No. 216 of 9 July 2003). It also lays down remedies for disabled persons who consider that they have been discriminated against.

The Committee notes that on 21 June 2007 (outside the reference period), a Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers established the criteria for identifying associations or other bodies entitled (under section 4 of Act No. 67/2006) to act with or on behalf of persons with disabilities who consider themselves to have been victims of discrimination.

To determine how Act No. 67/2006 is applied in practice, the Committee asks for more details in the next report on its implementation, particularly concerning the legal protection of children and adults with mental disabilities. In this context, the Committee would also request information on any relevant case-law relating to discrimination on the ground of disability in the education and training sector.

Education

In its previous conclusions (Conclusions 2003 and 2007), the Committee noted that, under Act No. 104/92 cited above, children and young people with disabilities were entitled to education in mainstream establishments from preschool up to university level. Mainstreaming is the rule but where it is not possible, special classes have to be organised. The Committee refers to its previous conclusions for a decsription of the means used to achieve these objectives as, according to the report, they have not changed since.

According to the report, there were 178,220 school pupils with disabilities in 2005/2006 (i.e. about 2% of total pupils) and 83,761 support teachers. The report also states that 9,134 people with disabilities were enrolled at university in 2004/2005 (whereas there were 4,813 in 2000/2001).

The report does not contain any new information on special education. The Committee asks the following questions which it has already put previously (Conclusions 2003):

Are quality control procedures for special education based on mechanisms used in mainstream schools?
What types of qualification do special education syllabuses lead to?
What is the success rate of special education in terms of access to vocational training, higher studies or employment in the ordinary labour market?

Vocational training

The Committee noted in its previous conclusion that Framework Act No. 104/92 cited above also entitles people with disabilities to mainstream training. Training must be provided in so far as possible through mainstream courses but, where necessary, special classes may be set up in mainstream establishments.

In reply to the Committee’s request for information on vocational training for people with disabilities, the report states that under Act No. 68/99 on disabled persons’ right to work, one-year recruitment oriented work placements (renewable for one year) are organised for people with disabilities. These placements offer a temporary immersion into working life which helps participants make career choices or gives them practical and instructive experience of the day-to-day situation in a company in which it is intended to find them work. Employers are encouraged to offer these placements by the fact that participants may be counted for the recruitment quota for people with disabilities. According to the report, 9.6% of the workers enrolled on the lists decsribed in Act No. 68/99 have taken part in these placements. It is not specified to what year this figure applies. Neither is it stated how many of these people were subsequently recruited. The Committee asks for the next report to contain this information.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee defers its conclusion.

(Conclusions 2003, vol. 1, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community, para. 1 – Vocational training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee notes the information in the Italian report.

It notes that Framework Act No.104/92 on assistance, social integration and the rights of disabled people defines a person with a disability as someone who has a permanent or progressive physical, mental or sensory disability that causes problems in learning, professional relationships or integration and which results in a social disadvantage and exclusion.

The number of persons with disabilities in Italy is estimated to be approximately 3 million. The report states that there are approximately 166 000 persons with disabilities living in institutions. The Committee wishes to receive further clarification as to the number of persons with disabilities of working age, as according to the information in the report there are only 584 000 such persons. This figure is difficult to reconcile with the information provided under Article 15§2.

Education

According to the report the integration of children with disabilities into mainstream schools is guaranteed by legislation, both at the national and regional level, and the majority of children with disabilities are integrated. In 1999/2000 according to the report, 130 146 children with disabilities were in mainstream schools (97,8 % of all children with disabilities).

In order to assist integration a number of measures are available. The presence of specialised teachers is the main measure of support. In 1999/2000 there were 60 457 such teachers; 5,5 % of the total number of teachers, on average one teacher for every two children with disabilities.

The Committee wishes to know whether general teacher training incorporates special needs education as an integral component.

Specialised schooling also exists in special schools, rehabilitation centres and hospital schools. Special schools constitute 0,03 % of all schools. In 1999/2000 there were 2 883 children in special schools.

With respect to the modalities of the right to an equal effective education in the mainstream the Committee wishes to receive information on the following issues:

whether and how the normal curriculum is adjusted to take account of disability;
whether and how individualised educational plans are crafted for students with disabilities;
whether and how resources follow the child (including support staff and other technical assistance) to enable such plans to be implemented;
whether and how testing or examining modalities are adjusted to take account of disability and whether the fact that examinations are taken under non-standard conditions is revealed to third parties who, the Committee feels, has no right to such information;
whether the qualifications that eventuate are the same for all children or whether different qualifications ensue and if so, whether these qualifications are officially recognised and validated and do they have the same functional value to the individual as the mainstream qualification. In order to evaluate this, the Committee is interested to learn what the relative progression rates are for such children into employment or further education.

With respect to special education, the Committee is particularly interested in the following issues:

whether the Ministry of Education has primary responsibility as it should;
how the curriculum is designed and whether it is validated/ approved by the Ministry for Education;
whether individualised education plans are crafted and the process by which they are determined;
what kinds of qualifications does the curriculum lead to and whether they are recognised in order to progress forward into further education or to gain entry to vocational education or the open labour market;
what the success rate is in progressing into vocational training, or further education or into the open labour market;
is the quality of education monitored by mainstream monitoring mechanisms.

Vocational Training

Professional training takes place through the general public education system, training institutions, and through regional systems for vocational training. Persons with disabilities attend these mainstream vocational training facilities although there are also specialist facilities. The Committee wishes to know how many persons attend these facilities and asks for further details on measures in place to enable integration into mainstream vocational training.

While the relevant legislation lays down the principle of integrated education, there is no effective non-discrimination legislation in this area providing for effective remedies. The Committee therefore concludes that the situation is not in conformity with the Charter on this point.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in Italy is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter as there is no non-discrimination legislation in relation to disability in the field of education.

(Conclusions 2003, vol. 1, Conclusions on article 17 – Right of children and young persons to social, legal and economic protection, para. 1 – Assistance, education and training)

The Committee notes the information in Italy’s report. It recalls that it had previously decsribed and examined the situation under Article 17 of the 1961 Charter in Conclusions XV-2 and raised several questions. The current report under Article 17 of the Revised Charter supplies little new information and fails to respond the questions previously put under the 1961 Charter.

Education

whether there is a functioning system of primary and secondary education;
the number of children enrolled in school as a percentage of the number of children of the relevant age;
the number of schools;
class sizes;
the teacher pupil ratio;
whether there is a mechanism to monitor the quality of education delivered and to ensure a high quality of teaching in both public and private schools;
whether education is compulsory in general until the minimum age for admission to employment;
whether there is a fair geographical distribution of schools in particular between rural and urban areas;
whether, considering that equal access to education should be guaranteed for all children, particular attention is paid to vulnerable groups such as children from minorities, children seeking asylum, refugee children, children in hospital, children in care, pregnant teenagers, teenage mothers, children deprived of their liberty etc. and whether necessary special measures have been taken to ensure equal access to education for these children;
the cost of education, whether basic education is free of charge, whether there are hidden costs such as books and uniforms, whether these are reasonable and whether assistance is available to limit their impact;
the number of children dropping out, not completing compulsory education or failing compulsory education, rate of absenteeism, measures taken to encourage school attendance and to reduce dropping out.

The Committee notes from the report and other sources that Section 34 of the Constitution provides that education shall be open to all, free of charge and compulsory for at least eight years. Act No. 30/2000 provides that compulsory schooling begins in the sixth year and terminates in the fifteenth year.

Act No 144 /1999 introduced an obligation on all young persons under 18 to participate in some type of education or training until they reach the age of majority.

The Committee wishes to receive further information on:

the enrolment rate,
the number of public/private schools,
the geographical distribution of schools,
average class sizes,
number of teachers, the ratio teacher per children,
any mechanism to monitor the adequacy of the educational system.

The Committee wishes to receive further information on measures to ensure equal access to education for Roma children (including the enrolment and drop out rate of Roma children) and children seeking asylum in Italy, and other children from minority groups. It notes that, according to other sources, the situation of the Roma in the educational field differs appreciably from that of the majority. In addition it asks whether there are special programmes for pregnant teenagers/teenage mothers and children in detention.

In 2000 agreements were signed between the Ministries of Education, Health, and Social Solidarity providing for schooling in hospitals. The Committee wishes to receive more information on the provision of education for children in hospital.

As regards the integration of children with disabilities into mainstream education the Committee refers to its conclusion under Article 15.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee defers its conclusion.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

L

Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg

Latvia

(Conclusions XIX-1 2008, Conclusions on article 9 – Right to vocational guidance)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in Latvia’s report.

As Latvia has not accepted Article 15 of the Charter, measures relating to vocational guidance for persons with disabilities are dealt with here.

Vocational guidance within the education system

a. Functions, organisation and operation

With regard to vocational guidance for persons with disabilities, the Ministry of Education and Science works with the social integration centre run by the Ministry of Health to improve regional centres and make it easier for people to be offered guidance closer to their homes.

Vocational guidance in the labour market

a. Functions, organisation and operation

The national vocational guidance office, which was set up in 2004, aims to facilitate access to guidance services in the labour market both for people living in large towns and cities and for those living in the regions.

b. Expenditure and numbers of staff and of persons assisted

The number of beneficiaries with disabilities also increased during the reference period from 446 in 2004 to 909 in 2006. The improvement of the services provided for persons with disabilities was the result of cooperation between the national vocational guidance office and specialised associations and institutions.

Equal treatment of nationals of the other States Parties

The Committee notes that there has been no change in the situation which it previously (ibid) considered to be in conformity with the Charter.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in Latvia is in conformity with Article 9 of the Charter.

(Conclusions XVIII-2 2007, vol. 1, Conclusions on article 9 – Right to vocational guidance)

The Committee takes note of the information in the Latvian report.

Vocational guidance in the education system

a. Functions, organisation and operation

As Latvia has not accepted Article 15 of the Charter, measures relating to vocational guidance for persons with disabilities are dealt with here.

In its last conclusion (Conclusions XVII-2, pp. 493-496), the Committee asked to be informed of any steps taken to ensure the adequacy of vocational guidance for disabled persons, given the very small number of disabled beneficiaries of these services.

The report states that several measures have been introduced to make vocational guidance services more accessible to persons with disabilities.

Firstly, a system of visits has been set up, in conjunction with associations and special educational institutions for disabled persons, for those who are unable to attend the Agency’s vocational guidance offices. The Agency has also organised additional training for its staff to enable them to offer disabled persons better guidance on their choice of careers. Finally, it has employed a medical attendant in 2005 to improve the quality of services to them.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in Latvia is in conformity with Article 9 of the Charter.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

Lithuania

(Conclusions 2008, vol. 2, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community, para. 1 – Education and training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in Lithuania’s report.

According to the report, in 2006 there were 260 000 persons with disabilities. No other up-dated figures are provided. The Committee highlights that it needs to be systematically informed of:

the total number of persons with disabilities, including the total number of children with disabilities;
the number of children with disabilities attending mainstream schools and training facilities;
the number of those attending special education and training institutions;
the number of persons with disabilities (children and adults) living in institutions;
any relevant case law and complaints brought to the appropriate bodies with respect to discrimination on the ground of disability in relation to education and training.

Definition of Disability

The Committee notes that since July 2005, when the new Law on Social Integration of the Disabled came into effect, the shift has been made from the medical definition of disability to the social one, such as that endorsed by the WHO in its International Classification of Functioning (ICF, 2001).

Anti-discrimination legislation

The Committee refers to its previous conclusion (Conclusions 2007) for a decsription of the legal framework adopted in 2003 (Law IX- 1826 on Equal Treatment and the Act on Education), which it considered in conformity with the requirements of Article 15§1.

The Committee reiterates that it wishes to know whether the decisions of the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman and its Office may be appealed against before the courts.

Education

In its previous conclusion the Committee noted that a majority of students with disabilities, including intellectual disabilities, were increasingly mainstreamed. As mentioned above, the Committee requests the next report to provide up-to-date information on developments in respect of mainstreaming.

The Committee reiterates its question as to whether general teacher training includes a module on special educational needs. Moreover, in its previous conclusion, it noted from another source that a lack of qualified teachers and appropriate support and assistance appeared to hinder the education of children with disabilities in practice. The Committee therefore asks the next report to clarify what measures are taken to appropriately train teachers on special educational needs.

Vocational training

The Committee refers to its previous conclusions (Conclusions 2005 and 2007) for a decsription of the legal framework (2003 Equal Treatment Act and the Law on Vocational Education and Training) and the various existing forms of training, vocational information, guidance and counselling services as well as rehabilitation services consisting in counselling, restoration and development of new capacities, and re-qualification.

The Committee had noted in its previous conclusion that a new financing procedure was put in place for vocational schools to allow funds to follow the student and thereby encourage mainstream institutions to develop special assistance and support. The Committee asks the next report to provide details on the impact in practice of this new procedure, in particular highlighting whether the number of persons with disabilities benefiting from training has increased. In this regard, it reiterates its questions concerning up-to-date figures as mentioned above.

The Committee asks the next report to include a detailed account on the implementation of the National Programme for Social Integration of the Disabled 2003-2012 in so far as it deals with education and training.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee concludes that the situation in Lithuania is in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

Luxembourg

(Conclusions XIX-1 2008, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Education and training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in Luxembourg’s report.

It notes that, despite its repeated requests, the report does not provide details of the total number of persons with disabilities or the percentage of them who are of school age. According to the report, no statistics of this type are kept.

The Committee repeats its request and points out that, where it is known that a certain category of persons is, or might be, discriminated against, it is the national authorities’ duty to collect data to assess the extent of the problem (European Roma Rights Centre v. Greece, Complaint No. 15/2003, decision on the merits of 8 December 2004, §27). The gathering and analysis of such data (with due safeguards for privacy and against other abuses) is indispensable to the formulation of rational policy (European Roma Rights Centre v. Italy, Complaint No. 27/2004, decision on the merits of 7 December 2005, §23).

Definition of disability

The Committee asks again what steps have been taken, or are planned, to move away from a medical definition of disability towards a more social definition such as that endorsed by WHO in its International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF 2001).

Anti-discrimination legislation

In its previous conclusion (Conclusions XVIII-2), the Committee concluded that the situation in Luxembourg was not in conformity with the Charter because of the lack of anti-discrimination legislation. The Committee takes note of the adoption of the new Equal Treatment Act of 28 November 2006 which, among other things, prohibits discrimination on the ground of disability in education and vocational training.

Education

The Committee noted in its previous conclusions (Conclusions XVI-2 and XVIII-2) that Luxembourg’s approach is the mainstreaming of children of school age with disabilities.

In reply to the Committee, the current report states that the Act of 14 March 1973 setting up differentiated education establishments and services was amended by an Act of 28 June 1994 whose aim was to make mainstream schooling the rule and special schools the exception.

To assess how successful mainstreaming has been, the Committee asked for information on the number of children with disabilities attending mainstream establishments and the numbers attending special schools. The Committee notes that 788 children with disabilities attended a mainstream school in the 2004/2005 school year and 802 in 2005/2006, while 546 went to a specialised establishment in 2004/2005 and 550 in 2005/2006. To gain an overall picture of the situation, the Committee must also know how many disabled children of school age there are in total, and requests information on the case-law of and complaints lodged with the relevant authorities for alleged discrimination in access to education on the ground of disability. Pending receipt of this information, it reserves its position on this matter.

Vocational training

The Committee notes that the anti-discrimination legislation mentioned above prohibits discrimination in access to all types and all levels of vocational guidance and training, skills development and retraining, including the acquisition of practical experience.

There is no information in the report concerning the number of people with disabilities attending vocational training courses in mainstream establishments. However, it is stated that in 2006/2007 (outside the reference period) 737 people with disabilities attended vocational training courses in a specialised establishment. If the necessary information is not provided, the Committee considers that it has not been established that mainstreaming of persons with disabilities into ordinary vocational training is effectively guaranteed.

Since the required information in lacking, the Committee considers that it has not been established that mainstreaming of persons with disabilities into ordinary vocational training is effectively guaranteed.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in Luxembourg is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter on the ground that it has not been established that mainstreaming of persons with disabilities is effectively guaranteed in training.

(Conclusions XVIII-2 2007, vol. 2, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Vocational training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the report of Luxembourg.

The Committee observes that, notwithstanding its request, the report does not provide figures on the total number of persons with disabilities, and the percentage of these who are of school age. It therefore reiterates its question.

According to the report, the evaluation of the working capacities of persons with disabilities is carried out individually by the occupational health doctor. The Committee reiterates its question as to what steps, if any, have been taken or are planned to move away from a medical definition of disability towards a more social definition such as that endorsed by WHO in its international classifications of functioning (ICF 2001).

Education

The Committee recalls that, as stated in the Autism-Europe decision (Autism-Europe v. France, Complaint No. 13/2002, decision on the merits of 4 November 2003, § 48), “the underlying vision of Article 15 is one of equal citizenship for persons with disabilities and, fittingly, the primary rights are those of “independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community. Securing a right to education for children and others with disabilities plays an obviously important role in advancing these citizenship rights”. Under Article 15§1, the Committee therefore considers necessary the existence of non-discrimination legislation as an important tool for the advancement of the inclusion of children with disabilities into general or mainstream educational schemes. Such legislation should, as a minimum, require a compelling justification for special or segregated educational systems and confer an effective remedy on those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to education. Legislation may consist of general antidiscrimination legislation, specific legislation concerning education, or a combination of the two.

The Committee recalls from its previous conclusion (Conclusions XVI-2) that mainstreaming is the practice for children with disabilities of compulsory school age. However, the report does not provide information neither on legislation regulating the issue, nor on the existence of non discrimination legislation. The Committee observes that non-discrimination legislation was adopted outside the period of reference (Act of 28 November 2006 on equality of treatment); it also covers education as regards persons with disabilities.

As the 2006 Act on equal treatment was adopted outside the reference period, the Committee will examine it in the next report and, meanwhile, concludes that the situation was not in conformity with the Charter during the reference period because of the lack of non-discrimination legislation.

The report indicates that general teacher training includes special needs education.

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of mainstreaming the Committee asks the next report to provide information on the legislative framework, the number of children mainstreamed and of those attending special education, as well as on any case law and complaints brought to the appropriate institutions with respect to discrimination on the ground of disability in access to education.

Vocational training

The Committee observes that non-discrimination legislation was adopted outside the period of reference (Act of 28 November 2006 on equality of treatment); it also covers vocational training as regards persons with disabilities.

Notwithstanding the previous Committee’s questions, the report does not provide the information requested as regards the total number of persons with disabilities into mainstream vocational training and those in all types of special facilities – not just those attending training organised or funded by the service for disabled workers (STH).

The Committee reiterates the above questions and it also requests information on the existence of non-discrimination legislation concerning secondary education and vocational training.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes the situation in Luxembourg was not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter during the reference period on the grounds that there was no specific legislation prohibiting discrimination on grounds of disability covering education and training.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

M

Malta
Moldova

Malta

(Conclusions 2008, vol. 2, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community, para. 1 – Education and training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in Malta’s report as well as in the additional information submitted on 16 October 2008.

The Committee reiterates that the total number of persons with disabilities has to be communicated.

Definition of disability

The Committee has noted from information available on the web-site of the Maltese National Commission Persons with Disabilities (KNPD)1 that a social concept of “disabled persons” is used by it. The Committee asks the next report to clarify how this concept concretely takes into account international classifications such as that endorsed by the WHO (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health – ICF 2001).

Anti-discrimination legislation

The Committee refers to its Conclusions XVI-2 for a decsription of the Equal Opportunities (Persons with Disability) Act of October 2000, which, inter alia, prohibits discrimination on the ground of disability in the fields of education and training.

Education

The Committee recalls that in its previous conclusions (Conclusions XVI-2 and XVIII-2), it found the situation was not in conformity with the Charter on the ground that persons with disabilities appeared not to be sufficiently integrated into mainstream educational institutions and no information was provided to indicate that the situation improved or that measures were taken to address the issue.

On the basis of the additional information provided in October 2008, the Committee notes that the situation improved during the reference period: in kindergartens, primary and secondary education classes, out of a total of 69 055 students 1 499 students with individual education needs were in mainstream schools whilst only 286 such students were in special schools. The Committee also observes that numerous measures were taken and others are planned to further strengthen the inclusive education policy. It notes in particular that in December 2004, the Minister of Education appointed a working group to review inclusive and special education. The Committee requests the next report to contain information on the results of this review exercise and the impact of the other measures taken.

In its previous conclusion (Conclusions XVIII-2), the Committee had noted that 43 complaints concerning education had been filed with the KNPD. These mainly concerned the provision of the necessary educational support to allow students to follow the curriculum in mainstream education, including special arrangements for university examinations. The Committee asks the next report to highlight what measures have been taken to remedy the situation in practice.

Finally, the Committee further reiterates that it requires:

information on access of children with intellectual disabilities to mainstreaming or special education,
information on whether general teacher training incorporates special education as an integral component.

Vocational training

The Committee recalls that in its previous conclusions (Conclusions XVI-2 and XVIII-2), it found the situation not to be in conformity with the Charter on the ground that only a low number of persons appeared to be integrated into mainstream vocational training and no information was provided to demonstrate that the situation improved.

As none of its previous specific requests concerning vocational training and higher education was answered by the report, the Committee reiterates that it requires:As none of its previous specific requests concerning vocational training and higher education was answered by the report, the Committee reiterates that it requires:

the number of persons with disabilities attending mainstream vocational training and the other forms of training available,
information on the participation of persons with disabilities in higher education.

As regards information about forms of training available, the Committee refers to its conclusion under Article 15§2 for its assessment and specific queries concerning the Bridging the Gap Scheme, the training offered through the Richmond Foundation and the Eden Co-operative Society programmes.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in Malta is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter on the ground that it has not been established that mainstreaming of persons with disabilities is effectively guaranteed in training.

(Conclusions XVIII-2 2007, vol. 2, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Vocational training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the Maltese report.

The Committee recalls that in its previous conclusion (Conclusions XVI-2, p. 303), it found the situation not to be in conformity with the Charter on the ground that a low number of persons were integrated into mainstreaming education and vocational training. It observes that the report does not provide any figure about persons with disabilities, i.e. their total number, the percentage of children with disabilities, or the number of those attending mainstream or special education and vocational training. It therefore asks this information to be systematically provided in the report.

The Committee asks whether the current definition takes into account the international classifications such as that endorsed by the WHO (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health – ICF 2001).

Education

The Committee recalls from its previous conclusion that the 2000 Equal Opportunities (Persons with Disabilities) Act guarantees the right to equal treatment in education for persons with disabilities (see Conclusions XVI-2, Malta for the decsription of the legislation). During the reference period several complaints (43) concerning education were filed with the National Commission Persons with Disabilities (NCPD). They mainly concerned the provision of the necessary educational support so that students can follow the curriculum in mainstream education, including special arrangements for university examinations.

The report also decsribes the number of support teachers from the National Support Centre for Special Education Needs who circulate in mainstream and special education institutions in order to provide the necessary support to children. In reply to the Committee it indicates that the transition programme provides work experience for students with intellectual disabilities seeking employment helping them to move from special schools to adult training centres. 20 children participated in this programme in 2004. Finally, the Committee notes from another source that, in 2003, the review of special and inclusive education has been launched by the Ministry of Education.

However, the Committee notes that the report does not provide up-to-date information on the number of children attending mainstream or special education, or on the measures to increase mainstreaming, which in the previous conclusion was found to be limited. Therefore it considers that the situation is not in conformity with the Charter. Similarly, no information is provided on whether general teacher training incorporates special education as an integral component. It therefore reiterates its previous questions. It also asks to be informed on any development which may follow up from the review exercise.

It finally asks to be informed on access of children with intellectual disabilities to mainstreaming or special education.

Vocational training

In reply to the Committee, the report indicates that the 2000 Equal Opportunities (Persons with Disabilities) Act also guarantees the right to equal treatment in vocational training for persons with disabilities. No complaint was filed during the reference period on vocational training.

The Committee recalls that in its previous conclusion it found the situation not to be in conformity with the Charter on the ground that a low number of persons were integrated into mainstreaming vocational training (Conclusions XVI-2, Malta). The Committee observes that the report does not provide any information on the number of persons with disabilities attending mainstreaming vocational training and the other forms of training available, or about these other forms themselves. Therefore it reiterates its conclusion of non-conformity.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in Malta is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter on the ground that persons with disabilities are not sufficiently integrated into mainstream educational institutions and no new information has been provided to indicate that the situation has improved or that measures have been taken to address the issue.

(Conclusions XVI-2 2003, vol. 2, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para.1 – Vocational training arrangements for disabled persons)

The Committee notes the information in the Maltese report.

General remarks

The Committee notes the entry into force during the reference period of the Equal Opportunities (Persons with Disability) Act in October 2000. The Act prohibits discrimination on the grounds of disability in the fields of employment, education, access, accommodation, and the provision of goods and services. As regards employment the legislation requires employers to make reasonable accommodation for the disability of a person.

The legislation also provides that educational authorities and institutions must grant equal access and not discriminate against persons with disabilities; however it also provides that an educational establishment may refuse to admit a person if it can prove that the admission of such person would require services or facilities the provision of which would impose unjustifiable hardship on the authority concerned.

The Act provides for the establishment of a National Commission of Persons with Disabilities, which is composed of members representing the relevant government ministries and representatives of voluntary organisations in the field of disability. The Commission’s functions are inter alia, to establish and update national policies for persons with disabilities, monitor the provision of services by the Government, work towards the elimination of discrimination against persons with disabilities, carry out general investigations on whether the Act is being complied with, investigate individual complaints, and provide assistance including legal and financial assistance in individual complaints.

The Committee wishes to receive information on the effects of the legislation in the fields of education and employment and any case law generated by it, including if available, information on how the concept of “unjustifiable hardship” have been interpreted in practice. Further it wishes to receive confirmation that Title 2 (Education) covers vocational education.

The report states that there are currently 8 700 persons registered as having a disability on the National Register of Disabled Persons maintained by the National Commission on Persons with a Disability. Registration is voluntary. However the report points out that if the WHO estimate of the proportion of a population with a disability is used the figure is 37 800. Approximately 50-60 % of those registered are of working age (4 994) and 313 are on the Register of Unemployed Disabled Persons seeking work.

The Committee asks what is the object of registration and what are its main benefits, for example is registration a prerequisite for assistance or in order to benefit from special measures.

Further the Committee wishes to know what steps, if any, have been taken or are planned to move away from a medical definition of disability towards a more social definition such as that endorsed by the WHO in its International Classification of Functioning (ICF, 2001).

Education and Vocational training facilities

According to the report the total number of children with disabilities benefiting from schooling (mainstream and special schools) is 919. 462 are in special schools and 457 in mainstream schools. Information is provided on the number of teachers, facilitators and assistants and their qualifications for all schools. The Committee asks for information on the ratio of teachers to pupils in special schools. It notes that the number of children in special schools remains high and asks whether further measures are planned in order to enable the integration of more children with disabilities into mainstream schools.

The Committee wishes to know whether general teacher training incorporates special needs education as an integral component.

The report states that a transition programme to assist young persons reaching school leaving age in special schools is available. The transition programme is run in conjunction the Department responsible for Adult Training Centres in the Ministry for Social Policy and sometimes the Employment and Training Corporation. The Committee wishes to receive more details on the content and objectives of these transition programmes.

The Committee recalls that it had previously found that people with disabilities were little integrated into mainstream vocational training facilities, that special and separate facilities remained the norm, further it had noted that the capacity of these separate facilities was insufficient to meet the needs.

The current report provides no new information on the number of persons with disabilities in mainstream vocational educational facilities. The Committee asks that this information be provided in the next report along with information on the measures in place to enable such integration. Meanwhile the Committee concludes that the situation cannot be considered as being in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter. Article 15§1 of the Charter requires persons with disabilities to be integrated into mainstream facilities to the maximum extent possible – special facilities should be the exception-and it requires states to provide evidence that this is the case or at least that substantial efforts are being made to achieve this.

It notes from the report that the training centres (now known as day services) are mainly for those with intellectual disabilities and are currently attended by 313 persons with intellectual impairments over 18 years of age. The report acknowledges that the capacity of these services had not been sufficient but that this issue is being addressed through the provision of small resource centres. It also states that many of the clients of these centres are not able to move into open employment.

The Committee wishes to receive further information on any special facilities other than the above-mentioned centres that provide training for persons with disabilities.

Lastly the Committee asks what proportion of the budget for vocational training is earmarked for the training of persons with disabilities.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in Malta is not in conformity with of Article 15§1 of the Charter as it had previously noted that people with disabilities are little integrated into mainstream institutions and no new information has been provided to indicate that the situation has improved or that measures have been taken to address the issue.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

Moldova

(Conclusions 2008, vol. 2, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community, para. 1 – Education and training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in Moldova’s report.

The Committee reiterates its question (Conclusions 2005) as to whether any steps have been taken to move away from a medical definition of disability towards a more social definition such as that endorsed by the World Health Organisation in its International Classification of Functioning (ICF 2001), i.e. whether the criteria used for the assessment of the status of disability take into account not only medical characteristics, but also educational, psychological, and other socio-economic factors.

Anti Discrimination legislation

The Committee recalls that under Article 15§1, it “considers necessary the existence of non-discrimination legislation as an important tool for the advancement of the inclusion of children with disabilities into general or mainstream educational schemes. Such legislation should, as a minimum, require a compelling justification for special or segregated educational systems and confer an effective remedy on those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to education. Legislation may consist of general antidiscrimination legislation, specific legislation concerning education, or a combination of the two” (Conclusions 2007 Moldova, Statement of interpretation on Article 15§1).

In its previous conclusion (Conclusions 2007), the Committee had accordingly asked whether discrimination in education on the ground of disability was prohibited by law. The report does not clarify the situation in this regard. Neither does it provide up-dated information on the Code on Education on mainstreaming in ordinary education and special education which was under preparation according to the additional information sent by the Government at the Committee’s request in its previous report. The Committee reiterates its requests for clarification.

Education

The Committee refers to its first conclusion for a decsription of the legal framework established to comply with Article 15§1. It also recalls that in this conclusion it had listed a detailed number of issues it required information on to assess whether disabled persons are guaranteed an effective right to education both in law and in practice. Since the information provided so far only partially responds to its requests, the Committee reiterates all its specific questions on education (Conclusions 2005).

Vocational guidance and training

The Committee refers to its first conclusion (Conclusion 2005) for a decsription of the situation in law and in practice with regard to vocational guidance and training. It reiterates all its specific questions on the issue, including the request concerning relevant statistics (particularly the number of persons with disabilities integrated into mainstream and special training facilities).

The Committee also further reiterates its question as to whether explicit anti-discrimination legislation for persons with disabilities exists with regard to vocational guidance and training of persons with disabilities and whether it is possible to seek judicial remedy in cases of discrimination.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in Moldova is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter on the ground that there is no legislation explicitly protecting persons with disabilities from discrimination in education and training.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

N

Netherlands
norwayNorway

Netherlands

(Conclusions 2008, vol. 2, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community, para. 1 – Education and training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the Netherlands’ report.

Definition of disability

The Committee notes from the report that in order to establish whether pupils with disabilities are eligible for special education or additional support in mainstream primary and secondary schools, their degree of disability and special needs must be determined by one of the independent committees based at the regional expertise centres. The nationally established assessment criteria are laid down in the Personal Budget (Education) Decree (Besluit leerlingengebonden financiering). The Committee asks whether these criteria are based on a more social definition such as that endorsed by the WHO in its International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health – ICF 2001.

The Committee reiterates its request to be systematically provided with figures concerning the total number of persons with disabilities, including the number of persons with disabilities below 18 years of age and of working age.

Anti-discrimination legislation

In its previous conclusion (Conclusions XVIII-2), the Committee had highlighted that under Article 15§1, it considers necessary the existence of non-discrimination legislation as an important tool for the advancement of the inclusion of children with disabilities into general or mainstream educational schemes. Such legislation should, as a minimum, require a compelling justification for special or segregated educational systems and confer an effective remedy on those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to education. Legislation may consist of general anti-discrimination legislation, specific legislation concerning education, or a combination of the two. The Committee had asked whether any such legislation existed in the Netherlands.

Since the current report does not clarify whether the scope of either the 2003 Equal Treatment (Disabled and Chronically Ill People) Act or the 2003 Disability Act has been expanded to also cover education, the Committee reiterates its request.

Education

The Committee takes note of the figures provided in the report with regard to the number of full time jobs, including teaching posts, in primary and secondary mainstream and special education.

In its previous report (19th Report on the Social Charter), the Government informed the Committee that children with disabilities attended mainstream schools to the extent possible. In the report, it is highlighted that the total number of students in primary mainstream education is 1,500,000 and this includes 18,000 students with disabilities. It is also stated that the total number of students in secondary mainstream education is 911,000 and this includes 9,000 students with disabilities. It is further indicated that 63,000 students with special needs are in special primary and secondary schools. Since the total number of persons with disabilities in school age (primary and secondary) is not provided, it is not possible to establish whether progress has been made to increase the number of students in mainstream education. The Committee requests the next report to provide the relevant figures.

In its previous conclusion, the Committee noted from another source that, at least with respect to children with intellectual disabilities, mainstreaming though possible remained a rather difficult option, particularly due to lack of adequate services. According to the same source, a number of children consequently appeared to be excluded from education and children with autism seemed to be the largest group not attending school. Commenting on these remarks, the report highlights that an evaluation of the special needs system in primary and secondary schools (2005) confirmed the existence of a number of problems as regards access to mainstream education for children with disabilities: parents often approach several mainstream schools before their child is allocated a place.

The report informs that to improve this situation, a programme was launched in 2005 aimed at ensuring that children receive an appropriate education corresponding to their needs. An important element of this programme is the introduction of the principle of a “duty of care” according to which the school where a special needs pupil applies is required to find an appropriate place in the education system for that pupil. Cooperation and coordination between the various educational establishments has to be ensured to avoid the exclusion from education of any pupil. The report points out that following an experimental phase, relevant statutory amendments should be introduced by 1 August 2011.

The Committee asks the next report to inform it about the concrete results of this programme, focusing in particular on:

attendance (number of students with intellectual disabilities) in mainstreaming or special compulsory and upper secondary schooling;
whether the educational offer in both mainstreaming and special education matches with the demand;
any relevant case law or complaint brought to the appropriate institutions concerning discrimination in access to education.

In its previous conclusion, the Committee had further asked the next report to indicate what measures have been taken to include courses in special needs education in the general teacher training curriculum.

The report recalls that in accordance with the Education Professions Act (Wet op de beroepen in het onderwijs, BIO) a teacher must fulfil certain minimum quality requirements, known as standards of competence. Depending on circumstances (e.g. regional situation or type of education), these minimum requirements may need to be supplemented with other skills. The Committee asks whether such skills include special needs education.

Vocational training

In its previous conclusion, the Committee noted that mainstreaming applied to secondary vocational education (MBO) and higher university and non-university education as there are no special education institutions for these levels of education. From the current report, the Committee further notes that adult and vocational educational institutions are entitled to special funding in the form of a personal budget for each disabled learner assessed as having special needs. The Committee asks the next report to highlight how many institutions used of this special funding to assist adults attending such institutions.

The Committee notes that in reply to its request as to the number of persons with disabilities attending secondary vocational and higher education, the report indicates that as of 31 December 2006, the total number of pupils in secondary vocational education (MBO) applying for a personal budget was 1,658. The Committee asks for clarifications on the categories in which this figure is subdivided. It also requests the next report to indicate the total number of persons attending secondary vocational and higher education.

In reply to the Committee, the report also informs that there are 61 institutions providing general secondary vocational education: 44 regional training centres, 13 specialist colleges and four institutes of higher professional education that offer part-time MBO courses. In addition, there are two MBO institutions for deaf people and 12 agricultural training centres that offer secondary vocational education courses in agricultural subjects. The Committee reiterates its previous question as regards the impact of training on the subsequent integration of persons with disabilities in the labour market.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that according to the Council for Work and Income survey of 2006, there are about 870 private reintegration agencies; More than two-thirds of the reintegration agencies offer their services regionally, the rest operate nationally.

Finally, the report points out that since the introduction of the Work and Income (Capacity for Work) Act (Wet werk en inkomen naar arbeidsvermogen, WIA) in 2006, it has been standard practice to look at what someone can do despite illness or disability, rather than what he/she cannot do. Two national campaigns were launched in 2006 to help partially disabled people find employment: an information campaign about the new Act and a publicity campaign designed to create a more positive image of the target group. The latter is a joint initiative of the Government, trade unions and employers’ associations. The Committee requests the next report to inform it about the impact in practice of the WIA, including data concerning integration of persons with disabilities in the labour market following the conclusion of the above mentioned reintegration agreements.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee defers its conclusion.

(Conclusions XVIII-2 2007, vol. 2, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Vocational training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the Dutch report.

The Committee notes from the report that the Netherlands puts emphasis on the full participation of persons with disabilities in society and it reiterates its question about whether the definition of disability retained moved away from a medical definition of disability and towards a more social definition such as that endorsed by the WHO in its International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health – ICF 2001.

The Committee asks to be systematically provided with figures concerning the number of persons with disabilities, including the number of persons with disabilities below 18 years of age and of working age.

Education

The Committee recalls that, as stated in the Autism-Europe decision (Autism-Europe v. France, Complaint No. 13/2002, decision on the merits of 4 November 2003, paragraph 48), “the underlying vision of Article 15 is one of equal citizenship for persons with disabilities and, fittingly, the primary rights are those of “independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community. Securing a right to education for children and others with disabilities plays an obviously important role in advancing these citizenship rights”. Under Article 15§1, the Committee therefore considers necessary the existence of non-discrimination legislation as an important tool for the advancement of the inclusion of children with disabilities into general or mainstream educational schemes. Such legislation should, as a minimum, require a compelling justification for special or segregated educational systems and confer an effective remedy on those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to education. Legislation may consist of general anti-discrimination legislation, specific legislation concerning education, or a combination of the two. The Committee also whether any such legislation exists.

According to the report, children with disabilities attend mainstream schools to the extent possible. Accordingly, schools receive help to cater for pupils with special needs. During the 2003-2004 school year 20 % of pupils with a diagnosed disability were integrated into mainstream primary and secondary schools and the aim is to increase the percentage. Children with disabilities who cannot attend mainstream education are educated in special education primary and secondary schools, pre-vocational secondary education (VMBO) and practical training.

Pupils are assessed by an independent committee, which determines their educational needs. Parents can then opt for a special school or a mainstream school that is prepared to accept them and provide special support facilities. The introduction of the 2002 personal Budget (Special Needs) Act provides a personal budget to help parents make their choice between the two systems since the financial assistance is allocated to the school.

The Committee notes from another source that, at least with respect to children with intellectual disabilities, mainstreaming though possible remains a rather difficult option. In particular, as a consequence of the lack of adequate services, children with intellectual disabilities attend rather special than mainstream education (in 2003, 16 000 pupils were in special education against 900 in mainstream). According to the same source, a number of children are excluded from any education and children with autism are for example the largest group who do not attend school. The Committee asks for the Government’s comments on this. It notes that the system remains largely non inclusive for children with disabilities. It further recalls that education is a basic right for all children and should there be children denied of any educational provision on the grounds of his/her disability, this would give rise to a finding of non conformity.

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of mainstreaming it asks again that the next report to provide information on attendance in mainstreaming compulsory and upper secondary schooling, as well as whether the educational offer in both mainstreaming and special education matches with demand. It also asks information on case law and complaints brought to the appropriate institutions concerning discrimination in access to education.

The report does not indicate to which extent general teacher training include courses in special needs education. The Committee notes from another source that teachers receive only limited training for children with intellectual disabilities and in-service training is optional. The Committee asks what measures have been taken to remedy the situation.

Vocational training

The Committee notes that mainstreaming also applies to secondary vocational education and higher university and non-university education. Since there are no special education institutions for these levels of education, mainstream institutions are under the obligation not to discriminate against persons with disabilities and to make the necessary adjustments to allow them access. This obligation has been strengthened by the Equal treatment (Disabled and Chronically Ill People) Act entered into force in 2003, which covers training and higher education. The right to equal treatment applies not only to classes, but also to work placements, taking exams and getting vocational guidance.

Secondary vocational institutions receive funding for students with disabilities. Since 2002 higher education institutions have received funding to improve access for disabled students. Additional material facilities are available under the Work and Income (Capacity for Work) Act.

In the context of the policy for the reintegration of people who are unfit for work, vocational training is one of the alternative options along with counseling and other forms of support. Currently, the Employee Insurance Agency (UWV) is responsible for reintegrating people claiming incapacity benefits, but the reintegration services are purchased by private agencies. The UWV remains responsible for providing additional services which enable the persons to perform effectively in the workplace, such as transport, personal support, startup capital, subsidies for adjustment in the workplace. Persons with severe disabilities can also participate in vocational training organized by specialized institutions.

The Committee asks for information to be provided in the next report on the effectiveness of the measures taken with respect to vocational training, in particular the number of persons with disabilities attending secondary vocational and higher education and the other forms of training available, the extent to which the training offer matches the demand, as well as the impact of training on the subsequent integration of persons with disabilities in the labour market.

The Committee notes from the report that under the 2003 Equal Treatment (Disabled and Chronically Ill People) Act complaints may be filed with the Equal Treatment Commission. This is a non-judicial body whose decisions are not binding but are usually complied with and followed by courts in subsequent legal proceedings. As regards higher education, the report indicates that out of the four complaints filed with the Equal Treatment Commission, two decisions found that there had been discrimination. Legal proceedings can always be brought in front of civil courts.

Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee defers its conclusion.

(Conclusions XVI-2 2003, vol. 2, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para.1 – Vocational training arrangements for disabled persons)

The Committee notes the information in the Dutch report.

The Committee wishes to know what steps if any, have been taken or are planned to move away from a medical definition of disability and towards a more social definition such as that endorsed by the WHO in its International Classification of Functioning (ICF 2001).

Education and Vocational Training

The Committee recalls that it had noted that in 1992 there were 110 529 pupils in special education and had asked for further information. The report states that this figure relates to all special education; special primary education and special secondary education. Both general and vocational subjects are available at secondary level. Pupils can transfer into mainstream schooling and can continue to receive assistance and supervision from the special school’s teaching staff. According to the report it is not possible to specify how many pupils are within the special secondary education system undertaking a vocational orientated programme. The Committee nevertheless wishes to receive information on the number of pupils in special secondary education and the number of pupils with disabilities integrated into mainstream secondary schools.

Regional training centres are responsible for providing vocational training. They receive an annual budget of 1,1 million € to develop their own disability policies. Several projects have been launched to improve the integration of persons with disabilities into ordinary vocational education, involving cooperation between the specialized training institutes and regional training centres in order to increase the expertise of the regional training centres. The first projects involved only a small number of regional training centres but subsequently the projects were extended to encompass all training centres. Since 2000 a structural policy for persons with disabilities has been in place; in order to facilitate the individual training centres develop their own disability policy (partly to ensure that persons with disabilities have options within mainstream education). In order to ensure national coordination as to the quality of working methods and expertise the training centres have established a National Disabled Platform. A study of the problems that people with disabilities encounter in vocational education has been started. The Committee wishes to be informed of the results and conclusions. It also requests information on the number of persons with disabilities attending mainstream vocational training.

The Committee also notes that according to the report, under the Equal Treatment (Disabled Persons) Bill persons with disabilities will be able to legally require educational establishments to allow them access to education and to make the necessary provision. The Committee wishes to receive further information on the legislation and its effects in the next report.

Training is also provided for persons with certain types of disability in five specialized training institutions. The State Secretary for Social Affairs and Employment fixes their budget which in 2002 amounted to 11 130 244 €. The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science also makes a total of 545 000 € available to the institutes annually. The admission procedure involves an assessment of the vocational skills of the individual. These specialised institutes have 360 places, each offering 1 600 hours of training. Approximately 686 people underwent training in 2000. The Committee asks whether the number of places is sufficient.

The Committee wishes to receive information in the next report on the measures in place to enable persons with disabilities to attend university.

The Committee notes the information provided in the report on training for teachers, it asks in this respect whether general teacher training incorporates special needs education as an integral component.

As regards the budget of vocational training for persons with disabilities, the Committee notes that 70 million € was spent on training in 2001. It asks whether this is the total amount spent (in both the specialized training institutes and the regional training centres) on training for persons with disabilities or whether this only represents the amount spent on the re-integration under the Work Disabled Act.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in the Netherlands is in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

Norway

(Conclusions 2008, vol. 2, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community, para. 1 – Education and training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in Norway’s report.

While reiterating its request for the total number of persons with disabilities, the Committee notes that the report acknowledges that the Norwegian National Census Bureau does not have any official statistics or survey concerning children with disabilities in the age group 0 to 18 years. However, the report points out that based on research, as well as on aggregate figures on how many children with disabilities receive specific measures, services and benefits, an unofficial estimation of 2005 showed that 2.7 per cent (approximately 33,000 children) out of all children up to 18 years (approx. 1,300,000) had been registered with some type of disability.

Definition of Disability

It is recalled that according to the Government White Paper 40 (2002-2003) disability “occurs when a gap exists between the capabilities of the individual and the functional requirements of his or her surroundings.”

Anti-discrimination legislation

In its previous conclusion (Conclusions 2007), the Committee considered that during the reference period there was no sufficient non discrimination legislation in the field of education and thus found that the situation was not in conformity with the requirements of Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter. The Committee notes that there has been no change in the situation in this regard as the report indicates that in 2007/2008 (outside the reference period), the Government was supposed to submit to Parliament a draft Antidiscrimination and Accessibility Act. The Committee wishes to be informed on the status of the legislative procedure in the next report. It also particularly asks what is the Act’s scope of application, whether it requires a compelling justification for special or segregated educational systems and whether it provides for effective remedies for those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to education.

Education

The Committee recalls from its previous conclusions (Conclusions 2005 and 2007) that mainstreaming is ensured in compulsory schooling and even in child day-care for all children with disabilities. It however reiterates its request for information on any case law and complaints brought to the appropriate institutions with regard to discrimination in compulsory schooling.

The Committee also reiterates its question on information about specialised education facilities

Vocational training

In its previous conclusions, the Committee asked to be kept informed about the improvements made by higher education institutions in order to implement the action plan for the disabled and higher education (1998-2002) and whether any follow-up was foreseen.

In this regard, the Committee notes from the report that the higher education institutions have each been given the responsibility to draw action plan documents to ensure a satisfactory working environment for the disabled. The Committee requests the next report to highlight the concrete impact of such documents in terms of increased integration of disabled students in higher education institutions.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in Norway is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter on the ground that the anti-discrimination legislation covering education for persons with disabilities is inadequate.

(Conclusions XVI-2 2003, vol. 2, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para.1 – Vocational training arrangements for disabled persons)

The Committee notes the information in the Norwegian report.

The Committee recalls that the previous conclusion found that the situation was in conformity with the Charter, however it sought information on several points.

Firstly it requested information on the total number of persons with disabilities and the percentage of them of working age. The report only provides figures on the number of persons provided with services by the employment service (Aetat), broken down by age : 54 655 in 1999 and 57 375 in 2000. The Committee repeats its request for this information as it is difficult to assess the adequacy of the facilities without it.

As regards the evaluation of the vocational skills of persons with disabilities the report states that Aetat draws up for all individuals including persons with disabilities an individualised action plan, based inter alia, on the qualifications wishes etc of the individual. Persons with disabilities who have special and complex needs may be referred by the local employment service to an employment counselling unit. These units are located in each county and are staffed by rehabilitation specialists.

Education and Vocational Training facilities

The Committee recalls that upper secondary education in Norway consists of vocational training leading to vocational qualifications and general education leading to qualifications needed for higher education. General and vocational education are integrated.

The Committee had previously noted that special schools were only for those who were unable to attend mainstream schools, it asked for information on the number of persons in ordinary vocational schools and those in special schools. The report states that the authorities are currently collecting data on the number of children receiving special education but that it is not yet available.

The Committee notes from other sources that there was reorganisation of special education and the former special school system was replaced by a support system consisting of twenty state resource centres and the local Educational Psychological Service. The Service is responsible for assessing individual needs for special education and recommending individual programmes. An individual education or training plan is established for all pupils receiving special education. The Service may also recommend assistance from a resource centre. If the needs of the child require extra resources these can be allocated on an individual level.

The Committee wishes to receive updated information on vocational training for young persons with disabilities, the number receiving special education in ordinary schools and in special schools and the number integrated into ordinary schools not receiving special education.

The Committee observes from the other sources that universities and colleges have a legal obligation to ensure the accessibility of higher education to students with special needs. A Plan of Action for Persons with Disabilities adopted in 1999 obliges universities and colleges to make plans of action for students with special needs. The Committee wishes to receive further information on the fulfilment of this obligation.

The Committee takes note of the information provided on staff qualifications ; it asks whether general teacher training incorporates special needs education as an integral component.

The Committee requested updated information on vocational training for adults, it repeats its request for this information and it also asks for updated information on the types of financial assistance (allowances) available for those undergoing training.

As mentioned above the Committee requested further information in order to be able to properly assess the adequacy of the facilities; the number of places on vocational training facilities for young persons and adults with disabilities, the number of persons following such training and the number of applications. The report does not provide this information, although it states that the need for vocational training resources is greater than the places available. The Committee asks that the next report attempt to provide more detailed information as well as information on measures taken to increase the number of places.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in Norway is in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

P

Poland
Portugal

Poland

(Conclusions XIX-1 2008, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Education and training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in Poland’s report.

It notes that in 2006 there were 3.8 million people with disabilities in Poland and 2.2 million of these were 15 or over. According to the report, in 2006, 118,700 children under the age of 16 were officially certified to have a disability. However, according to other figures in the report, it would seem that the total number of children with disabilities at school is higher (176,911). The Committee asks for clarification of this matter in the next report. (It also asks what the total number of children at school is.)

Definition of people with disabilities

The report states that the bio psychosocial model of health adopted by the WHO in its International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF 2001) forms the basis for the definitions of degrees of disability applied by Polish legislation. Degrees of disability are defined with regard to employment sectors or the payment of benefits.

The Committee also notes in the part of the report relating to Article 15§2 that there are plans to draw up a law on the recognition of disabilities, whose aim would be to standardise and simplify all of the different systems currently in force. The Committee asks for information in the next report on progress in this sphere.

Anti-discrimination legislation

In its previous conclusion (Conclusions XVIII-2), the Committee noted that discrimination against persons with disabilities was prohibited by the 1991 Education Act and the 1997 Act on the social and occupational rehabilitation of people with disabilities.

According to the report, the Ministry of Education and Sport adopted two regulations in 2005, one in January and the other in October, on the organisation of education and childminding for children and young people with disabilities as well as socially maladjusted persons, from nursery school through to upper secondary school age and in mainstream or special classes. The Committee asks for the next report to state whether these regulations prohibit discrimination on the ground of disability.

In its previous conclusion, the Committee asked for information on judicial and non-judicial remedies available to persons with disabilities who consider themselves to have been victims of discrimination.

In reply to the Committee, the report refers to Article 24 of the Civil Code, which governs the question of infringements of individual rights including all discrimination and provides that persons who suffer discrimination may call for unlawful acts to be halted and their effects to be nullified and may apply for compensation. It is also explained that, as a rule, remedies provided for by the Code of Civil Procedure apply to all persons suffering discrimination irrespective of the cause of the discrimination. Furthermore, under Article 61§4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, organisations whose aims are to ensure that the principle of equality and non-discrimination is guaranteed in practice may initiate proceedings on behalf of complainants or join the proceedings at any time provided that the complainant gives his or her consent.

The Committee notes that there is no information in the report on any case-law relating to discrimination on the ground of disability in the education and vocational training sectors. In order to be able to assess how successfully people with disabilities are integrated into the mainstream system, the Committee asks for the next report to provide information on case-law on the subject and on complaints that have been filed with the relevant authorities.

Education

The Committee recalls, as stated in its decision on the merits of collective complaint Autism-Europe v. France No. 13/2002 (decision of 4 November 2003, §48) that “the underlying vision of Article 15 is one of equal citizenship for persons with disabilities and, fittingly, the primary rights are those of ‘independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community’. Securing a right to education for children and others with disabilities plays an obviously important role in advancing these citizenship rights”. Children, young people and adults with disabilities must be catered for by the mainstream system; education and training for persons with disabilities must be provided in ordinary classes and, only where this is impossible, in special schools.

According to the report, during the 2005/2006 school year, 176,911 children with disabilities attended school at all levels from primary to upper secondary school or vocational college, with 83,892 in mainstream schools and 83,019 in special schools. The Committee notes that at vocational college level the number of disabled students is significantly higher in special schools (22,983 and only 5,092 in mainstream schools). This would tend to indicate that the aim of integrating persons with disabilities into mainstream schools has not been achieved. Consequently, it has not been established that the situation is in conformity in this respect.

The Committee asks for the next report to decsribe what is done to ensure the integration of pupils and students with disabilities into the mainstream system. In this connection, it reiterates that under Article 15§1, states are required to demonstrate that they are making tangible progress towards the development of inclusive education systems (Conclusions 2005, Cyprus).

The Committee notes that the funding allocated to schools for the education of pupils with disabilities has increased. It asks whether there are also financial benefits for children with disabilities which are geared to their needs throughout their schooling (along with support staff and other technical assistance).

As to the questions in its previous conclusion concerning children with intellectual disabilities, the Committee takes note of the Government’s arguments. It asks for the next report to state more precisely how many children with intellectual disabilities choose to continue in schools that prepare them for work and how many abandon their studies and fail to find work (how many people with disabilities are registered with occupational therapy workshops).

Vocational training

The Committee refers to its previous conclusion for a full decsription of the various types of training on offer and the aids that are available to help people with disabilities to attend vocational training courses or undertake higher studies.

According to the report, there are increasing funds and programmes available for this purpose. However, the figures provided to show how many people with disabilities benefit from this aid and these programmes fail to make a systematic distinction between training in ordinary schools and special schools. It cannot therefore be determined whether a majority of people with disabilities are integrated into the mainstream education system.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in Poland is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter on the ground that it has not been established that mainstreaming of persons with disabilities is effectively guaranteed in education and training.

(Conclusions XVIII-2 2007, vol. 2, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Vocational training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the Polish report. It also received additional information on Article 15 in general and specifically on Poland, by the INGO members of the Grouping for the Social Charter of the Council of Europe.

According to the report, in 2002, there were 5.4 million persons with disabilities, 135 000 of whom were below 16 years of age.

The Committee notes from the report that Poland puts emphasis on the full participation of persons with disabilities in society and it reiterates its question about whether the definition of disability retained moved away from a medical definition of disability and towards a more social definition such as that endorsed by the WHO in its International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health – ICF 2001.

Education

The report states that non-discrimination of persons with disabilities is ensured through the existing legal framework, in particular the Labour Code (Article 18), the 2004 Law on the promotion of employment and labour market institutions, the Law on vocational and social rehabilitation and the employment of persons with disabilities, and the 1991 Act on the Education System. Discrimination is prohibited in access to training, pay, employment services and access to education. The Committee asks information on legal and non-legal remedies available to persons with disabilities who found they have been discriminated against.

The 1991 Act on the Education System includes the right to education at any type of school and to individual teaching, curricula and classes for children and young people with disabilities. Cases of discrimination in education can be brought before the Ombudsman or the Children's Rights Ombudsman. The Committee asks for further information on any right as well as case law and complaints brought to these institutions concerning discrimination in access to education.

According to the report, children with disabilities may attend ordinary classes in mainstream schools, integration classes, and special classes. Accordingly, schools receive financial help to cater for pupils with special needs. During the 2003/2004 school year, 103 543 pupils benefited from special education in all kinds of schools. According to the figures provided the majority were integrated into ordinary classes for each level of education from primary to upper-secondary school (at primary level, about 30 000 children attended ordinary classes, 20 000 in lower-secondary school). All education establishments must be physically accessible.

Children with disabilities who cannot attend mainstream education are educated in special schools. If at primary level the number of children in special schools is roughly equal to those attending mainstreaming, as regards the other levels of education it sharply increases. In 2003/2004 about 39 000 pupils were enrolled in lower secondary special schools. It appears to the Committee that the aim of inclusion is not yet achieved as the number of children in special schools at secondary level is high.

The report indicates that general teacher training include courses in special needs education and in-service training is also available.

The Committee notes from another source that children with intellectual disabilities are increasingly mainstreamed, in particular into integrated classes. However, often the specialized support needed is lacking. Moreover, at secondary level children with intellectual disabilities are mainly schooled in special education, which is currently under-funded. Finally, children with autism are for example a large group who do not attend any type of school.

The Committee asks the Government to comment on this. In particular, as far as access to education of children with intellectual disabilities is concerned, the Committee recalls that “the implementation of the Charter requires the State Parties to take not merely legal action but also practical action to give full effect to the rights recognised in the Charter. When the achievement of one of the rights in question is exceptionally complex and particularly expensive to resolve, a State Party must take measures that allows it to achieve the objectives of the Charter within a reasonable time, with measurable progress and to an extent consistent with the maximum use of available resources” (Autism-Europe v. France, Complaint No. 13/2002, decision on the merits of 4 November 2003, §53).

The Committee observes from another source that education for children with profound intellectual disabilities is also provided in welfare structures, such as social welfare homes and special education care centres. This system is criticised as non-transparent and unfittingly organized to respond the children needs. The Committee asks the Government to comment on this and in the next report to provide information on this question, in particular on the quality of education in residential institutions.

Vocational training

The Committee notes that mainstreaming also applies to secondary vocational education, university and non-university education. According to the report, in 2003/2004 there were 4 400 pupils in upper secondary schools and 5 000 in professional schools. Special secondary schools also exist and, in 2003/2004 1 000 students were enrolled in upper secondary schools and 21 300 in professional schools.

University and non-university higher education institutions are open to persons with disabilities and attendance is constantly increasing (from 4 682 persons in 2001/2002 to 9 256 in 2003/2004). Education establishments must be physically accessible and they receive funding for this purpose. Financial assistance to individual students, including persons with disabilities, is available under the legislation regulating higher education and an increasing number of students benefit from it (about 6 500 students in 2004). Other forms of assistance relating to housing or the use of new information technologies are also available.

Vocational guidance was provided to 11 000 persons with disabilities in 2004. Vocational training is also organized outside the education system. Under the 2004 Law on the promotion of employment and labour market institutions, employment services of the powiat organize vocational training for unemployed persons and jobseekers with disabilities who are registered with the employment service. In 2004, 20 % of the 7 500 participants who concluded the training were employed within three months from the end of the training. Training is also organized by employers accordingly to the Law on vocational and social rehabilitation and the employment of persons with disabilities.

Finally, training is also provided by NGOs upon funding of the National Fund for the rehabilitation of disabled people (PFRON). A programme (PARTENAIRE) aimed especially at NGOs supporting them in the organization of vocational training activities for persons with disabilities. In 2004, 32 organisations received 2 million PLN (€ 517 000) from PFRON. NGOs must be registered with the work office of the local authorities.

The Committee observes from another source that persons with intellectual disabilities are in a particular difficult situation as upon completion of education there is little rehabilitation they can avail of and access to the open market is very difficult. The Committee asks what measures are planned for persons with intellectual disabilities. It also asks information on the extent to which in general the training offer matches the demand, as well as the impact of training on the subsequent integration of persons with disabilities in the labour market.

Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee defers its conclusion.

(Conclusions XVI-2 2003, vol. 2, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para.1 – Vocational training arrangements for disabled persons)

The Committee notes the information in the Polish report.

According to the report there are approximately 4,4 million people with disabilities aged 15 or over in Poland. 2,7 million persons with disabilities were aged between 15 and 64 years.

The Committee had previously asked how the skills of persons with disabilities were assessed. The report states that the procedure for the assessment of the vocational skills of persons with disabilities (those over 16 years of age) is laid down in a regulation of the Minister of Labour and Social Policy of 21 January 1999. A person’s vocational skills are assessed by the powiat disability assessment boards, which in addition to determining the degree of disability make recommendations as to training, employment and rehabilitation. A right of appeal against a determination of the powiat disability assessment board lies to the voivodship disability assessment board.

The Committee wishes to know what steps, if any, have been taken or are planned to move away from a medical definition of disability and towards a more social definition such as that endorsed by the WHO in its International Classification of Functioning (ICF, 2001).

Education and Vocational training

As regards the vocational training of young persons with disabilities the Committee notes from the report and other sources that post primary education takes place in either basic vocational training schools or secondary vocational training schools. The Committee wishes to receive information on the number of young persons with disabilities enrolled in the various types of institutions (attending mainstream secondary educational establishments), measures in place to assist the integration of young persons with disabilities into these mainstream facilities, information on any special facilities that exist for young persons with disabilities and lastly the number of persons with disabilities attending universities as well as information on measures to encourage such persons to attend university.

The Committee asks whether general teacher training incorporates special needs education as an integral component.

As regards adult training the Committee recalls that it had previously asked how many persons with disabilities attended ordinary training centres and how many attended specialized centres. The report states that the special training and rehabilitation centres foreseen by Section 39.3.1 of the Act of 27 August 1997 on the vocational rehabilitation, social resettlement and employment of disabled persons have not yet been established. Thus, according to the report, persons with disabilities undergo training within the framework of general schemes. However the report goes on to provide information on the amount of funding from the National Fund for the Rehabilitation of Disabled People (PFRON) spent on training and the number of persons with disabilities who benefited from this training (in 2000 5 275 persons with disabilities underwent PFRON funded training). The Committee seeks clarification of the situation: there are special training programmes in existence for persons with disabilities but no state run special institutions. It asks whether the PFRON funded training takes place through the general schemes.

The Committee recalls that many service providers operate their own training centres specialising in training for persons with disabilities, however according to the report there is no data on the number of such centres, the number of places nor the number of persons undergoing training there or the number and qualifications of staff. The Committee asks whether there are regulations covering the establishment and provision (for example, the minimum qualifications required for staff) of training by NGOs and whether a supervisory or control system for these training centres exists. It also asks whether an estimate of the number of people attending such training courses could be provided.

Further, the Committee wishes to know whether the above figure (5 275) represents the total number of persons with disabilities who under went training – if not, what is the estimated total.

The Committee notes that only 0,3 % of the total PFRON budget was spent on training; the Committee finds this to be very low and asks the Government for its comments on this. PFRON does not pay benefits or allowances to persons with disabilities undergoing training but covers the cost of training.

However persons with disabilities registered as unemployed with the powiat labour office are eligible for a training supplement. A training allowance is paid in very specific circumstances – where a person loses their job as a result of their state of health, but is fit for vocational re training.

The Committee wishes to receive information how persons with disabilities are protected against discrimination in access to vocational training.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested the Committee defers its conclusion.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

Portugal

(Conclusions 2008, vol. 2, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community, para. 1 – Education and training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in Portugal’s report.

The report contains figures on persons with disabilities collected for a census in 2001 and a survey in 1994. According to these sources, persons with disabilities corresponded to 6.13% of the total population in 2001 and to 9.16% of the total population in 1994. According to the report, the decrease in the total amount of disabled persons is apparent and may be explained by the different methodologies used to collect and calculate the information. The report submits that its is most likely that persons with disabilities continue to be about 9% of the total population.

The report does not indicate the total number of persons with disabilities, including the number of children with disabilities (0-18 years of age) for the reference period (2003-2006). The Committee asks to be provided systematically with such information and expects the next report to contain clear up-to-date figures in this regard.

Definition of disability

The Committee notes that Article 2 of Law 38/2004 (see below), incorporates the social definition of disability as endorsed by the WHO in its International Classification of Functioning (ICF 2001), thus moving away from the medical definition which was previously used.

The Committee also notes from the report that the implementation of the ICF is progressive due to complexities encountered in the collection of all the necessary statistical data. In this regard, it has taken note that for rehabilitation, the definition of disabled person contained in Article 3 of Decree 247/89 of August 1989 is still applicable, i.e.: a disabled person is someone who, due to physical or mental limitations has difficulties in obtaining or maintaining a job corresponding to his/her age, qualifications and professional experience. The Committee asks the next report to clarify when this definition will cease to be used. It also asks to be up-dated on progress in the application of the ICF in the fields of education and training.

Anti-discrimination legislation

The Committee notes the adoption, during the reference period of the following relevant legislation:

Law 38/2004 on the Prevention, Habilitation, Rehabilitation and Participation of Persons with Disabilities, providing inter alia for equal opportunities for them with regard to lifelong education and training;
Law 46/2006 explicitly prohibiting direct and indirect discrimination on the basis of disability inter alia with respect to education and training. In particular, the prohibition covers: (i) the denial or limitation of access to public or private education establishments, or to any form of compensation/support appropriate to the specific needs of students with disabilities and (ii) the creation of classes or the taking of other internal organisational measures in public or private education establishments.

To establish how these two new laws are applied in practice, the Committee asks for more details in the next report on their implementation. In this context, the Committee also requests information on what remedies are available for persons with disabilities who find themselves unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to education and training. It asks again whether the constitutional provisions guaranteeing everyone the right to education and equality of opportunity may be litigated by an individual.

The Committee also asks the next report to provide information on any case law and complaints brought to the appropriate institutions relating to discrimination based on disability in the fields of education and training.

Education

In its previous conclusion (Conclusions XVI-2), the Committee noted that the system of education is based on the principle of mainstreaming and that measures are available to enable integration such as support teachers and coordination teams. The Committee had also noted that most children with disabilities attended regular schools; however, it asked for updated information on the number of children integrated into mainstream schools and the number of those attending special schools.

The report indicates that 64,000 children and young people with limitations in the auditory, visual, cognitive, emotional and personality, motor, communication, language, speech and physical health fields, or with other educational needs were considered eligible for educational support in the 2005/2006 academic year. The report informs that in the same academic year, 9 854 teachers were allocated to regular and special education schools or groups of schools in order to provide this support together with 178 specialist staff. Even though the report affirms that only a small number of students with disabilities attended special education establishments (less than 1%), it is not clear how many students with disabilities were integrated into mainstream schools and how many attended special schools.

As mentioned above, the Committee needs to know the total number of children with disabilities (0-18 years of age) to assess the overall situation. It also asks to systematically be provided with:

the number of students with disabilities attending mainstream education;
the number of those attending special school education facilities;
the percentage of students with disabilities entering the labour market following mainstream or special education.

The Committee notes from the report that 31 Deaf Student Education Support Units (UAEASs) were established within reference mainstream schools in the public basic education and secondary education systems and that the number of deaf students rose from 682 in 2000/2001 to 958 in 2004/2005. The Committee also notes that similar specialist units within regular schools will be created for other demanding and uncommon situations. It asks the next report to inform it about progress in this regard.

The Committee reiterates that it wishes to know whether general teacher training incorporates special needs education as an integral component.

Vocational training

The Committee refers to its previous conclusion (Conclusions XVI-2), for a decsription of the various forms of training available and projects underway (e.g. the organisation of vocational training and certification for persons with disabilities as well as the network of resource centres), noting that these continued during the reference period. It asks the next report to demonstrate the impact of such projects by indicating whether more persons with disabilities were trained and whether the percentage of persons with disabilities entering the labour market following mainstream or special training increased.

In this regard, the Committee recalls that it requests to systematically be provided also with:

the number of persons with disabilities attending mainstream vocational training;
the number of those attending special training facilities;
the percentage of persons with disabilities entering the labour market following mainstream or special training.

Meanwhile, the Committee notes from the report that the number of persons with disabilities undergoing pre-occupational preparation (245 in 2005 and 268 in 2006) or benefiting from information, evaluation and vocational counselling (1,023 in 2005 and 1,034 in 2006) increased; whilst the number of persons with disabilities attending vocational training decreased (6,975 in 2005 and 6,059 in 2006). The report explains that the latter decrease is related to the extension of compulsory schooling, which has increased the number of years that disabled persons spend in the education system.

As regards higher education, the Committee noted in its previous conclusion (Conclusions XVI-2), that a certain number of places is reserved for persons with physical and sensory disabilities. The Committee notes from the report that the number of students with disabilities benefiting from this system has increased (187 in 2003/2004 and 207 in 2004/2005). The Committee asks the next report to clarify whether the offer corresponds to the demand and whether persons with intellectual disabilities may also benefit from the above mentioned quota system.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the requested information, the Committee concludes that the situation in Portugal is in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter.

(Conclusions XVI-2 2003, vol. 2, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para.1 – Vocational training arrangements for disabled persons)

The Committee notes the information in Portugal’s report.

General remarks

According to a survey carried out in 1995 in the framework of the “QUANTI” project approximately 9,2 % of the population has a disability, of these approximately 509 600 are between 16 and 64 years.

The Committee wishes to know what steps, if any, have been taken or are planned to move away from a medical definition of disability and towards a social definition such as that endorsed by the WHO in its International Classification of Functioning (ICF 2001).

Education and Vocational Training

The Constitution guarantees everyone the right to education and guarantees equality of opportunity as regards access and achievement. The Committee asks whether these constitutional provisions can be litigated by an individual.

The report recalls that the guiding principle behind education for children with disabilities is integrated education. Measures are available to enable integration such as support teachers and coordination teams.

The Committee recalls from its previous conclusion that most children with disabilities attended regular schools; however, it wishes to receive updated information on the number of children integrated into mainstream schools and the number attending special schools.

As regards higher education the Committee notes there is a certain number of places reserved for persons with physical and sensory disabilities.

The Committee wishes to know whether general teacher training incorporates special needs education as an integral component.

As regards vocational training for adults (including those who have completed basic education) the Committee notes the information on specialist training either provided or supported by the Institute for Employment and Vocational Training (IEFP). It notes in this respect that approximately 134 private organisations provided, inter alia, training for 6 143 persons in 2000 and guidance for 241. This was a decrease on previous years, the Committee asks for information on the reasons for this.

The report states that persons with disabilities also attend mainstream training facilities and that special resource centres provide assistance for this and that mainstream courses may be adapted. The Committee requests information on the number of persons integrated into mainstream training.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested the Committee defers its conclusion.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

R

Romania

Romania

(Conclusions 2008, vol. 2, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in Romania’s report as well as in the additional information submitted on 14 October 2008.

The Committee notes from the report that in 2006, there were 488,054 persons with disabilities in Romania, of whom 55,121 were children.

Definition of Disability

In its previous conclusion, the Committee noted that the definition of persons with disabilities retained in the National Strategy on equal opportunities for people with disabilities was in line with the 2001 International Classification of Functioning and Health definition endorsed by the WHO.

Anti-discrimination legislation

In its previous conclusion (Conclusions 2007), the Committee considered that there was no effective non-discrimination legislation in relation to disability in education.

The Committee notes the adoption in December 2006 of Law 448/2006 on the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities which is based, inter alia, on the principles of equal opportunities and non discrimination. The new Law provides for equal and free access to any form of education and training for persons with disabilities and lists a series of measures to achieve such goal. The Committee asks the next report to provide information on the impact in practice of this Law in terms of increased mainstreaming of pupils and students with disabilities.

The Committee also asks for information on the right of individuals to seek remedies before the courts in cases of discrimination on the ground of disability in education and training.

Education

The Committee recalls that, in its previous conclusions (Conclusions 2003 and 2007), it found the situation not to be in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter, inter alia, on the ground that the number of children with disabilities in special schools was high. The Committee had therefore asked what measures were taken to increase mainstreaming education.

The Committee takes note of the adoption, in October 2005, of a National Strategy on the social protection, integration and inclusion of persons with disabilities for 2006-2013. According to the report this Strategy supports education at any age for persons with disabilities. From the additional information submitted, the Committee notes that following the adoption of this Strategy the number of pupils with disabilities has increased in ordinary schools from 14,193 pupils in 2005-2006 to 20,728 pupils in 2006-2007. During the same school years, the number of pupils with disabilities attending special schools decreased from 28,873 to 27,445. While noting the progress achieved, the Committee observes that the total number of pupils with disabilities in special schools is still higher than that of those in ordinary schools.

As to the high number of children with disabilities that the Committee had previously found to be left without education, the report does not comment. However, from the figures provided for 2006 (55,121 children with disabilities, out of which 43,066 in special or ordinary schools), the number of such children still remains high. The Committee therefore considers the situation not to be in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter and asks the next report to clarify whether these children have been integrated in some form of education or training.

Vocational training

The Committee observes that no reply was provided to its previous questions concerning vocational training (Conclusions 2003 and 2007). It therefore reiterates that it wants the next report to contain:

the number of young persons integrated into mainstream vocational training establishments or apprenticeship schools;
the number of persons with disabilities integrated into mainstream adult facilities;
a decsription of the measures taken to assist integration into mainstream facilities;
the number of specialist vocational training facilities both for young persons and for adults and the number of persons attending them.

In the absence of this information, the Committee considers that it has not been established that mainstreaming of persons with disabilities is effectively guaranteed in the field of training.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in Romania is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter on the ground that mainstreaming of persons with disabilities is not effectively guaranteed in education and training as:

the number of children with disabilities attending special education is high;
a considerable number of children with disabilities is left without education.

(Conclusions 2003, vol. 2 – Conclusions on article 15 – Right of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community, para.1 – Vocational training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee notes the information in the Romanian report.

The Committee finds no information in the report on the estimated number of persons with disabilities in Romania. It asks that this information be provided in the next report, as well as an estimate of the number of children with disabilities. Further it wishes to know how many persons with disabilities (children and adults) are living in institutions.

The National Institute of Studies and Strategies for Disabled Persons, under the authority of the State Secretariat for Disabled Persons is responsible for establishing the criteria for certifying disability. The actual certification of disability is undertaken by medical expertise commissions.

Education

The Committee observes that according to the report that all children irrespective of type and degree of disability have a right to education.

A Memorandum concluded between the relevant government departments provides for an action plan containing measures relating to the education of children with disabilities. This action plan lays down the principles of the “bests interests of the child” and “resources shall follow the child”. It gives the National Agency for Child Protection and Adoption (NACPA) a role in monitoring the services and resources offered to children with disabilities. The action plan also provides for better coordination between the relevant Ministries, the NACPA and NGOs in order to diversify social and educational services for children with disabilities. Training will be provided for all persons in mainstream schools on the needs of children with disabilities under the Programme “Improvement of Human Resources with responsibilities in the field of Integrated Education” following an agreement between the Ministry of Education and Research, UNICEF and RENNICO. The Committee wishes to receive information on the legislative basis of these policies, if any.

Currently according to the report there are:

32,799 children with disabilities attending special schools
18,125 children with disabilities attending mainstream schools

There are 219 special schools in Romania. Home education is provided for children unable to move.

The Committee notes that no information is provided on what type of schools the above represent – infant, primary or secondary. It assumes that these are schools providing education up to the end of the compulsory school education age. The Committee recalls from Conclusions 2002 in this respect that compulsory education in Romania lasts for nine years beginning in the year a child reaches the age of seven.

The Committee observes that the number of children in special schools is high (in particular for the number of schools; It requests information on staffing levels in these schools). It recalls in this respect that Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter requires that children with disabilities be integrated into mainstream schooling, and that education in specialist facilities should be the exception. The numbers alone indicate that the policy of integration is not being applied and that there is an inordinately high reliance on separate schooling. In this respect the Committee finds that the situation is not in conformity with Article 15§1. The Committee requests the next report to provide details of specific measures in place to increase the integration of children with disabilities, for example, the provision of specialist teachers in mainstream schools, the adaptation of schools to make them physically accessible, the provision of support staff, the provision of aids and technology, transport etc. as well as progress on the implementation of the above mentioned Action Plan. It also requests information on the resources available for the education of children with disabilities and the percentage of the education budget this represents. Lastly it requests information on the provision of education to children with disabilities living in institutions.

With respect to the modalities of the right to an equal effective education in the mainstream the Committee wishes to receive information on the following issues: (1) whether and how the normal curriculum is adjusted to take account of disability; (2) whether and how individualised educational plans are crafted for students with disabilities; (3) whether and how resources follow the child (including support staff and other technical assistance) to enable such plans to be implemented; (4) whether and how testing or examining modalities are adjusted to take account of disability and whether the fact that examinations are taken under non-standard conditions is revealed to third parties who, the Committee feels, has no right to such information and (5) whether the qualifications that eventuate are the same for all children or whether different qualifications ensue. If so, are these qualifications officially recognised and validated and do they have the same functional value to the individual as the mainstream qualification. In order to evaluate this, the Committee is interested to learn what the relative progression rates are for such children into employment or further education.

With respect to special education the Committee is particularly interested in the following issues: (1) whether the Ministry of Education has primary responsibility as it should; (2) how the curriculum is designed and whether it is validated/approved by the Ministry for Education; (3) whether individualised education plans are crafted and the process by which they are determined, (4) what kinds of qualifications does the curriculum lead to and whether they are recognised in order to progress forward into further education or to gain entry to vocational education or the open labour market; (5) what the success rate is in progressing into vocational training, or further education or into the open labour market and (6) is the quality of education monitored by mainstream monitoring mechanisms.

Vocational training

The Committee recalls that as under Article 10 of the Revised Charter it regards vocational training as encompassing all types of higher education including university education therefore it requests the next report to provide information on access for persons with disabilities to university education.

The Committee observes that all graduates of compulsory education may join either special or regular vocational schools as well as apprenticeship schools and high schools. However the Committee finds no information in the report on the number of young persons with disabilities attending these different educational establishments, nor details of measures to assist their integration in mainstream facilities. It asks that this information be provided in the next report.

As regards facilities for the vocational training of adults, the Committee observes that there is the National Agency for Employment’s (NAE) own network for vocational training as well as non-public vocational training providers (such as private companies, chambers of commerce, NGOs etc.) The NAE provides vocational training services to all job seekers who have left the public educational system; training or retraining is free of charge provided that the individual is registered with one of the agencies for employment.

The NAE is responsible for drawing up an annual action plan on measures for persons with disabilities registered with employment agencies. Commissions for the social and occupational integration of persons with disabilities, which operate in every county and Bucharest, coordinate vocational training and occupational guidance for these persons.

In order to evaluate the situation, the Committee needs further information, therefore it asks for the following:

the number of young persons integrated into mainstream vocational training establishments or apprenticeship schools;
the number of persons with disabilities integrated into mainstream adult facilities;
measures taken to assist integration into mainstream facilities;
the number of specialist vocational training facilities both for young persons and for adults and the number of persons attending them;
any assistance available to persons with disabilities undergoing vocational training – financial assistance etc;
information on the percentage of the vocational training budget training for persons with disabilities represents.

While noting that the relevant policies lay down the principle of integrated education, the Committee notes that there is no effective non-discrimination legislation in this area providing for effective remedies. Therefore it concludes that the situation is not in conformity with the Revised Charter on this point.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in Romania is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter on the grounds that there is no non-discrimination legislation in relation to disability in the field of education and the number of children with disabilities in special schools is inordinately high.

(Conclusions 2003, vol. 2 – Conclusions on article 17 – Right of children and young persons to social, legal and economic protection, para.1 – Assistance, education and training)

The Committee notes the information in Romania’s report.

Status of the Child

The Committee notes the information on the rules regarding the establishment of parentage.

New legislation on adoption entered into force in 1997 and 1998. The guiding principle is now that adoption may only take place when it is in the best interest of the child. Only children registered with the Romanian Committee for Adoptions may be adopted, prospective adoptive parents must be approved by the local commission for child protection, priority is given to relatives of the child and then to Romanian citizens. Court approval is necessary. The opinion of the child, where it is capable of expressing its opinion must be taken into account.

The Romanian Committee for Adoptions or the local commission for child protection monitors the situation of the child for at least two years after the adoption.

As regards inter-country adoptions the report states that draft legislation has been prepared to ensure the procedure complies with the relevant international standards in this area. The Committee wishes to be kept informed of all developments.

According to other sources in 1998, 840 national adoptions took place and 2 017 inter-country adoptions. However in June 2001 a moratorium on international adoption was imposed. International adoption applications suspended by this moratorium have recently begun to be processed again. The Committee wishes to receive updated statistics in the next report.

The Committee notes that adoptive parents are under an obligation to inform children about their being adopted as soon as their age and maturity permits them to do so and to notify the local commission for child protection on their fulfilment of this obligation. The Committee wishes to know whether adopted children have the right to information about their blood family: whether the obligation to inform children about their being adopted includes an obligation to provide information relating to their biological family.

According to the report and other sources Section 44 of the Romanian Constitution provides that all children are equal, and that there shall be no discrimination between children born within marriage and outside marriage.

Education

whether there is a functioning system of primary and secondary education;
the number of children enrolled in school as a percentage of the number of children of the relevant age;
the number of schools;
class sizes;
the teacher pupil ratio;
whether there is a mechanism to monitor the quality of education delivered and to ensure a high quality of teaching in both public and private schools;
whether education is compulsory in general until the minimum age for admission to employment;
whether there is a fair geographical distribution of schools in particular between rural and urban areas;
whether, considering that equal access to education should be guaranteed for all children, particular attention is paid to vulnerable groups such as children from minorities, children seeking asylum, refugee children, children in hospital, children in care, pregnant teenagers, teenage mothers, children deprived of their liberty etc. and whether necessary special measures have been taken to ensure equal access to education for these children;
the cost of education, whether basic education is free of charge, whether there are hidden costs such as books and uniforms - whether these are reasonable, and whether assistance is available to limit their impact;
the number of children dropping out, not completing compulsory education or failing compulsory education, rate of absenteeism, measures taken to encourage school attendance and to reduce dropping out.

The Romanian Constitution guarantees the right to education including free education, for all children and young persons.

Pre-school education is for children between the ages of three and seven years, primary education runs from grade I – IV and secondary gymnasium from grade V to VIII, secondary high school/vocational school runs from grades IX to XII/XIII. School is compulsory from grades I to VIII.

There are 6 188 primary schools, most in rural areas, with 1 388 155 students. According to other sources, of the 61 378 primary school teachers only 49 875 have been formally trained. The Committee wishes to receive information on measures taken to strengthen teacher-training courses so as to increase the number and standards of teachers and to improve the conditions of service of teachers.

There are 1 120 730 children attending compulsory secondary schooling.

Again according to the other sources, 6,8 % of children aged 7- 14 years did not attend compulsory schooling in 1996-1997. The Committee wishes to receive updated statistics in the next report. However it notes that this situation cannot be considered as being in conformity with Article 17§1 of the Revised Charter.

In 1995, the Education Law required that 4 % of GNP was spent on education, but according to other sources this was insufficient. The Committee wishes to receive further information on this in the next report.

The principle of non-discrimination is enshrined in the Education Law No. 84/1995 as amended by Emergency Ordinance No.36/1997. Article 8 of this legislation stipulates that education is to be provided in the Romanian language but in certain conditions it may be provided in the languages of national minorities and widely spoken foreign languages. Students belonging to minority groups who attend schools where the teaching language is Romanian can require the school to include among the subjects taught their mother tongue, their history and traditions. Classes are taught, inter alia, in Hungarian, German and Ukrainian.

Special measures have been introduced to ensure equal access to education for Roma children. Certain classes are taught in the Roma language (although they are under staffed) where Roma families are nomadic school enrolment is not conditional upon the parents domicile and school caravans may be organised for nomadic Roma children.

As regards the integration of children with disabilities into mainstream education the Committee refers to its conclusion under Article 15.

Lastly the Committee wishes to receive information on the situation of certain other vulnerable groups: children in care, pregnant teenagers, teenage mothers, children, refugee children, children seeking asylum and sick children including hospitalised children.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

S

Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden

Slovakia

(Conclusions XIX-1 2008, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Education and training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in Slovakia’s report.

In its previous conclusion (Conclusions XVIII-2), the Committee had asked to be informed on progress made in using international classifications such as that endorsed by the WHO (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health – ICF 2001) for assessing disability beyond the field of social assistance and whether this progress, if any, was endorsed by a law. Since the report remains silent in this regard, the Committee reiterates its question.

In its previous conclusion, the Committee had also requested to be systematically informed on the total number of persons with disabilities and, in particular, that of children (0-18 years of age). The requested data was not provided. The Committee urges the next report to do so, while reiterating that where it is known that a certain category of persons is, or might be, discriminated against, it is the national authorities’ duty to collect data to assess the extent of the problem (European Roma Rights Centre v. Greece, Complaint No. 15/2003, decision on the merits of 8 December 2004, §27). The gathering and analysis of such data (with due safeguards for privacy and against other abuses) is indispensable to the formulation of rational policy (European Roma Rights Centre v. Italy, Complaint No. 27/2004, decision on the merits of 7 December 2005, §23).

Education

The Committee had asked for general information on special education. It had also asked the report to clarify whether the “special homes” in which some children are placed for care should be considered as special education institutions. In the affirmative, the Committee wanted to know what education is provided in such special homes. The report does not provide any of the requested information.

The Committee also notes that the report continues not to provide the following relevant figures:

the total number of students with disabilities attending mainstream education;
the total number of students with disabilities attending special education;
the percentage of students with disabilities entering the labour market following mainstream or special education.

Due to the repeated lack of requested information concerning education of persons with disabilities, the Committee finds that nothing shows that the situation is in conformity with Article 15§1.

Vocational training

The report does not provide any new information with regard to vocational training of persons with disabilities, nor does it reply to any of the Committee’s previous requests (Conclusions XVIII-2) for information on:

the number of places at vocational training facilities, including special facilities,
the extent to which the training offer matches the demand;
the number of persons with disabilities attending vocational training, including higher education, and the other forms of special training available;
whether training facilities are available for adults living in institutions.

The Committee therefore finds that nothing shows that the situation is in conformity with Article 15§1.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in Slovakia is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter on the ground that it has not been established that mainstreaming of persons with disabilities is effectively guaranteed in education and training.

(Conclusions XVIII-2 2007, vol. 2, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Vocational training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in Slovakia’s report.

The Committee notes from the report that, in 2003, 290 000 persons with disabilities were registered for the compensation system under Act. No. 195/1998 on social assistance. The Committee asks to be systematically informed on the total number of persons with disabilities and, in particular, that of children (0-18 years of age).

In reply to the Committee, the report indicates that when assessing disability at least for the purpose of social assistance, international classifications such as that endorsed by the WHO (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health – ICF 2001) are taken into account and medical and non-medical criteria are retained. The Committee asks whether the progress from a medical definition of disability to a more general one goes beyond the field of social assistance and if it is endorsed in law.

Education

The Committee recalls that in stated in the Autism-Europe decision (Autism-Europe v. France, Complaint No. 13/2002, decision on the merits of 4 November 2003, §48), “the underlying vision of Article 15 is one of equal citizenship for persons with disabilities and, fittingly, the primary rights are those of “independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community. Securing a right to education for children and others with disabilities plays an obviously important role in advancing these citizenship rights”. Under Article 15§1, the Committee therefore considers necessary the existence of non-discrimination legislation as an important tool for the advancement of the inclusion of children with disabilities into general or mainstream educational schemes. Such legislation should, as a minimum, require a compelling justification for special or segregated educational systems and confer an effective remedy on those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to education. Legislation may consist of general antidiscrimination legislation, specific legislation concerning education, or a combination of the two.

The Committee notes from the report that Act No. 365/2004 on Equal Treatment in Certain Areas and protection against Discrimination (Anti-discrimination Act) entered into force in 2004. This Act amends Act No. 29/1984 on the system of primary and secondary schools and introduced the prohibition of discrimination on the ground of disability. In particular, it provides for two main forms of mainstreaming: individual integration and special class integration. Pupils with disabilities, including intellectual disabilities, are admitted to school upon a diagnosis from the specialized educational counseling institution and after all necessary material, technical, and human arrangements have been carried out in the school. An individual educational training plan must be drafted and regularly revised. Persons who felt discriminated may go before a court for redress.

The Committee notes that the report does not provide any reply neither on the number of pupils attending mainstream education, nor attending special education. It indicates the number of children in care in social service homes: 2 268 in 2003. The Committee asks whether these homes are special education institutions and if this is the case which education is provided to the children. It also asks general information on special education and attendance of children with disabilities to both mainstreaming and special education, including children with intellectual disabilities. Meanwhile it can not establish if the right of persons with disabilities to education is sufficiently guaranteed Finally the Committee asks information on case law and complaints brought to the appropriate institutions concerning discrimination in access to education.

Vocational training

The Committee notes that Act No. 365/2004 on Equal Treatment in Certain Areas and protection against Discrimination (Anti-discrimination Act) also concerns training and higher education in the same terms as primary and secondary education.

However, the report does not provide answers to the questions put by the Committee on vocational training. The Committee therefore reiterates them, i.e. the number of places at vocational training facilities, including special facilities, and the extent to which the training offer matches the demand; the number of persons with disabilities attending vocational training, including higher education, and the other forms of special training available; and finally whether training facilities are available for adults living in institutions.

The Committee concludes that the situation in Slovakia is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter on the grounds that it has not been established that the right of persons with disabilities to education is sufficiently guaranteed.

(Conclusions XVI-2 2003, vol. 2, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para.1 – Vocational training arrangements for disabled persons)

The Committee notes the information in the Slovak report.

The Committee recalls that the definition of disability differs according to the purpose of the legislation. However for training or employment purposes a person with a disability may be deemed a citizen with altered work capacity (or a citizen with altered work capacity with severe disability).

The Committee wishes to know whether efforts have been made or are envisaged, to move away from a medical definition of disability towards a more social definition such as that endorsed by the WHO in its International Classification of Functioning (ICF, 2001).

According to the report in 2000 the average number of unemployed persons with altered working capacity was 27 237 (including those with severe disability). This amounted to 5,3 % of the total monthly average of registered unemployed persons. In 2001 the average number of unemployed persons with altered working capacity was 28 747 (including those with severe disabilities), which amounted to 5,5 % of the total average monthly number of registered unemployed persons.

According to additional information submitted by the Slovak authorities it is estimated that there are 500 000 people with disabilities in the Slovak Republic. Of these approximately 300 000 (60 %) are of working age and 100 000 are children.

As regards young persons with disabilities the Committee wishes to receive information on the number of children with disabilities in mainstream schools, the number attending special schools as well as the number of children living in institutions and the educational facilities within these institutions. It also wishes to receive information on measures in place to enable children with disabilities attend mainstream schools. The Committee recalls that under Article 15§1 education should be made available in the framework of general schemes.

It also asks whether special needs education is an integral component of general teacher training.

The Committee recalls from the previous report that vocational training in the strict sense for persons with disabilities may take place under general training schemes on an individual or collective basis, or may take place in special schools or institutes.

The current report states that there are two training facilities for persons with disabilities under the responsibility of the Ministry for Labour and Social Affairs which have a total of 240 places. The Committee asks whether there are other training facilities in addition to these and what the total number of places in special facilities is. It also requests information on the number of persons with disabilities integrated into mainstream facilities and information on the measures in place to promote such integration.

Lastly the Committee asks about training facilities available for adults with disabilities living in institutions.

Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee defers its conclusion.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

Slovenia

(Conclusions 2008, vol. 2, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community, para. 1 – Education and training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in Slovenia’s report.

The Committee observes that a Directorate for Disabled was established within the Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection in 2005. According to the report, the Ministry closely cooperates with and consults persons with disabilities and their representative organisations.

The report also indicates that on 30 November 2006 (at the end of the reference period), the Government adopted the Action plan for Disabled People 2007-2013. Furthermore the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment of Disabled Persons Act fully entered into force in 2007 (outside the reference period). The Committee asks the next report to provide detailed information on the implementation of both in respect to education and training.

The Committee also reiterates that it wants to be systematically provided with information on the:

total number of persons with disabilities, including the number of children;
number of pupils/students with disabilities following mainstream education and vocational facilities;
number of pupils/students with disabilities following special school education or training facilities;
the percentage of persons with disabilities entering the labour market following mainstream or special education or/and training.

Anti-discrimination legislation

In its previous conclusion (Conclusions 2007), the Committee acknowledged that the Principle of Equal Treatment Act guarantees equal treatment inter alia for persons with disabilities in the exercise of his or her fundamental freedoms in all areas of the life of society, including education and that it prohibits direct and indirect discrimination.

In its previous conclusion the Committee had however asked whether a compelling justification for placing children in special or segregated educational systems was foreseen by law. Since the report does not provide a reply, the Committee reiterates its request.

The Committee had also previously noted that an Act on Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities was under preparation. It had therefore requested the next report to provide information on such legislation. Since the current report remains silent on this point, the Committee reiterates that it wishes to be kept informed on progress in the adoption of the legislation as well as on its implementation in practice in relation to the prohibition of discrimination in education and training.

The Committee also reiterates its request for details on relevant case law on discrimination relating to education and training.

Education

The Committee refers to its previous conclusions (Conclusions 2003 and 2007) for its assessment of the integration of children with disabilities in mainstream education as regulated by the Placement of Children with Special Needs Act adopted in 2000. The Committee additionally notes from the current report that children with special needs are not only placed in care and education programmes according to their type and level of deficit, handicap and disorders; an individualised care and education programme for each child also has to be established.

In reply to the Committee, the report indicates that the number of children with disabilities placed in mainstream schools with adapted teaching and additional professional help is much higher than those in schools with a modified education programme with lower education standards. In 2006, in primary school, the former were 3,045 whilst the latter were 550; in secondary school, the former were 761 whilst the latter were 178. However, as mentioned above, the Committee needs to be systematically provided with the total number of pupils/students with disabilities to assess the significance of any such figure.

With regard to the aforementioned “modified education programmes with lower education standards”, the Committee requests the next report to indicate what percentage of pupils following such programmes continue with higher education and/or enter the labour market. It also asks the next report to indicate how many pupils with disabilities benefiting from the individualised programmes mentioned above, initially placed in a modified programme with a lower education standard, are progressively transferred to an educational programme with an adapted implementation and additional professional help.

The Committee also reiterates its request for comments on the statements1 quoted in its previous conclusion concerning children with intellectual disabilities and their apparent segregation in special schools, while taking note that there were 171 in 2005; 162 in 2006, and in 2007, 183 young persons aged between 18 and 26 years placed in social welfare institutions or in centres for care and work in accordance with the provisions of the Act Concerning Social Care of Mentally and Physically Handicapped Persons.

While noting the affirmative reply to its question concerning general teacher training and the incorporation of special needs education as an integral component of it, the Committee observes that answers are not provided to many other previous questions concerning the modalities of mainstreaming. The Committee therefore reiterates such questions (Conclusions 2007).

The Committee also reiterates its previous questions with respect to special education, particularly requesting the next report to clarify how the quality of education, sufficient resources, and monitoring are ensured in special institutions. In this framework, it reiterates that Article 15§1 requires the inclusion of children with disabilities into general or mainstream educational schemes and that the lack of “inclusiveness” may give rise to a finding of non conformity.

To assess whether the right to equal treatment in education is guaranteed in an effective manner, the Committee asks the next report to answer all the questions posed and reiterated. It points out that if the necessary information is not provided in the next report, there will be nothing to show that the situation is in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter in this respect.

Vocational training

The Committee notes from the report that in 2006, out of 24,678 unemployed persons with disabilities, 3,000 were included in various training facilities and 1,112 were included in vocational rehabilitation. The report further indicates that there are 13 rehabilitation institutions aimed at training disabled persons for working, finding work, getting a job, keeping employment and advancing in their jobs.

The Committee however also observes that the report again does not to address or properly answer its previous questions (Conclusions 2003 and 2007) on vocational training of persons with disabilities. Should the necessary information not be provided in the next report, there will be nothing to show that the situation is in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter in this respect.

The Committee refers to its conclusion under Article 15§2 and 15§3 for its assessment of the occupational activity centres.

Finally, as mentioned above, the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment of Disabled Persons Act fully entered into force in 2007 (outside the reference period), the Committee will therefore examine its implementation during the next supervision cycle.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee defers its conclusion.

(Conclusions 2003, vol. 2 – Conclusions on article 15 – Right of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community, para.1 – Vocational training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee notes the information in the Slovenian report.

Section 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia guarantees persons with disabilities the right to protection and training; it further guarantees the right of children with disabilities to education and training for an active life in society.

Education and training are to be financed from public funds.

According to the report there are 168 755 persons with disabilities in the Republic of Slovenia.

At the end of 2000, there were 43 534 persons with disabilities on the labour market in Slovenia, of whom 26 355 were employed and 17 179 were unemployed. The unemployment rate among this group thus amounted to 21%. The Committee asks how many persons with disabilities in Slovenia are of working age.

Education

The Guidance of Children with Special Needs Act (ZUOPP) of 2000 regulates the education of children with disabilities. It provides a definition of such children. According to the figures contained in the report in 2001 there were 5 029 children regarded as falling within the terms of this legislation.

However the Committee further notes that this figure does not include the persons defined as having a disability under the Social Care of Mentally and Physically Handicapped Persons Act, which applies to persons under 18 years of age (or in exceptional circumstances under 26 years of age). The report states that there are 7 238 persons coming within the ambit of this legislation. The Committee requests information on the provision made for the education of these children.

The Committee notes from the report and other sources that the ZUOPP ACT provides for the following type of education for children with disabilities:

Adapted/Adjusted Implementation programmes- children may attend regular elementary schools, which have adapted implementation and supplementary assistance (special classes in mainstream schools or assistance in ordinary classes).

However this is only possible where the schools meet the necessary conditions (special programme, supplementary staff etc). The Committee asks how many schools have adapted implementation programmes, how many children attend these types of programmes and how many children are turned down on the basis that the school is not adequately equipped.

Adapted/Adjusted Educational Programmes- there exists a state network of schools with an ‘adapted programme’; this takes place in 33 schools. The Committee wishes to receive further information on the extent that these programmes take place in mainstream schools. It further asks how many children participate in these adapted programmes.
Where it is not possible for a child to attend any type of mainstream education even in an adapted form, there exist “special schools”: Institutes of Education. The Committee wishes to know how many children attend these institutes.

Similar provision is also made for children with disabilities in preschool facilities. Such children, according to the report, may attend regular kindergartens with adjusted implementation and additional professional assistance which may be provided individually within the class or occasionally in a special group outside the class. Premises and teaching aids may be adjusted to the needs of the children. Further a companion may be allocated to mobility-impaired children for the provision of physical assistance. The Committee asks for information on the number of children benefiting from such pre-school facilities.

Pre-school children with more complex needs may attend “adjusted educational programmes”. Again the Committee asks for the number of children participating in these programmes.

After elementary school young persons in Slovenia may attend high school, or vocational schools in the lower, medium and upper and professional level. All are open to children with special needs; adapted implementation programmes and special assistance are available. The Committee wishes to receive information on the number of young persons attending the above-mentioned mainstream establishments.

According to the report, where children with special needs cannot be provided with education in the location of their residence they may have to enter a residential Institute of Education or may have to be fostered. However, in certain circumstances instead, should the parents so request, the child may be granted free transport to and from the place of education. The Committee is concerned that a child may be unnecessarily be placed in a residential institution simply due to the fact no provision is made for his needs locally when he could be integrated. It wishes to receive the Government’s comments on this and further receive information on the geographical distribution of the different types of education for children with disabilities.

With respect to the modalities of the right to an equal effective education in the mainstream, the Committee wishes to receive information on the following issues: (1) whether and how the normal curriculum is adjusted to take account of disability, (2) whether and how individualised educational plans are crafted for students with disabilities, (3) whether and how resources follow the child (including support staff and other technical assistance) to enable such plans to be implemented, (4) whether and how testing or examining modalities are adjusted to take account of disability and whether the fact that examinations are taken under non-standard conditions is revealed to third parties who have no right to such information, (5) whether the qualifications that are obtained are the same for all children and if so, whether these qualifications are officially recognised and validated and have the same functional value to the individual as the mainstream qualification. In order to evaluate this, the Committee wishes to know what the relative progression rates are for such children into employment or further education.

With respect to special education, the Committee is particularly interested in the following issues: (1) whether the Ministry of Education has primary responsibility as it should, (2) how the curriculum is designed and whether it is validated /approved by the Ministry for Education, (3) whether individualised education plans are crafted and the process by which they are determined, (4) what kinds of qualifications does the curriculum lead to and whether they are recognised in order to progress forward into further education or to gain entry to vocational education or the open labour market, (5) what the success rate is in progressing into vocational training, or further education or into the open labour market, (6) is the quality of education monitored by mainstream monitoring mechanisms.

The Committee wishes to know whether general teacher training incorporates special needs education as an integral component.

Vocational Training

The Committee recalls the information supplied under Article 10 on the system and facilities for vocational training in Slovenia. All facilities are open to persons with disabilities. According to the report, persons with disabilities benefit from transport subsidies and other assistance. The Committee requests further details of measures to facilitate integration into ordinary training.

The Employment Office is primarily responsible for providing vocational guidance, advice on and referral to training. Persons with disabilities also benefit from this facility. The Committee wishes to receive information on the number of persons with disabilities assisted by the Employment Office.

The Committee refers to its comments on the scope of vocational training made under Article 10 and therefore requests information on measures to assist the integration of persons with disabilities into university and the number of such persons attending university.

The Committee observes that there are several special institutions providing vocational rehabilitation and training for persons with disabilities. It request information on the number of persons attending such centres.

According to the report, in 2000, 3 062 persons with disabilities underwent vocational training; 930 through vocational rehabilitation, 1 232 through the programme of education and training and 900 through the public works programme. The Committee wishes to receive clarification of these figures; is this the total number of persons who underwent training or just adults, does this figure include those who receive training in special institutions etc. Finally it requests information on the proportion of the training budget spent on training of persons with disabilities both in special centres and in ordinary facilities.

The Committee recalls that the legal situation of persons with disabilities calls for anti-discrimination legislation, in particular in the field of education and training. While noting that the relevant legislation lays down the principle of integrated education, the Committee notes that there is yet no effective non-discrimination legislation in this area providing for effective remedies. Therefore it concludes that the situation is not in conformity with the Charter on this point. It notes however that according to the report new legislation on the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities is under preparation.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in Slovenia is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter on the grounds that there is no non-discrimination legislation in relation to disability in the field of education.

(Conclusions 2003, vol. 2 – Conclusions on article 17 – Right of children and young persons to social, legal ad economic protection, para.1 – Assistance, education and training)

The Committee notes the information in the Slovenian report.

Education

The text of Article 17of the Revised Charter has been revised considerably, in some respects in order to reflect the approach of the Committee under this provision of the 1961 Charter (e.g. reference to mothers has been omitted and now includes legal protection as well as social and economic). Paragraph 1 a now contains a reference to the right to education and paragraph 2 guarantees the right to free primary and secondary education.

whether there is a functioning system of primary and secondary education;
the number of children enrolled in school as a percentage of the number of children of the relevant age;
the number of schools;
class sizes;
the teacher pupil ratio;
whether there is a mechanism to monitor the quality of education delivered and to ensure a high quality of teaching in both public and private schools;
whether education is compulsory in general until the minimum age for admission to employment;
whether there is a fair geographical distribution of schools in particular between rural and urban areas;
whether, considering that equal access to education should be guaranteed for all children, particular attention is paid to vulnerable groups such as children from minorities, children seeking asylum, refugee children, children in hospital, children in care, pregnant teenagers, teenage mothers, children deprived of their liberty etc. and whether necessary special measures have been taken to ensure equal access to education for these children;
the cost of education, whether basic education is free of charge, whether there are hidden costs such as books uniforms whether these are reasonable, and whether assistance is available to limit their impact;
the number of children dropping out, not completing compulsory education or failing compulsory education, rate of absenteeism, measures taken to encourage school attendance and to reduce dropping out.

The Committee asks for how long education is compulsory and wishes to receive further information on

the enrolment rate;
how the education system is organised;
the percentage of GDP spent on education;
the number of public/private schools;
the geographical distribution of schools;
average class sizes;
number of teachers, ratio teacher per children;
any mechanism to monitor the adequacy of the educational system.

The report states that primary schools may set up special units for Roma children or may include them in their regular units. According to additional information received from the Government special units are becoming increasingly rare, in the 1998/99 school year there were only seven such units (classrooms).

The Committee expresses concern over the existence of separate schooling facilities for Roma children and notes that this is contrary to the principles laid down in Recommendation No R (2000) 4 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the education of Roma/Gypsy children in Europe. The Committee finds that the situation is not in conformity with the Revised Charter in this respect.

The Committee wishes to receive information on measures to ensure equal access to education and regular attendance of children from other minority groups and children seeking asylum in Slovenia. In addition it asks whether there are special programmes for pregnant teenagers/teenage mothers.

The Committee notes that hospitalised children can attend classes in the nine hospital school units.

As regards the integration of children with disabilities into mainstream education the Committee refers to its conclusion under Article 15.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation is not in conformity with the Charter as the corporal punishment of children within the family is not expressly prohibited and as separate schooling facilities still exist for Roma children.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

Spain

(Conclusions XIX-1 2008, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Education and training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in Spain’s report.

the total number of persons with disabilities, including the total number of children with disabilities;
the number of children with disabilities attending mainstream schools and training facilities;
the number of those attending special education and training institutions.

In this context the Committee recalls that where it is known that a certain category of persons is, or might be, discriminated against, it is the national authorities’ duty to collect data to assess the extent of the problem (European Roma Rights Centre v. Greece, Complaint No. 15/2003, decision on the merits of 8 December 2004, §27). The gathering and analysis of such data (with due safeguards for privacy and against other abuses) is indispensable to the formulation of rational policy (European Roma Rights Centre v. Italy, Complaint No. 27/2004, decision on the merits of 7 December 2005, §23).

Definition of Disability

The Committee notes that during the reference period, the Law on equal opportunity, non-discrimination and universal accessibility of persons with disability (Law 51/2003) was supplemented by Royal Decree 1414/2006, which defines persons with disability as persons who are recognised as having a degree of disability equal or above 33%.

In this context, the Committee requests the next report to specify:

how many persons are recognised a degree of disability equal or above 33%;
how many are recognised an incapacity below 33%.

The Committee also notes the adoption, during the reference period, of Law 39/2006 which establishes a National Dependent Care System (“sistema nacional de dependencia”) to promote the autonomy of dependent persons. The law establishes that dependent persons must apply to the autonomous community in which they live for recognition of their dependent status. An evaluation body will determine the applicant’s degree of dependency. Such degree will entitle the applicant to an individual care programme that will determine which services he/she requires.

The Committee requests the next report to clarify whether the degree of disability equal or above 33% set by Royal Decree 1414/2006 is also a requirement in the determination of the dependency status which would entitle disabled persons to benefit from the services of the National Dependant Care System. It also asks the next report for figures on actual granting of personalised assistance to the disabled persons with a view to facilitate their access to premises of schools and/or training centres and thus contribute in practice to the integration of persons with disabilities into mainstream education (covering both children and adults) and training (including higher education).

Anti-discrimination legislation

The Committee refers to its previous conclusion (Conclusions XVIII-2) for a decsription of the Law on equal opportunity, non-discrimination and universal accessibility of persons with disability (Law 51/2003).

The Committee notes the adoption of Royal Decree 1417/2006, which establishes an arbitration system to resolve complaints arising within the framework of Law 51/2003. The Committee requests the next report to inform it about any relevant complaint and/or case law with respect to discrimination on the ground of disability in relation to education and training.

Education and vocational training

The Committee notes that the report contains no information on the practical implementation of the II Action Plan for Persons with Disability (2003-2007) and the I National Accessibility Plan (2004-2012), to which reference was made in the previous conclusion (Conclusions XVIII-2). Such information, just as the figures mentioned above, is necessary for the Committee to establish whether the right to education and training is effectively guaranteed to persons with disabilities.

The Committee also reiterates the specific questions asked in its previous conclusions (Conclusions XVIII-2 and XVI-2), and particularly whether regular teacher training includes training on special needs education.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in Spain is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter on the ground that it has not been established that mainstreaming of persons with disabilities is effectively guaranteed in education and training.

(Conclusions XVIII-2 2007, vol. 2, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Vocational training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the Spanish report.

Education and vocational training

During the reference period, several pieces of legislation and action plans concerning persons with disabilities were adopted. In particular, Law No. 51/2003 on equal opportunities, non discrimination and universal accessibility of persons with disability is intended to promote their social integration and participation in the life of the community. The II Action Plan for Persons with Disability (2003-2007) and the I National Accessibility Plan (2004-2012) provide measures for the implementation integration.

The Committee notes from another source that Law No. 51/2003 provided for the creation of the National Council for the Disabled, which is a consultative body attached to the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. This body will allow organisations that represent persons with disabilities and their families to take part in the planning, monitoring and assessment of policies that concern the disabled.

However, the Committee notes that the report does not provide any up-to-date information on vocational training possibilities, including higher education, for persons with disabilities. Similarly, it does not contain any figures on participation of persons with disabilities in education and training activities. It therefore reiterates all the questions of its previous conclusion.

The Committee concludes that the situation in Spain is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter on the grounds that the Government has failed to demonstrate that persons with disabilities are guaranteed an effective right to mainstream education and training.

(Conclusions XVI-2 2003, vol. 2, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para.1 – Vocational training arrangements for disabled persons)

The Committee notes the information in the Spanish report.

General remarks

According to the Survey on Disabilities, Deficiencies and State of Health carried out by the Institute of Statistics (INE) in 1999 the number of people with a disability was 3 528 221 or 9 % of the population. The survey found that 67,80 % of the population with a disability was inactive, compared with 36,54 % of the population in general.

Evaluation of professional skills is carried out pursuant to an agreement developed by the National Institute of Social Services (INSERSO), the National Employment Institute (INEM) and the placement services (PES) of the autonomous regions. Technical assessment teams (multi disciplinary teams) of the autonomous regions assess skills.

Education and Vocational training

As regards the general education system, the Committee notes the number of children with disabilities in mainstream schools 129 802 and the number in special schools 27 711. It wishes to receive confirmation that these are in fact the figures. Basic vocational training forms part of the curriculum of compulsory education and serves as a basis for specific vocational training. Specific vocational training takes place in mainstream centres or in special education centres. The Committee wishes to know how many students with disabilities attend ordinary vocational training centres and how many attend special centres.

The Committee asks whether regular teacher training includes training on special needs education.

The Committee recalls from its previous conclusion that 3 % of all university places must be reserved for students with disabilities.

As regards vocational training for young people and adults (professional training), the report refers to training schemes, professional training programme, occupational training, combined training and in company work as well as the tripartite agreement on continuous training, which aim to target training at population groups who are often excluded from the labour market, including persons with disabilities. However the report provides no details on the number of persons with disabilities who have benefited from these training schemes. The Committee asks for this information.

Overall the Committee does not have the requisite information in order for it to assess whether training opportunities for persons with disabilities are adequate.

The Committee wishes to know whether there is legislation which guarantees equal access to education and training for persons with disabilities.

The report refers to the role played by NGO’s and non- profit organisations in, inter alia, providing vocational guidance and vocational training linked to employment. The Committee wishes to receive further information on these and their role.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested the Committee defers its conclusion.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

Sweden

(Conclusions 2008, vol. 2, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community, para. 1 – Education and training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in Sweden’s report.

The Committee notes that according to a report of the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, the number of children and young persons (aged 0-19) with functional impairment is about 108,000. The report indicates that the estimate was made by studying the number of children and young persons receiving various types of supportive measure and financial compensation referring to a functional impairment, as well as children and young persons with self-perceived functional impairment.

Anti-discrimination legislation

The Children and School Students (Prohibition of Discrimination and Other Degrading Treatment) Act (2006:67; hereafter “the Education Anti-Discrimination Act”) entered into force in April 2006. It, inter alia, prohibits discrimination of children and pupils on the basis of disability in the field of education. The prohibition of discrimination applies to pre-school, compulsory and high school, as well as to specially adapted schools, special needs schools and Sami schools, adult education and Swedish language education for migrants. The Office of the Disability Ombudsman monitors compliance with the Education Anti-Discrimination Act.

In its previous conclusion (Conclusions 2007), the Committee had asked whether a compelling justification for special or segregated educational systems is required by law and whether an effective remedy exists for those who consider themselves to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to education.

In reply to the Committee, the current report clarifies that parents or custodians of pupils with functional impairments or learning difficulties can choose between placing their child in a compulsory school for persons with learning disabilities or in a regular compulsory school. It is the duty of the municipality to offer special support to pupils in need of it in regular compulsory schools. If an investigation shows a pupil to be in need of special support, an action programme has to be drawn up to identify how the needs should be met. Questions concerning inadequate adjustment of tuition and lack of support for pupils with functional impairment in a particular school can be referred to the National Agency for Education (NAE), which is responsible for surveillance of education under the Education Act (1985:1100). As mentioned above, questions relating particularly to discrimination based on disability in the field of education may be brought to the attention of the Office of the Disability Ombudsman.

As regards the Committee’s request for information on case law and complaints lodged with the appropriate institutions, the report indicates that only a small number of appeals is made concerning pupils’ opportunities for participating in regular education as a school or municipality has very few legal possibilities of placing a pupil outside the regular school system against the wishes of the pupil’s parents. Moreover, for compulsory school for pupils with learning disabilities there is legislation entitling the pupil’s custodian to decline a place offered in a special school (the Experimental Activity (Increased Parental Influence on the Schooling of Children with Learning Disabilities) Act, 1995:1249). Decisions concerning admission to special school can be appealed to the Board of Appeals for Education. However, the Special Schools Authority endeavours to ensure that admission to special school is based on a consensus between school, pupil and parents, and in practice a child is never admitted to special school against its custodians’ wishes. Since its formation at the beginning of the 1990s, the Appeals Board for Education has never had cases where custodians have opposed admission to special school. Also the decision to place a pupil in a special teaching group within regular education can be appealed. About 10 cases annually are referred to the Appeals Board of the NAE concerning placement in a special teaching group. As regards discrimination on the basis of disability at school in particular, the report indicates that since the entry into force of the Education Anti-Discrimination Act (from April 2006 until August 2007), a total of 89 complaints were filed with the Disability Ombudsman, who has not yet referred any case to conciliation or litigation. In this regard, the report highlights that the Education Anti-Discrimination Act does not cover issues concerning inadequate adjustment of tuition or support for pupils with functional impairment. Such issues must be handled by the NAE. However, the majority of cases reported to the Ombudsman so far have included elements concerning lack of adjustment and support. Of the 89 complaints received, 60 have been struck off and transferred to the NAE for this reason. The Committee asks the next report to inform it about the outcome of all these complaints (those transferred to the NAE and those pending before the Disability Ombudsman).

As regards the NAE, it also notes that, in 2006, it received 1,007 complaints concerning deficiencies in schools, preschool activity and caring services for school children. In 24% of the cases, the Agency levelled criticism against the mandator of the school concerned. The report highlights that the NAE is not formally empowered to revise decisions made by a municipality or school. The Committee asks what happens in practice when the NAE confirms the existence of deficiencies in schools which affect the education of persons with disabilities.

The Committee notes that the Government has appointed a Commission to develop the inspection activities of the NAE (dir. 2007:80). The Committee asks the next report to inform it about the results of this initiative.

Education

While noting that mainstreaming is ensured in compulsory schooling, in its previous conclusions (Conclusions 2003 and 2007), the Committee had asked for more information on its modalities. In this regard, the Committee notes from the report that:

Pupils with functional impairment attending regular compulsory or upper secondary school have the same syllabi as other pupils. However, the Education Act entitles all pupils to the support they need in order to achieve the targets of the school system. This applies both to pupils with difficulties stemming from functional impairment and pupils who have difficulty in achieving the targets for other reasons. Moreover, if a compulsory school pupil cannot obtain instruction reasonably adapted to his/her situation and aptitudes, the governing body may resolve on a modified study programme of the pupil. It is the responsibility of the governing body to ensure that the pupil with a modified study programme receives an education equivalent, as far as possible, to other education provided at the same school. Pupils who are found not to measure up to the objectives of the syllabi even with such support and adaptations can be offered a place in a compulsory school for pupils with learning disabilities or in a special school.
Individual development plans are crafted for all students (with and without disabilities, in compulsory schools, compulsory schools for pupils with learning disabilities and special schools). If a pupil is in need of special supportive measures under the Compulsory School Ordinance (1994:1194), the head teacher of the school concerned must also ensure that an action programme is drawn up, indicating what the needs are, how they are to be provided for and how the measures taken are to be followed up and evaluated.
Municipalities have to offer special support to pupils in regular education who need it. Such support must firstly be provided within the class or group to which the pupil belongs, but can be provided in a special teaching group where there are particular reasons for so doing. In cases of this kind, the pupil and the pupil’s custodian must be consulted. In upper secondary school, special needs teaching can be arranged within the class for students in need of special support, and special classes may be formed for students who, on account of hearing or vision impairment, mobility impairment or other pronounced study impediments, are unable to follow the ordinary instruction. One form of supportive input in compulsory and upper secondary school may be for the student to have the services of a student assistant. Such an assistant is hired by the educational mandator. He/she is not directly linked to the student.
Testing modalities are adjusted to take account of disability. Teachers decide how this affects the assessment. Information concerning the test procedure has no bearing on the mark which the pupil is awarded subsequently. The fact that testing modalities are adapted may be known within individual schools. No data on the matter is collected at the national level.
Teachers in compulsory and upper secondary school are allowed to disregard individual targets which the pupil should have achieved, if there are particular reasons for doing so. “Particular reasons” are personal circumstances of a more than temporary nature which directly impede the pupil from achieving a certain target, e.g. physical functional impairment.
General teacher training incorporates special needs education as an integral component. In addition, the Government has decided to introduce (in the autumn term 2008) a special needs teacher education which will provide in-depth knowledge of linguistic development and of effective methods of stimulating pupils’ reading, writing and arithmetical ability at an early age. This teacher education programme will be of three terms duration and will be open to applicants with teaching certification. The Committee asks the next report to provide information on the impact of the new programme.
The Committee also notes that the NAE has been instructed by the Government to carry out an inventory of physical access in compulsory and upper secondary schools. A report on the remit is due by the end of 2008. The Committee asks the next report to contain information in this regard.

As to the Committee’s question concerning the relative progression rates for children and pupils with disabilities having attended regular compulsory education and upper secondary schools, the report reiterates that most pupils with functional impairment are taught in regular types of school, but Sweden does not maintain statistics concerning students with functional impairment receiving regular instruction in compulsory or upper secondary school. In this regard, the Committee recalls that that when it is generally acknowledged that a particular group is or could be discriminated against, the state authorities have a responsibility for collecting data on the extent of the problem (ERRC v. Greece, Complaint No. 15/2003, decision on the merits of 8 December 2004, §27). The gathering and analysis of such data (with due safeguards for privacy and against other abuses) is indispensable to the formulation of rational policy (ERRC v. Italy, Complaint No. 27/2004, decision on the merits of 7 December 2005, §23).

With respect to special education, in reply to the Committee, the report clarifies that:

Special schools for pupils with learning disabilities can have municipal, county council or independent mandators. The State indicates goals and rules for education and carries out surveillance and follow-up. Special schools, which are for deaf or hearing-impaired pupils at compulsory school level, come under State mandatorship. There are six of them, and they are administered by a national authority accountable to the Ministry of Education, namely SPM, which is primarily responsible for this education.
The Government adopts syllabi for compulsory school, Sami school and special school. The NAE decides syllabi for upper secondary school, compulsory school for pupils with learning disabilities and upper secondary school for students with learning disabilities. Individual development plans and other plans for the individual students are drawn up by the mandator concerned.
Special compulsory schools follow the same curriculum as regular schools and most of the syllabi for special schools are the same as for regular schools. Only those for pupils attending these schools who have hearing impairment and learning disabilities are different (they are as those for pupils with learning disabilities as explained below). However, the timeframe for achieving the goals set in the syllabi of special schools is a year longer than that in regular schools.
Obligatory school for pupils with learning disabilities (corresponding to regular compulsory school) comprises compulsory school and training school. The syllabi in compulsory school for pupils with learning disabilities differ from those of regular education. The syllabi express goals indicating the level of achievement which the pupils must have attained, according to their capabilities, when they leave school.
Training school is for pupils who, on account of their learning disabilities, are not judged capable of achieving the goals of compulsory school for pupils with learning disabilities. Training school has syllabi for five major subject fields: aesthetic activity, communication, motor skills, daily activities and reality perception. Mother tongue instruction in training school comes within the communication subject field.
Marks for special school pupils not taking the syllabi of compulsory school for pupils with learning disabilities have the same value as the marks obtained by pupils in regular compulsory school. Pupils attending compulsory school for pupils with learning disabilities shall, on completion of their schooling, be given a certificate of the education they have undergone. If the custodian so requests, a general educational assessment can be added to the certificate. If a pupil attending compulsory school for pupils with learning disabilities or the pupil’s custodian so requests, marks are to be awarded. In cases where a leaving certificate is awarded, the pupil’s achievement must be assessed in relation to the goals indicated by the syllabus for each subject. Marks are awarded on a two-point scale, instead of the three-point scale for regular compulsory schooling, and cannot be invoked in applications for admission to regular upper secondary school. No marks are awarded in training school, but referencing and evaluation must nevertheless proceed continuously, the point of reference being the goals defined in the individual study plan drawn up in consultation with the student’s custodian. The Committee asks what are the remedies available for pupils who attended compulsory school for pupils with learning disabilities and whom are denied the possibility to apply for higher education within the regular education system.
The proportion of students leaving special school with at least pass marks in all three core subjects, and thus eligible to apply for regular upper secondary school, has been running at about 40% in recent years, but in 2006 it fell to 27%. 90% of the students leaving special school in 2006 went on to the National Upper Secondary School for the Deaf or the National Upper Secondary School for the Hard of Hearing. The Committee reiterates that it also wants to know what proportion of students enter the open labour market after compulsory school.
Surveillance of the quality of special education is primarily conducted through the educational inspection activities of the NAE, in the same way as for regular education.

The Committee notes that according to a report of the NAE (Skolverket 2006:288), approximately 14,000 pupils attended compulsory school for persons with learning disabilities in 2006/07, which corresponds to about 1.4% of all compulsory school pupils. In 2007 there were about 8,200 students attending upper secondary school for persons with learning disabilities. According to the NAE, most pupils who are deaf or hard of hearing attend ordinary compulsory school. Very few attend special school (548 in 2007).

The Committee notes that the Government has taken several measures to strengthen teachers’ competence, including special funding for in-service training in special needs education. In addition, the Government has also appointed a special investigator to review the teacher competence provisions of the Education Act, the aim being to strengthen the quality of schools and preschool education and to improve pupils’ goal achievement (dir. 2006:140). The special investigator’s proposals and deliberations are to be presented in 2008. The Committee wishes to be informed about the outcome of this initiative.

Vocational training

The Committee notes from the report that no changes have occurred since its previous conclusion (Conclusions 2007) and therefore refers to it for a decsription of training facilities and vocational rehabilitation services for persons with disabilities in Sweden.

In its previous conclusion, the Committee had noted that non discrimination with respect to the mainstreaming of persons with disabilities in higher education is guaranteed through the Post-Secondary Students (Equal Treatment) Act (2001:1286). It asked for information on any relevant case law of the Disability Ombudsman with respect to higher education. The report indicates that no discrimination cases have been filed with the Disability Ombudsman concerning higher education.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in Sweden is in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Revised Charter.

(Conclusions 2003, vol. 2 – Conclusions on article 15 – Right of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community, para.1 – Vocational training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee notes the information in Sweden’s report. According to the report a special survey supplementing Sweden’s regular Labour Force Survey (LFS) in 2000 indicated that about 21% of the population aged 16-64 years had some form of disability. Persons with disabilities represent 11% of the unemployed population.

Education and Vocational training

The Swedish Education Act provides that all children and young person must have access to education of equal value. The guiding principles behind the provision of educational services for children with disabilities in Sweden are equality and integration.

As regards compulsory schooling most children with disabilities receive their education in mainstream schools where different forms of support is available; a special teacher may assist the class teacher, may act as a consultant or may take children with special needs for special classes.

In teacher training programmes all schoolteachers receive training in special needs education.

Special programmes exist for children with severe learning disabilities. However these are still linked to or integrated within compulsory schools. Projects are underway to see if this group of children could attend regular school.

The Committee notes in the report that until 2001 there were some special schools for children with different disabilities, with approximately 800 students (it is not clear to the Committee whether these schools were providing secondary education only). But now only special schools for the deaf and hearing impaired remain. These will not be retained in the long term but will be developed as resource centres, similar to the resource centres for the blind and visually impaired. The Committee wishes to know whether special secondary schools for young persons with severe disabilities will be retained.

The Committee notes that most children and young persons with disabilities in Sweden have been integrated into mainstream education.

With respect to the modalities of the right to an equal effective education in the mainstream the Committee wishes to receive information on the following issues:

whether and how the normal curriculum is adjusted to take account of disability;
whether and how individualised educational plans are crafted for students with disabilities;
whether and how resources follow the child (including support staff and other technical assistance) to enable such plans to be implemented;
whether and how testing or examining modalities are adjusted to take account of disability and whether the fact that examinations are taken under non-standard conditions is revealed to third parties who, the Committee feels, have no right to such information;
whether the qualifications that eventuate are the same for all children or whether different qualifications ensue. If so, are these qualifications officially recognised and validated and do they have the same functional value to the individual as the mainstream qualification. In order to evaluate this, the Committee is interested to learn what the relative progression rates are for such children into employment or further education.

The Committee asks whether the number of training places available meets the demand for such places from people with disabilities. It also wishes to receive information on the availability of financial assistance for vocational training.

As regards protection from discrimination in access to education and effective remedies, the Committee notes that there is no specific non-discrimination legislation in relation to disability in the educational field.

However it also notes that the Disability Ombudsman has the power to examine cases where persons have been discriminated against on grounds of disability. It wishes to receive further details on the powers of the Ombudsman in this respect.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of information requested, the Committee defers its conclusion.

(Conclusions 2003, vol. 2 – Conclusions on article 17 – Right of children and young persons to social, legal and economic protection, para.1 – Assistance, education and protection)

The Committee notes the information in Sweden’s report.

Education

The text of Article 17 of the Revised Charter has been revised considerably, in some respects in order to reflect the approach of the Committee under this provision of the 1961 Charter (e.g. reference to mothers has been omitted and now includes legal protection as well as social and economic). Paragraph 1 a now contains a reference to the right to education and paragraph 2 guarantees the right to free primary and secondary education.

whether there is a functioning system of primary and secondary education;
the number of children enrolled in school as a percentage of the number of children of the relevant age;
the number of schools;
class sizes;
the teacher pupil ratio;
whether there is a mechanism to monitor the quality of education delivered and to ensure a high quality of teaching in both public and private schools;
whether education is compulsory in general until the minimum age for admission to employment;
whether there is a fair geographical distribution of schools in particular between rural and urban areas;
whether, considering that equal access to education should be guaranteed for all children, particular attention is paid to vulnerable groups such as children from minorities, children seeking asylum, refugee children, children in hospital, children in care, pregnant teenagers, teenage mothers, children deprived of their liberty etc. and whether necessary special measures have been taken to ensure equal access to education for these children;
the cost of education, whether basic education is free of charge, whether there are hidden costs such as books uniforms, whether these are reasonable and whether assistance is available to limit their impact;
the number of children dropping out, not completing compulsory education or failing compulsory education, rate of absenteeism, measures taken to encourage school attendance and to reduce dropping out.

Primary and secondary education is compulsory between the ages of 7 and 16 years and is free of charge. Most 6 year olds attend noncompulsory pre-school classes.

The Committee wishes to receive further information on :

the school enrolment rate,
the drop out rate,
the number of public/private schools,
the geographical distribution of schools,
average class sizes,
the number of teachers, ratio teacher per children,
any mechanism to monitor the adequacy of the educational system.

The percentage of children not achieving pass marks in the compulsory subjects (Swedish, Maths and English) at the end of compulsory schooling is about 10 %. Pass marks in these subjects are necessary in order to be accepted on a national programme in upper secondary school (high school). Those failing to get the pass marks may opt to stay in compulsory school an extra one or two years or go on to an individual programme in upper secondary school, which allows the person to complete their compulsory school courses and take upper secondary school courses in other subjects.

According to the report, 98 % of pupils leaving compulsory schooling go on to attend upper secondary school and approximately 70 % of students attending upper secondary school obtain a final leaving school certificate within four years.

As regards the integration of children with disabilities into mainstream education the Committee refers to its conclusion under Article 15.

Children from minority groups, with the exception of the Saami, attend the same schools as majority groups. The Saami have special state funded schools in the north of Sweden up to grade 6. Immigrant children have the right to mother tongue education as well as tuition in Swedish. There are preparatory classes for children newly arrived in Sweden.

The Committee wishes to receive further information on measures to ensure equal access to education for Roma children (as well as the enrolment and completion rates for Roma children) and children seeking asylum in Sweden. In addition it asks whether there are special programmes for pregnant teenagers/teenage mothers, sick children and children serving custodial sentences.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee concludes that the situation in Sweden is in conformity with Article 17§1 of the Revised Charter.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

T

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Turkey

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

(Conclusions XIX-1 2008, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Education and training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the report of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and the additional information submitted by the Government on 26 June 2008 in reply to a further question addressed to it by the Committee.

To assess the effective access of children and adults with disabilities to education and vocational training, the Committee asks the next report to provide the following up-to date figures:

total number of persons with disabilities, including the number of children;
number of students with disabilities following mainstream education and vocational facilities;
number of students with disabilities following special school education or training facilities;
the percentage of students with disabilities entering the labour market following mainstream or special education or/and training.

In this regard, the Committee has noted from the report that no reliable statistical data exist with regard to the total number of children with special needs. However, it recalls that when it is generally acknowledged that a particular group is or could be discriminated against, the state authorities have a responsibility for collecting data on the extent of the problem (ERRC v. Greece, Complaint No. 15/2003, decision on the merits of 8 December 2004, §27). The gathering and analysis of such data (with due safeguards for privacy and against other abuses) is indispensable to the formulation of rational policy (ERRC v. Italy, Complaint No. 27/2004, decision on the merits of 7 December 2005, §23).

Definition of disability

The report states that the definition of disability is contained in the Law on Employment of Disabled Persons (Official Gazette No. 44/00, 16/04, 62/05 and 113/05), which defines “disabled” a person with vision, hearing, cognitive, physical, intellectual or combined development impairments or autism, who due to the level of disability has specific working needs. A person with “labour disability with remained or decreased working capacity” is also deemed disabled. For disability to be recognised, persons with disabilities, their parents or their tutors have to submit a request to:

an expert Commission established within the context of the Law on Social Security (for persons until the age of 26);
the Commission for the assessment of working capacity within the context of the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance (after 26 years of age).

The Committee observes that the above mentioned definition appears to be mainly based on medical characteristics (impairments). In this regard, it requests the next report to clarify whether the assessment of the status of disability also takes into account socio-economic factors, including educational and psychological ones. It consequently asks the next report to highlight whether any steps have been taken, or are planned, to move towards a more social definition of disability such as that endorsed by the WHO in its International Classification of Functioning (ICF, 2001). Furthermore, the Committee asks the next report to clarify the notion of “labour disability with remained or decreased working capacity”.

Anti-discrimination legislation

Under Article 15§1, the Committee therefore considers necessary the existence of anti-discrimination legislation as an important tool for the advancement of the inclusion of children with disabilities into general or mainstream educational schemes. Such legislation should, as a minimum, require a compelling justification for special or segregated educational systems and confer an effective remedy on those who are found to have been unlawfully excluded or segregated or otherwise denied an effective right to education. Legislation may consist of general anti-discrimination legislation, specific legislation concerning education, or a combination of the two (Conclusions 2007, General Introduction, Statement of Interpretation on Article 15§1).

Despite the report and additional information submitted, the Committee is not certain that legislation explicitly prohibits discrimination in the field of education and training on the ground of disability. The Committee therefore asks for clarification in this regard (see below). It also wishes to receive information on the right of individuals to seek remedies before the courts in cases of discrimination on the ground of disability in education.

Education

The Committee notes that although legislation on education provides all children with the right to free compulsory education, this does not amount to non-discrimination legislation. Additionally, from the information submitted, it appears that discrimination on the ground of disability is explicitly prohibited only by the Law on Higher Education and not by those on Primary and Secondary Education. The Committee wishes to receive clarification in this regard reiterating that the existence of non-discrimination legislation is an important tool for the advancement of the inclusion of children with disabilities into general or mainstream educational schemes.

In this framework, the Committee notes that the Ministry of Education and Science is implementing a project aimed at integrating children with special educational needs into mainstream schools since 1998. Progress has been achieved but the report acknowledges that there are still significant obstacles in the practical implementation of the inclusion of children with disabilities in mainstream schools. The Committee asks the next report to inform it about the measures taken to improve the situation. Meanwhile, it concludes that the situation is not in conformity with the requirements of Article 15§1 of the Charter.

As regards mainstream education, the Committee asks the next report to also information on:

whether and how the normal curriculum is adjusted to take account of disability;
whether and how individualised educational plans are crafted for students with disabilities;
whether general teacher training incorporates special needs education as an integral component;
whether and how resources follow the child (including support staff and other technical assistance) and whether measures are in place to facilitate the integration of children with disabilities into mainstream education, like e.g. to adapt schools to make them physically accessible;
whether and how testing or examination modalities are adjusted to take account of disability and whether the fact that examinations are taken under non-standard conditions is revealed to third parties who, the Committee considers, have no right to such information;
whether the qualifications that eventuate are the same for all children or whether different qualifications ensue and if so, whether these qualifications are officially recognised and validated and whether they have the same functional value to the individual as the mainstream qualification.

The Committee notes that the report indicates that there are four high schools for students with special needs which appear to be special education institutions: one is for students with visual impairment; another for students with hearing impairment and two for students with intellectual impairment. All schools operate through adapted curricula and programmes. Some curricula provide for the continuation of education at university level. According to the figures provided for the reference period, the number of students with intellectual impairments exceeded that of places available (265 students in 2006 for 170 places in the two special needs schools). The Committee requests the next report to inform it about the measures taken to overcome this problem.

With respect to special education, the Committee is particularly interested in being informed on:

whether the Ministry of Education has primary responsibility;
how the curriculum is designed and whether it is validated/ adopted by the Ministry of Education;
whether individualised education plans are crafted and the process by which they are determined;
what kinds of qualifications does the curriculum lead to and whether they are recognised in order to enable progress into further education or to gain entry to vocational education or the open labour market;
what the success rate is in progressing into vocational training, or further education or into the open labour market;
whether the quality of education is monitored by mainstream monitoring mechanisms.

Vocational training

The report states that the Law on Social Security guarantees persons with disabilities until the age of 26 the right to a training for a work production activity. Such training is carried out in social care institutions and the disabled person does not bear any costs (travel expenses, accommodation, food and training are paid for). The Committee wishes to be informed in the next report on the implementing measures, including financial means, related to this right to special training.

The Law on Employment of Disabled Persons foresees that unemployed persons with disabilities (therefore also over the age of 26) be trained to prepare them for employment. The Committee asks the next report to provide further details (including whether also such training occurs in special centres or not).

The Committee observes that the current report provides no information on mainstream vocational training facilities. It asks that this information be provided in the next report along with information on the measures in place to enable integration of persons with disabilities in such facilities.

The Committee recalls that Article 15§1 of the Charter requires persons with disabilities to be integrated into mainstream facilities to the maximum extent possible – special facilities should be the exception – and it requires states to provide evidence that this is the case or at least that substantial efforts are being made to achieve this.

The Committee also recalls that under Article 10 of the Revised Charter it regards vocational training as encompassing all types of higher education including university education. It considers that this interpretation applies mutatis mutandis to Article 15 of the Charter. It therefore asks information on the participation of persons with disabilities to general higher education.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” is not in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter on the ground that the anti-discrimination legislation covering education for persons with disabilities is inadequate.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

Turkey

(Conclusions XIX-1 2008, Conclusions on article 1 – Right to work)

The Committee is only concerned here with guidance and training for persons with disabilities, because Turkey has not accepted Article 15§1 of the Charter. Under Article 1§4, the Committee considers the following issues with regard to the guidance, education and training of persons with disabilities

the existence on the labour market of vocational guidance and training services for employed and unemployed persons and of guidance and training aimed specifically at persons with disabilities;
access: recipients of these services;
the existence of legislation explicitly prohibiting discrimination on the ground of disability in the field of training.

Vocational guidance for persons with disabilities

The Disabled Persons Act, No. 5378, which came into force on 7 July 2005, and its implementing regulation of 31 May 2006 provide for disabled persons to receive vocational guidance from the institutions of the national employment agency (ISKUR).

According to the report on Article 1§1, in 2005, persons with disabilities accounted for 12.29% of the total population and 23,317 of them had been placed in the labour market. The Committee asks for the total number of disabled persons of working age.

In the absence of a reply in the report, the Committee asks for the geographical breakdown of vocational guidance services. It also asks how many persons with disabilities have actually received vocational guidance.

Continuing vocational training for persons with disabilities

Disabled persons who are already employed are eligible for continuing vocational training from public training centres and vocational schools run by the ministry of education. In planning courses, account is taken of persons' interests, their skills and their needs. In 2005, 1,710 disabled persons received such training. In 2006, the figure was 3,047.

The Committee asks for up-to-date information in the next report on the number of persons with disabilities awaiting vocational training, to enable it to determine whether supply matches demand. A vocational rehabilitation project know as “Rainbow”, offering vocational training to disabled persons, started on 4 March 2006 and will operate in 30 industrial towns and cities. It sets out to enable those concerned to obtain the necessary occupational qualifications and skills for work and will give them access to placement services. The employment agency is then responsible for placing those who have successfully completed the course in work. The Committee asks for information in the next report on how the project has progressed.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in Turkey is not in conformity with Article 1§4 of the Charter on the ground that it has not been established that the right to vocational guidance in the education system is guaranteed.

(Conclusions XVIII-2 2007, vol. 2, Conclusions on article 9 – Right to vocational guidance)

The Committee takes note of the information in the Turkish report.

Vocational guidance in the education system

a. Functions, organisation and operation

As Turkey has not accepted Article 15 of the Charter, measures relating to vocational guidance for persons with disabilities are dealt with here.

The Committee notes that the vocational guidance services in the education system are currently being restructured to meet, inter alia, the needs of persons with disabilities. It asks for information on the outcome of these changes.

A protocol on knowledge of and choice of careers and vocational guidance services came into operation in 2004. One outcome is the organisation of class meetings to discuss the importance of career choice. Another protocol between the vocational guidance services is intended to facilitate access to counselling. These protocols have led to the establishment of working groups made up of staff of the guidance services of the national employment agency (IS-KUR) and representatives of relevant sections of the education ministry, the special education and guidance department and directors of guidance and research centres. With expert assistance from the European Union and OECD, these working groups are responsible for co-ordinating vocational guidance services.

The Committee asks to be informed of the outcome of these various initiatives.

Nevertheless, the number of pupils benefiting from guidance services is still limited and fell considerably during the reference period – from 14.9 to 6.4 million – even though, according to the report, 17 million school pupils are theoretically eligible for these services. The Committee wishes to have the Government’s explanation on this, as well as information on the number of persons with disabilities who receive professional guidance.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee defers its conclusion.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

U

United Kingdom

United Kingdom

(Conclusions XIX-1 2008, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Education and training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the United Kingdom report.

The Committee reiterates its request for information on the practice of mainstreaming all categories of persons with disabilities, including children with autism, as well as on case law and complaints brought to the appropriate institutions. It also asks for information on the number of children in mainstream and special schools/training facilities.

Anti-discrimination legislation

The Committee acknowledges that the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) was amended on various occasions, the last amendments being those of 2005.

Definition of disability

The report indicates that a consultation was carried out on the definition of disability retained by the 2005 Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) with a view to assess whether it could be improved or amended. The consultation ended in February 2006 and its findings and conclusions were reported to the Government in July 2006. In particular, it was recommended that the DDA’s definition of disability be altered to one which gives protection from discrimination to everyone who has (or has had or is perceived to have) an impairment without requiring the effects of that impairment to be substantial or long-term. The Committee notes that the Government is considering such recommendation in the context of the Discrimination Law Review aimed at harmonising and simplifying discrimination law. The Committee asks to be kept informed of any further developments in the definition in particular and with regard to the DDA in general.

Education

In its previous conclusion (Conclusions XVIII-2) the Committee observed that the legislative framework concerning the integration of children with disabilities was in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter in law, but information lacked on the practice. Moreover it also noted from another source that, at least with respect to persons with intellectual disabilities, their participation in mainstream education appeared to be low and schools appeared not to have the sufficient skills, experience, and resources to provide the adequate support for inclusive education of children with intellectual disabilities. It therefore asked for specific information in this regard. Since all the requested information was not provided, the Committee reiterates its requests. The report further informs that the Department for Children, Schools and Families introduced a range of practical initiatives to promote emotional well-being and support better earlier intervention, including inter alia:

the gradual introduction of specific programmes in schools (primary schools first, secondary schools will follow) to promote the social and emotional aspects of learning (SEAL);
targeted support such as Behaviour and Education Support Teams (BESTs);
establishing trusts, extended schools, improvement partnerships, children’s centres, targeted youth support teams which will help reach those children most in need, and enable services to be readily accessible on the school site.

The Committee requests the next report to provide information on the practical impact of such initiatives. The Committee also notes that the Government has invested in comprehensive mental health services (CAHMS) an additional 400 million British pounds (GBP) (523 million €) over four years to 2007 to be invested on the attainment of the following three objectives:

adequate emergency cover for children with mental health problems;
access to a full range of services for children who also have a learning disability;
services for 16/17 year olds appropriate to their age and level of maturity.

The Committee requests the next report to provide information on the degree of achievement of these objectives. The report clarifies that parents whose children have special educational needs may appeal to the Special Needs & Disability Tribunal against decisions made by local education authorities (LEAs) about their children's education.

Vocational Training

In its previous conclusion, the Committee requested information on all forms of vocational training, including work-based programmes. The report lacks comprehensive new information in this regard. It indicates that the Department for Education and Skills has as a priority learners with learning difficulties and disabilities (LLDDs). According to data from the Learning and Skills Council for England the number of learners with learning difficulties and disabilities has remained fairly constant at around 30% from 2004 to 2006 (14,900 LLDDs in 2006-2007 out of a total of 49,638 learners). According to the same data, LLDDs fair much the same as anyone else in making progress on leaving the programme although they tend to stay a little longer.

The Committee notes that a cross government strategy called “Progression through Partnership” was adopted in June 2007 (outside the reference period) with a view to increase employment of persons with disabilities by improving the quality of the curricula followed by LLDDs. The Committee asks the next report to provide the relevant information to enable it to analyse the impact of this new strategy in the next supervision cycle.

In reply to the Committee’s request for information on higher education, including university education, the report states that for those going on to higher education courses there is a comprehensive system of student support which makes this route attractive and affordable, including extra support for disabled students in the form of Disabled Students’ Allowances (DSAs). These allowances are not means-tested and do not have to be repaid. The Committee takes note of the fact that figures invested in this regard have increased in recent years. The Committee also notes that significant funding is also provided to universities to help them meet the needs of disabled people.

The Committee requests the next report to specify the number of persons with disabilities in higher education, including university as well as the percentage of students with disabilities entering the labour market following mainstream or special education or/and training.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee defers its conclusion.

(Conclusions XVIII-2 2007, vol. 2, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para. 1 – Vocational training for persons with disabilities)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the United Kingdom’s report.

The Disability Rights Commission (DRC) continues its role of promoting equal opportunities for persons with disabilities. During the period of reference, it handled 8 000 cases, referred 300 to the Disability Conciliation Service, and supported 500 legal cases. Moreover, it organized various awareness campaigns, published policy statements, and prepared several new and revised statutory Codes of Practices. The DRC, as well as the other equality bodies, will be merged into a single Commission for Equality and Human Rights in 2007. In 2004, there were about 11.5 million persons with disabilities aged over 16. The Committee notes that the definition of disability retained in the most recent legislation (2005) opted not for a strict medical definition, but for a social model approach, which aims at considering the level of management a person with disabilities can have on normal day-to-day activities.

Education

The Committee notes from the report and additional sources that equal treatment of persons with disabilities is regulated by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) as extended to cover education through the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA) 2001. Priority is set on mainstreaming, unless this is incompatible with either the wishes of the child’s parents or the provision of efficient education for other children. Protection against discrimination in school and further education includes admission and provision of services. Responsible bodies are required to provide reasonable adjustments in terms of auxiliary aids and services, and the physical features of premises. Financing for this purpose amounted to £ 172 m in the 2000-2004 period. In England and Wales claims for unlawful discrimination in education are heard by special tribunal.

Children and young people with disabilities receive education in mainstream schools (either in inclusive classes or in special units) or in special schools or pupil support units. Assessment of a child’s special needs is carried out by Local Education Authorities (LEA). Parents may appeal the result of the assessment procedure, but do not have the right to choose a school if the LEA considers that placement in mainstream would be incompatible with the efficient education of other children. The LEA however is obliged to show that no reasonable step could be taken to remove the obstacles.

The Special Education Needs Strategy, published in 2004, defines the activities the Government in partnership with the DRC and the Council for Disabled Children provide practical support to early intervention settings, schools and Local Authorities to meet their duties under the 1995 DDA.

Teacher training for mainstream teachers includes training on teaching children with special education needs, but a reform to improve Initial Teacher Training from this perspective was launched in 2004. With respect to Further Education, improvements in teacher training were introduced in 2001.

The Committee observes that the legislative framework concerning the integration of children with disabilities is in conformity with the Charter in law, but information lacks on the practice. It also notes from another source that, at least with respect to persons with intellectual disabilities, their participation in mainstream education is low. Moreover, schools appear not to have the sufficient skills, experience, and resources to provide the adequate support for inclusive education of children with intellectual disabilities. As regards further education, it is observed that college, either in terms of special courses or special units, is an available option.

The Committee asks the next report to provide information on the practice of mainstreaming for all categories of persons with disabilities, including children with autism, as well as on case law and complaints brought to the appropriate institutions. It also asks for information on the number of children in mainstream and special schools.

Vocational training

The Committee notes that the report does not provide the required information on attendance in mainstream and residential units training. It observes that work-based vocational training programmes are also available, such as the Entry to Employment programme. It therefore asks the next report to provide the appropriate information on the issue.

The Committee also recalls that under Article 10 of the Charter it regards vocational training as encompassing all types of higher education including university education. It considers that this interpretation applies mutatis mutandis to Article 15 and therefore asks information on access to higher education for persons with disabilities.

Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee concludes that the situation in the United Kingdom is in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter.

(Conclusions XVI-2 2003, vol. 2, Conclusions on article 15 – Right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement, para.1 – Vocational training arrangements for disabled persons)

The Committee notes the information provided in the United Kingdom’s report.

The Committee recalls that the previous conclusion found that the situation was satisfactory but that it had sought further information on several points.

The Committee notes that the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) was established in 1999 and opened to the public in 2000. The DRC works to eliminate discrimination against persons with disabilities, promote equal opportunities, encourage good practice in the treatment of persons with disabilities and advise the Government. It also provides services to the public; advice, a legal service, etc.

According to the report there are approximately 8,5 million persons with disabilities in the United Kingdom. The Committee wishes to know what steps, if any, have been made or are planned, to move away from a medical definition of disability and towards a more social definition such as that endorsed by the WHO in its International Classification of Functioning (ICF 2001).

Education and Vocational training facilities

As regards the vocational training, the Special Education Needs and Disability Act 2001 came into force (albeit outside the reference period) and extends the existing civil rights protection in the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) to children and adults with disabilities seeking access to education. The Committee wishes to receive updated information in the next report on general education and vocational training for children and young persons with disabilities including access to higher education.

The Committee wishes to know whether general teacher training incorporates special needs education as an integral component.

It notes in this respect that in order to improve access to education for children and adults additional funds have been made available by the Government. In particular it notes that the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) reintroduced the mechanism whereby colleges may apply for specific additional financial support for students whose support costs exceed a certain amount, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England has increased its funding for institutions to recruit and support students with disabilities. The Disabled Students’ Allowance has been extended to part time and postgraduate students.

In 1999 Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995 – which deals with access to goods, facilities, premises and services (including vocational training) – was amended in order to require service providers to make reasonable adjustments to their services if access for persons with disabilities is impossible or unreasonably difficult.

During the reference period in England and Wales the Training and Enterprise Councils ceased to exist and training for adults is now the responsibility of the Employment Service in England and of the National Council for Education and Training in Wales. The objectives of the programmes remain the same. From April 2001 the length of training is generally linked to the length of time unemployed although persons with disabilities are entitled to early access to these programmes.

The Committee recalls that the policy in the United Kingdom is to integrate trainees with disabilities into mainstream facilities wherever possible. This may be achieved by tailoring training for groups or individuals within a course and making the necessary adaptations. Residential training for adults with disabilities is also available to assist those with complex needs ; there are 1 020 places available in these units. The report states that it is not possible to provide figures on the number of persons with disabilities in each vocational training facility, nor on the number who are requesting such training, as requested by the Committee. However the Committee asks if it is possible to provide information on the approximate total number undergoing training in both mainstream and residential units.

Financial assistance is available to trainees with disabilities, in particular Disability Working Allowance. The report adds that additional support costs are also payable which may include the purchase of special equipment and support for travel costs.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in the United Kingdom is in conformity with Article 15§1 of the Charter.

view these extracts in chronological order >>

Page last updated: Wednesday 21 February 2024

Support our work

If you like what we do, you can help us do more.

about inclusion