Tag Archives for Right to Education Bill

Dyslexics get disability quota in colleges

Starting this year, dyslexic students will be eligible for professional college seats, reserved under the disability quota.  With this, Karnataka will be one among the first two States — the other being Maharashtra which will also implement this inclusive system starting this year — to recognise dyslexia as a disability.

In its order on Monday, the Government has decided that from here on, dyslexic students will come under the category of those suffering  from “mental disability” and will be eligible to apply for the three per cent seats earmarked for people with disability in professional colleges across the State.  The order states that this new quota will be enforced from the forthcoming admission season slated to commence in June. It will be applicable to seats in engineering, medical and dental colleges allotted by the Karnataka Examinations Authority through the Common Entrance Test.

Triumphant

The Government Order, in its preamble, states that this provision has been included following a letter by K.S. Gopalan, president, Malleswaram Dyslexic Association.  A senior official from the Karnataka Examination Authority said the same facilities and statutory provisions extended to persons those suffering from mental disability will be applicable to dyslexics.

Rules

To be eligible for this quota, dyslexic students must get a medical certificate stating the nature of their learning disability from NIMHANS, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, or produce a certificate by a clinical psychologist (with an M. Phil degree) attested by a government doctor not below the rank of district surgeon.

Further, the rules state that these certificates will again be ratified by the Medical Board.

Manmohan promises disabled-friendly laws

FIGHTING FOR THEIR RIGHTS: Physically challenged persons, under the banner of the National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled and led by CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat, march on Parliament Street in New Delhi on Tuesday to press their demands. Photo: V. Sudhersan

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Tuesday said the government was in favour of amending the laws, if need be, to make them more disabled-friendly. He gave this assurance to a delegation of the differently-abled persons who met him in Parliament. The delegation was led by CPI (M) MP Brinda Karat.  “The Prime Minister was extremely sympathetic towards the demands of the disabled persons and said their demands were genuine,” Ms. Karat said. Dr. Singh assured the delegation of changing the laws to make them disabled-friendly, if necessary. The Prime Minister interacted with the members of the delegations and enquired about their problems. Talking to The Hindu, Ms. Karat said this was the first time that a delegation of differently-abled persons had visited Parliament House. “It was pointed out to the Parliament staff that there was only one gate (Gate no 9) in Parliament House for the physically disabled people and this was far away from the main entrance,” Ms. Karat said. The delegation also met the Union Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment Mukul Wasnik who told them that the government was finalising a new law for the disabled that would replace the existing law.

Earlier, a large number of people with different forms of disabilities marched to Parliament House to demand a better deal. Marching under the banner, ‘National Platform for the Rights of Disabled Persons,’ the people highlighted the plight of the economically and socially disadvantaged among the disabled, the poor, and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. “The basic issue is that of the approach of the government and we must request you to consider our demands not as an act of charity but as fulfilment of entitlements and rights as equal citizens of India. India is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the persons with Disabilities which enjoins the government to ensure minimum rights and livelihood to disabled citizens,” the marchers said in a memorandum submitted to the Prime Minister. The demands include a comprehensive social security system for all persons with disabilities and their families including the Antyodaya cards, free health care for disabled persons, amendments to the Right to Education Act to make provision for disabled teachers and professional and identification of jobs for the disabled immediately with annual special recruitment drives each year.

Besides setting up a separate Ministry for disability affairs, the memorandum also sought issuance of a universally valid identity card and replacing the current Persons with Disabilities Act (1995) in consonance with the provisions of the U.N. Convention and harmonising other laws, the disabled persons also wanted proper enumeration of the persons with disabilities. The organisations that participated in the march included the Paschimbanga Rajya Pratibandhi Samaiilani, the Differently Abled Persons Welfare Federation of Thiruvananthapuram, the Karnataka Rajya Angavikalara Mattu Palakara Okkota, the Jharkhand Vikalanga Morcha, the Tamil Nadu Association for the Rights of all types of Disabled and Caregivers and the Vibhinna Prathiba Vanthula Jakkula Vedika of Andhra Pradesh.

The Hindu

The Disability Pact in the EU 2020 Strategy

Written by Inclusion Europe
12 April 2010
etr The Disability Intergroup is a group of persons who want to improve rights for people with disabilities. They met at the European Parliament.  They tell policy makers of the European Union what measures they should take and how they should use money.

On 23 March a meeting hosted by Adám Kosá, president of the Disability Intergroup, and the European Disability Forum (EDF) took place at the European Parliament. Experts on disability policies discussed how the Disability Pact can be integrated into the EU 2020 Strategy. The disability movement’s objective is to direct EU 2020 toward equal opportunities, social protection and inclusion of people with disabilities. The long term goal is to improve the lives of about 65 million of European citizens with a disability.

Adám Kosá, who is the first deaf Member of the European Parliament, urged EU leaders at the meeting to adopt the Disability Pact. He also called on organizations and NGOs to maintain the pressure on policymakers to include the Disability Pact into the EU 2020 strategy. The Disability Intergroup wants to ensure that the European Union budget is used to benefit the rights of disabled people and not for building up or maintaining barriers. Their main objective is to direct funding to programs that promote accessibility and non-discrimination, increase the employment rate of disabled people and advance the ratification and implementation process of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). Ádám Kósa said that the four-year program for the Intergroup has been adopted. The issue of the deposition of the UN CRPD will be discussed at the next Intergroup meeting in Strasbourg on the 20 May. Delmira Seara, Counselor for Social Affairs at the Permanent Representation of Spain, and Gábor Iván, Hungary’s Ambassador to the EU, committed themselves to mainstream disability in all relevant flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy. But despite modern legislation and policy proposals at European level, people with disabilities and their families still face social exclusion and discrimination in their every day lives. Wasilios Katsioulis, who has a disability himself and is a Member of the Parliament’s Disability Support group talked at the meeting about the exclusion of his son from the European school in Brussels. According to Wasilios Katsioulis his son who is autistic was expelled from the European school in Brussels which made no effort to meet his son’s needs. The child speaks only German and does not understand other languages because of his disability. Consequently, he spent 8 months at home without schooling. The family had to arrange that the son lives in a German speaking community in Belgium with his mother during the week in order to go to school and the family can only unite over weekends.

Article 24 of the UNCRPD on education states that States Parties should “ensure an inclusive education system at all levels” and that “persons with disabilities are not excluded from the general education system”. The Disability Pact wants to provide a framework for inclusion and promotion of disability rights and policies in EU Member States and at European level. The Disability Pact is based on the principles of improving the living conditions of disabled people and their equal rights. The framework of the Pact relies on existing policies at international, European and national level. A successful inclusion of the Disability Pact into the European 2020 strategy would direct the strategy’s goals toward issues such as equal employment opportunities for people with disabilities, social protection and inclusive education.

To find out more about the disability intergroup, please click here

To read more about the Europe 2020 Strategy, please click here

The right to learn

Universal primary education by 2015: this is the second of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), agreed by every country in the world in 2000. Yet this mission will only succeed if it reaches all children, including those with disabilities.  Today more than 80% of all children in developing countries are enrolled in primary school, but up to 90% of children with disabilities in developing countries do not attend school. They then miss out on education’s lifelong benefits – better employment opportunities, greater participation in society, improved health and a clearer understanding of their rights.  This enormous gap has many causes: lack of access, inadequate facilities, the mistaken belief that disabled children cannot go to school and discrimination are all factors. While learning can take place in many settings, often the most effective way for children with disabilities to get an education is to attend their local, mainstream schools.

This approach, known as inclusive education, sees changing school cultures as a positive process. Disability is not viewed as the problem; rather it presents an evolving opportunity for change and growth that enables schools to take account of the needs of all children in their area. Without such efforts, meeting MDG 2 will be impossible.  In 2008 a second worldwide initiative was added to the MDGs – the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (UNCRPD). This human rights treaty takes a rights-based approach to disability and development and states that ‘States Parties shall ensure an inclusive education system at all levels…’  With the world now committed to every child’s right to full participation in every country’s educational system, it is vital to assess which methods of inclusive education are most effective. What are the predominant reasons that children with disabilities do not attend school? How can governments, international organisations and local school systems work together to ensure that every child is included in school? What is the best way to influence and adapt educational systems so that all children can participate?  You are invited to explore these issues and write about both the range of barriers to education that disabled children face and the best ways to tackle this worldwide problem.  Helpful sites to begin your research

guardian.co.uk

Special-education mediation is an alternative to litigation

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

STAFF WRITER

Disputes between parents of students with disabilities and school districts occur frequently. In the area of school law, special-education lawsuits are numerous. For both parties, the monetary and emotional costs of litigation are high and the benefit to students with disabilities dubious.

Unlike other civil litigation, the adversarial relationship between parents and school districts does not end with the court decision. Both parties remain cross, more so the losing party. The student must continue to attend school and bear the effects of a damaged parent-school relationship. This unfortunate situation is exacerbated by attorneys who pit parents against school districts to win a case. Attorneys are well aware of federal and state special-education law that encourages the use of alternative dispute resolution procedures. Instead, they rush to adversarial administrative hearings and the courts, which prolong resolution of the conflict. Obviously, it is in their financial interest not to mediate. Attorney fees are not awarded for time spent in mediation. It is not uncommon for an attorney to require a $5,000 retainer for legal services — fees that courts have held unreasonable — and not inform parents of their right to seek mediation.  Recent amendments to the federal special-education law (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2004) allow school districts to seek reimbursement of their legal costs when parent complaints are found to be frivolous, unreasonable and without foundation. Also, school districts can obtain rewards when parent suits cause unnecessary delay and needless increases in litigation costs. Under these provisions, costs are levied against the attorney, not the parent. Special-education law permits the parties to use alternatives to due process hearings and lawsuits to settle their disputes. Resolution sessions and mediation procedures are written in the statute. The law requires that school districts inform the aggrieved parents of their right to mediation. Mediation must be voluntary by both parties and cannot be used to deny a hearing. Mediation is conducted by a trained and impartial conciliator. Typically, the signed mediation agreement reflects a compromise by the parties that ensures that the best interests of the student are paramount. The mediation agreement is enforceable in a federal or state court.

Another provision goes further to resolve parent-school disputes when they first arise. Resolution sessions offer the parties the opportunity to resolve a dispute within 15 days after the parent request for a due process hearing. If resolved, a settlement agreement is produced and is enforceable in either a federal or state court. The Congressional intent of the 1975 passage of the Education of Handicapped Children Act (now IDEA) was to afford parents of students with disabilities a voice in deliberations about their child’s educational program. The due process protections were designed to foster a collaborative/cooperative relationship between parents and the school officials. An unintended consequence of the legalization of special education has been rampant litigation that has harmed the parent-school relationship. Since 1990, Congress has attempted to remedy this state of affairs by adding those alternative dispute resolution mechanisms discussed above.

The reader should not be left with the impression that legal representation for people with disabilities is not needed, only that it is needed in some cases and not others. Attorneys from Disability Rights New Jersey are to be lauded, for example, for their recent civil action in obtaining community-based housing for eligible people with mental disabilities now held in state institutions. Disputes in special education revolve around whether a student with a disability has an appropriate educational program and whether the school placement is least restrictive. Most of these disagreements are resolved by parents and school officials acting in good faith. Many more disputes could be defused and resolved by the use of alternative conflict resolution procedures to avoid costly hearings and litigation. The savings in terms of dollars and mental anguish are huge for both parents and schools — money and time that can be used to improve the student’s education and build trust between parents and school officials. The ethic of professional practice is not only to inform parents of their rights, but to counsel them about alternatives to filing a lawsuit.

Stanley J. Vitello, Ph.D., J.D., is a professor of special education at the Graduate School of Education, Rutgers University. A former Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. Public Policy Fellow, he assisted in the 1990 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Dr. Vitello (svitello@aol.com) is founder of The Vitello Group, which provides special-education instructional and mediation services.

NJ.com

The Ability Debate

Parimal Lokhande

06-Jan-10

Start with asking you a question: Do we really understand the problems of the disabled? The shameful yet the most correct answer is no. In our country, where vote-bank politics is rampant, almost all minority groups have managed a variety of sops for themselves. The disabled, however, have remained a hidden minority deprived of the basic needs, which even the most disadvantaged take for granted. Our leaders are painfully ignorant that the disabled barely enjoy the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution,may be they assume that this 5 percent of the 1 billion does not exist et-all.Why should they exist, they do not vote the pot bellied politicians to power right?

To illustrate, let us consider just three fundamentals rights: right to education, right to employment and right to full social living. Do the disabled have free access to schools and universities? No answers needed. Now tell me, How many principals of “leading” schools will be willing to admit a 10-year-old on a wheel chair? Nine out of ten would probably suggest that such a child should take tuition at home. Thus,when the foundation itself is weakened, the chances of future employment are minimized anyway. That’s, simple logic. Let us be honest. When you think of employment for the disabled, what are the jobs that come to your mind? Do you visualize a disabled person behind a CEO’s desk in multinational company,as a radio jockey at a leading station or even as a professor at a prestigious university? Most unlikely. You will probably think of a peon, a sitting job mechanic or a petty shop owner. The reality is close to this!!!!!

The bias against the disabled is strongly embedded in our social psyche, making it all the more difficult for the person to equip himself to live normally; especially so in India, where a person’s physical handicap is often equated with the sins he or his forefathers may have committed. A disabled person is usually haunted by references to his previous birth at home,among relatives, at places of work and even at the “temples of learning”. Where education and employment remain a distant dream, to think of normal social living appears comical. People ‘may’ grant a disabled person some serious attention when he talks of schooling or employment but talk of his dating,marriage, going to a disco or for a walk(wheel) down the aisle; and it has most in giggles. They are the “unnecessary things” that can be banished from the lives of the special.

Broadly speaking, there exist two schools of thought in respect of settings in which education may be imparted to children with disabilities.Those favoring a special school system argue that it is only in special settings that children with disabilities can get quality education, adequate attention and all the required facilities; and that too in an appropriate atmosphere with a level playing field and without feeling excluded in the crowd of non-disabled children. Such settings ensure that the children with disabilities are able to keep pace with the class unlike in the so-called integrated/inclusive settings.

Contrary to the above view, the exponents of integrated/inclusive settings attack the special school system vehemently on the ground that such a system tends to ghetto-ise children with disabilities. Strongly favoring the idea of working towards creating an inclusive, barrier-free, and rights-based society, they assert that a vast majority of children with disabilities can be accommodated within the regular school settings, and hence, in an inclusive environment, with some adaptations. In any event, a child with a disability is essentially and primarily a child first and a child with a disability only next. Besides, they argue that the cost of setting up special schools is highly prohibitive.

In the first place, it is critical to recognize that promoting inclusion in all spheres of life is non-negotiable. Therefore, inclusion in education, in order to be effective and meaningful, must happen at all levels of the entire education process-viz., at the curriculum development level, at the teaching learning level, at the infrastructure development level, and at the school management level, at the examination and evaluation etc. Piecemeal inclusion is no inclusion. It has got to be all-pervasive.

Although inclusion is primarily a goal, to my humble way of thinking, it is also a process. All the progressive international instruments including the UN Convention on The Rights of Persons with Disabilities place an all-out emphasis on participation of persons with disabilities in all spheres of life; and no such participation is possible without inclusion. Inclusion is a precondition to participation.

To my mind, inclusion must be an all-pervasive phenomenon. However, given the prevailing realities, the so-called special schools will continue to play an important role for a long time to come. In my view, these schools can and should promote inclusion. Besides, our emphasis must be on imparting quality education to children with disabilities in an appropriate environment.Let us utilize the special schools in promoting inclusion rather than making such schools a casualty in the name of inclusion. Thus, inclusion should be understood and defined in proper perspective.

The bottom-line is that disability has never been a Rights issue for anyone in India. Whatever has been granted to the disabled has been as through doling out alms. And, services made available to the handicapped sporadically have been subject to the “mercy” of the existing political and the bureaucratic machinery from time to time. This has led to irregular and indifferent services being provided as a token of charity rather than as a matter of right.

Recently, how could I forget to quote this, certain visually handicapped people were successful in ‘convincing’ the Supreme Court that the sightless should be allowed to take the examinations for the civil services. It is another matter that they have still not been able to convince the ministry for petroleum and natural gas that sightless persons can successfully run gas agencies. The ministry’s logic is that the “danger would be too great”.It is sheer apathy towards the problems of the disabled that it elicits such ridiculous, horrible and unjustified responses from the keepers of our society.This indifference is directly related to the fact that the disabled have been unable to forge a powerful coalition. Why, I refer to recent examples from history- Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar did his bit for people who now dream of leading this country(Mayawati is almost there),Ganghiji led his charge for the harijans and more recently the Women’s Bill is all ready to play its legitimate in bringing the fairer sex, if not more, but at least at par with the men.

At least, not yet.Without a visible leadership, the Indian disability movement will continue to remain unnoticed. It is time the disabled defined their identity and marked their presence. If necessary, they be ready to parade instead of being closeted.

http://testfunda.com/examprep/mba-resource/current-affairs/article/the-ability-debate.htm?assetid=16210a2b-7622-4a19-9d68-2b00a17ab870

Exclusion in the Dutch Educational System

Lieke Scheewe
November 08, 2009

The UNESCO Culture of Peace Program emphasizes that empowerment of marginalized voices is an essential part of peace building (Toh, 2007). The empowerment of the ‘disabled’ is only at the beginning of a long process toward inclusion. World-wide young people with disabilities, girls in particular, are still combating blatant educational exclusion (UNESCO, 2009a, p. 5). Of the 75 million children of primary school age who are out of school, one third are children with disabilities, thereby constituting the world’s largest and most disadvantaged minority (UNESCO, 2009b). While persons with disabilities make up ten percent of the world’s population, disability is associated with twenty percent of global poverty (UN, 2009). The strong association of disability with poverty especially in conflict zones prevents the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals unless the mainstreaming of disability in public education is developed in order to truly achieve golabl peace (UN, 2009).

An international milestone was reached in May 2008, when the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities entered into force, recognizing human dignity and promoting the rights of disabled (UN, 2006). In the Netherlands a law for ‘equal treatment on the basis of handicap or chronic illness’ (WGBH/CZ) was adopted in 2003, which applied to work places and vocational education. Three months ago the application of this law was expanded to include primary and secondary education (CGB, 2009). While the process of legal inclusion is slowly moving ahead, there are still many cultural challenges that have to be overcome in order for full inclusion to be realized. Two major challenges – the deep-rooted cultural meanings attached to the notion of disability as a social construct, and the way in which this construction of disability has been reinforced by the Dutch educational system – will be touched upon in this essay. It is hoped that this analysis will contribute to provide insight in the necessary steps that need to be taken to create a peaceful culture of diversity, in which there is equal room for everyone to fulfill their potential.

Disability as a Social Construct

Just as gender and ethnicity have in the past few decades been deconstructed and revealed as social constructions rather than objective facts of nature, so must the notion of disability be deconstructed (Burr, 1995; Murphy, 1990). In the same way that a distinction has been made between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’, a distinction should be made between ‘impairment’ and ‘disability’. Impairment is considered here to be a relatively objective notion, namely those symptoms or characteristics of the body that are classified by the medical world as physical or mental deviations from normality that inhibit ‘normal’ functioning. Disability then is the cultural meaning attached to certain impairments and is created through “the interaction with various attitudinal and environmental barriers, [that] hinder the full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others” (UN, 2006). The language we use is central to the way we interpret experiences (Foucault, 2003). In this light it is important to note that the term ‘disability’ seems to imply a general characteristic attributed to those carrying this label as having fewer capabilities than those who are considered to be healthy. The label of disability comes with many societal myths, fears, expectations of (in-)capabilities, and assumptions of needs, and is applied to an enormously wide variety of individuals who would not necessarily consider themselves disabled. Within the Netherlands this concerns 2.5 million people (Radar, 2009).

Perspectives on disability change throughout time and across cultures (Ingstad & Whyte, 1995). Research in Western countries shows that we stereotype disabled as ‘high warmth’, ‘low competence’ (which inspires pity), needy, ‘less than human’, and that we often experience discomfort, anxiety, or disgust in the presence of disabled, resulting in either avoidance behavior or helping behavior (Park et al., 2003; Stanton, 2007). Throughout time this attitude has included varying types of disabilities – with the development of technology most people with visual impairments are no longer considered disabled, and with the shift in cultural values homosexuality has recently medically been accepted as part of the ‘normal variation’ rather than classified as a mental disorder. The Western notion of disability is understood by various anthropologists as being based on the medical model – that conceptualizes disability as a physiological or mental deficit that needs to be fixed (Silvers et al., 1998) – and on cultural norms of individuality, independence, and functionality. Talle’s ethnographic study among the Maasai in Kenya points out that the concept of ‘disabled person’, as defined within the Western context, does not exist there (Ingstad & Whyte, 1995). Rather, they define personhood in terms of participation in community reciprocity.

The deeply culturally embedded notion of disability as a natural phenomena unrightfully implies that ‘disabled’ are fundamentally different from ‘non-disabled’ and creates a normal/abnormal dichotomy- according to which society becomes divided. It thereby provides the legitimization for a wide variety of discriminatory policies and non-policies (i.e. policies that should be in place in order to create equal opportunities). Generally these policies are not discriminatory in the sense of purposefully attempting to oppress, marginalize, or eliminate disabled from society, but discriminatory and marginalizing nevertheless, and thereby constituting a form of cultural violence (Galtung, 1990). There are many societal structures and institutions through which this notion of disability is reinforced, including the media (that only rarely or stereotypically represent disabled), the welfare system (which classifies people as being disabled or ‘not disabled enough’ in order to receive benefits), and the medical system (which classifies impairments and conveys the idea that they are merely negative experiences that we should always try to ‘fix’). Another institution which is crucial for the reproduction of cultural norms and values (Freire, 2000), is the educational system and policies that reinforce these classifications; these characteristics will be described in the next section.

Inequality in Education

In my perspective I was lucky. At the age of 10, two years after I was diagnosed with a muscular disease, my teachers at primary school managed to convince my parents that I was better off in the regular school system than at a ‘special school’ (for children with disabilities). The reason was that they considered me to be more intelligent than the average student, and a ‘special school’ would not offer me enough intellectual challenge. I was lucky, because there was another boy in my school who did get advised to attend a special school, a boy who was ‘more severely disabled’ and was considered to have an average intelligence level. I was lucky, because I could stay with my friends in my own neighbourhood. I was lucky, because those who have stimulated me and believed in my capacities throughout my childhood were my teachers and friends in school. I was lucky, because if it would not have been for my teachers’ persistence 13 years ago, the chances that I would now be studying at the University for Peace in Costa Rica would have been very slim. I was lucky, because I got an equal opportunity to become who I want to be, while the other boy did not.

The account above is meant to illustrate what unequal opportunity in the Dutch educational system means on a personal level. Since August 1, 2009, a law exists that enforces equal treatment for disabled children in primary and secondary school (CGB, 2009). Prior to this law, regular schools were not obliged to accept these children and to offer the necessary facilities to accommodate their needs. So-called ‘special education’ exists, which refers to those schools that are set-up especially for children with mental and physical disabilities who cannot (or are considered not to be able to) participate in the education programs at regular schools; for example, students whom can only study a limited amount of hours per day or because they need school materials in Braille (NCRV, 2004). A Dutch documentary shows the struggle of the parents of a girl with a light form of the Down Syndrome, who went to 15 schools and through several court cases before they found a regular school that would accept their daughter. Once enrolled in the school, with an individual educational program that allows her to learn according to her own needs in an environment that also allows her to participate in mainstream society, both the parents, the girl, and the school were happy with the results. A poll showed that 60 percent of Dutch parents with a disabled child encountered a similar struggle (NCRV, 2004).

Segregation in the educational system (as well as the lower level of education in special schools) perpetuates discrimination in the labour market, which prevents the disabled from participating in society according to their abilities. Radar (2009), a Dutch organization that reports on discrimination, stated that two-thirds of 1300 researched employers were less likely to hire a disabled applicant, due to prejudice. Needing to accommodate for their needs is often perceived as a burden, misunderstandings exist around how many adaptations in the workplace need to be made (in many cases minimal adaptations will suffice), and low expectations occur around the contributions that disabled employees will be able to make. While the law is expanding to include more and more areas in which discrimination against disabled is prohibited, prejudiced attitudes towards them will not change overnight. Few figures or statistics exist around the extent of discrimination within the educational system, including primary schools up to universities, in the labour market, or the society at large. The few statistics that do exist, however, are enough reason for concern.

Towards a Culture of Diversity

Several transformations will need to take place in order to create a school system that respects diversity and stimulates the fulfillment of each and everyone’s potential to the fullest and most equal extent. No literature could be found on the fundamental reasons for the existence of a separate school system for disabled children in the Netherlands. From my understanding of Dutch society and culture, having grown up and lived in the Netherlands for 22 years, I do not consider it as a deliberate strategy to segregate disabled from society, but rather as a development resulting from a strive for efficiency; a concern for the quality of education for the non-disabled, if teachers would have to divide their attention between the disabled student and the rest of the class; from taking a non-disabled’ perspective on what the needs of disabled are, rather than incorporating perspectives of the disabled; and from a lack of creativity and flexibility.

The late implementation of a law for equal treatment in the Dutch school system is remarkable, considering that many other countries with a lot less available resources, such as Italy, have already started including disabled children in mainstream schools (NCRV, 2004). Also, in Costa Rica I have heard of a deaf boy in who is in class with a girl in my host family, whereby the whole class was taught sign language in order to be able to communicate with him. Yet, problems have also been identified with the inclusion of the disabled in a system and school culture that is not ready for them (NCRV, 2004). In a culture where prejudice against disabled exist and is not actively addressed in schools, children with disabilities are more likely than others to encounter bullying, to be avoided by peers, or to be treated differently by teachers who may hold lower expectations of their capabilities.

A crucial change in mentality needs to drive this transformation process in a positive direction. The Dutch government could, for example, stimulate campaigns for the recognition of equal treatment of the disabled as a human right. It could stimulate programs that inform schools about the different options for school materials and methods to accommodate for different needs, such as exchanges with schools in countries that have already implemented these changes. Programs could be set-up in hospitals and rehabilitation centers for parents of children with disabilities that inform them of the wide range of possibilities and that stimulate them to think of their children’s future in open and positive terms; as a way to not only empower the parents, but through them also empower the children to think of their capabilities, rather than focusing so strongly on their limitations. Flexibility and creativity will need to be key factors in this process.

While recognizing that accommodating for any kind of need related to impairment in any kind of school environment is a great challenge, requiring expertise and resources now concentrated in one separate ‘special school’ system. This transformation will be a beneficial process for everyone when based on principles of ‘humanization’ and ‘emancipation’ (Freire, 2000), rather than ‘normalization’ (i.e. applying traditional cultural values and standards of learning objectives). Opening up a school system to such a wide diversity of students in this way will transmit to children values of tolerance for difference and equality as well as enhance the development of creativity essential for a sustainable culture of peace.

References

  • Burr, V. (1995) An Introduction to Social Constructionism. London: Routledge.
  • CGB (2009) Expansion WGBH/CZ to Primary and Secondary Education [in Dutch]. Retrieved September 10, 2009, from CGB.nl: <http://www.cgb.nl/artikel/wgbhcz-ook-voor-primair-en-voortgezet-onderwijs>.
  • Foucault, M. (2003) Society Must Be Defended. Lectures at the College De France 1975-1976. New York: Picador.
  • Freire, P. (2000) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
  • Galtung, J. (1990) Cultural Violence. Journal of Peace Research, 27 (3), 291-305.
  • Ingstad, B. & Whyte, S. R. (Eds., 1995) Disability and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Liachowitz, C. H. (1988) Disability as a Social Construct: Legislative Roots. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  • Murphy, R. F. (1990) The Body Silent. New York: Grove Press.
  • NCRV (2004) Special Education [in Dutch]. Documentary in Dutch television program ‘Netwerk’, 6 October 2004. Retrieved September 10, 2009, from Netwerk.tv: <http://www.netwerk.tv/node/3453>
  • Park, J. H., Faulkner, J., & Schaller, M. (2003) Evolved Disease-Avoidance Processes and Contemporary Anti-Social Behavior: Prejudicial Attitudes and Avoidance of People with Physical Disabilities. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27 (2), 65-87.
  • Radar (2009) Discrimination on the Basis of Handicap and Chronic Disease [in Dutch]. <http://www.radar.nl/read/discriminatie_wegens_handicap_en_chronis>
  • Silvers, A., Wasserman, D., & Mahowald, M. B. (1998) Disability, Difference, Discrimination: Perspectives on Justice in Bioethics and Public Policy. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Stanton, D. (2007) Less Than Human. Psychology Today, January/February, 18.
  • Toh, S. H. (2007) Pathways to the Building of a Culture of Peace. Presented at the Peace Education Workshop in Uganda, 10-13 July 2007, organized by the Ugandan National Commission for UNESCO and the Korean National Commission for UNESCO.
  • UN General Assembly, 61st session. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 13 December, 2006 (A/RES/61/106). Retrieved September 11, 2009, from UN.org: <www.un.org/disabilities>.
  • UN (2009) The Millennium Development Goals and Disability. Retrieved October 24, 2009, from UN.org: <http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=1470>.
  • UNESCO (2009a) Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education. Retrieved October 19, 2009, from UNESCO.org: <unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0017/001778/177849e.pdf>.
  • UNESCO (2009b) Inclusive Education Website. Retrieved October 19, 2009, from UNESCO.org: <www.unesco.org/en/inclusive-education/>.

From DNIS: “The reason we want a new law…”

Disabled rights activists from across the country were in New Delhi for the National Consultation on ‘The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Respect for Dignity, Effective Participation and Inclusive Opportunities) Act, 2010’, organised by N.C.P.E.D.P. The demand for a new law was unanimous.Dorodi Sharma of D.N.I.S. caught up with a few of them with the poser, “The reason I want a new law…” From vehement demands for a rights based Act to strong voices for accountability, the views were mixed but not different. DRG

Shampa Sengupta, Sruti Disability Rights Centre, Kolkata: “The reason I want a new law is because amendments to the old will not be able to cater to the ‘diverse’ needs of persons with ‘ALL’ kinds of disabilities.”

Sameera Shamim, Talking About Reproductive and Sexual Health Issues (T.A.R.S.H.I.), New Delhi: “The present law has many loopholes and does not look into the day to day lives and problems of people with disabilities. The definition of disability is very narrow, as is the understanding of other issues vis-a-vis disability. As someone who believes completely in affirmative rights towards sexual and reproductive health of all people, the present law completely neglects this area. Also post U.N.C.R.P.D., the existing law can be thrown away.”

C. Mahesh, Community Based Rehabilitation (C.B.R.) Forum, Bengaluru: “India needs to have a new and comprehensive Act that clearly defines all the rights in the context of people with disabilities. The current law is inadequate on how inclusion, participation, and exercising legal capacity by persons with disabilities in the areas of living in the community, accessing services, education and employment can be made possible. There is also no accountability and enforcement mechanism in the old Act.”

Amitabh Mehrotra, S.P.A.R.C. India, Lucknow: “We need a new law in line with U.N.C.R.P.D. that will look into the ground realities of our vast country. The concerns of the unheard voices need to be addressed immediately. Justice needs to be done to people who are intentionally or unintentionally segregated from the mainstream.”

Arun Rao, The Deafway, New Delhi: “The new law with U.N.C.R.P.D. as a base document would put deaf issues and concerns in a position where positive progress is possible. There will be a lot to consider naturally but the retrogressive thinking in the Disability Act of 1995 will be negated. This will open up fresh approaches to the future. On another track, the old Act has made us insecure, there is also a tendency to be very narrow minded and grabby about things. I guess any oppressed community is reactive and defensive without consciously wanting to appear so. As the broad scope of the new Act sinks in, people will put down their individual agendas and apprehensions and truly embrace inclusion in the spirit in which it deserves to be talked about and engaged.”

M. Srinivasulu, Network of People with Disabilities Organisation, Hyderabad: “The present situation demands that any disability legislation needs to be on the basis of U.N.C.R.P.D. To achieve this, the old Act has to be repealed. As a grassroot activist, my opinion is that if justice is to be done to all sections of the disabled population, we need a new law and not amendments.”

Suhas Karnik, National Association for the Blind (N.A.B.), Mumbai: “It is almost 14 years since we got the old Act. Amendments were due for a long time. But with India ratifying U.N.C.R.P.D., we have a different frame of reference now and mere amendments would not work. Although the Government has started the process of amendments, the concerns of the disability sector have not been taken into consideration. The most glaring drawback of the amendments is that it does not take into account 18 Articles of U.N.C.R.P.D. There is no mention of legal capacity, accountability and punitive measures. Having more than 100 amendments makes no sense. It is time to go for a new law which is in consonance with the U.N. Convention.”

Gautam Chaudhary, Sanchar, Kolkata: “There has been a major paradigm shift towards rights based approach since 1995. U.N.C.R.P.D., which has been ratified by India, gives us an appropriate frame work from the rights perspective to the issue of disability. When the whole framework of reference has undergone a vast change, it is rather futile to try to amend the old Act. Many of the significant chapters are not taken into consideration in the present process of amendments. One simply cannot include all the aspects of U.N.C.R.P.D. in the present law in its present format and if one is talking of changing the format, one is obviously talking of a new law. I strongly feel that we have no other alternative but to have a new law.”

Rajiv Rajan, Vidyasagar, Chennai: “The old law was enacted when the sector was still following the welfare model of disability. Now we should go for a rights based law that will reflect the letter and spirit of U.N.C.R.P.D. However much we try to incorporate the provisions of the U.N.C.R.P.D. into the old law, it will just be patchwork.”

Kanchan Pamnani, a visually impaired Advocate from Mumbai summed up the general feeling about the Disability Act of 1995: “I am fed up of the charity mindset that the old law projects. I think we all are.”

Studying to tell the tale

There has been a lot of controversy over whether the Right to Education Act covers disabled children, and whether disabled children should have access to the same schools as all others. Here is my own experience. I am forty three. I have cerebral palsy which has affected my speech and mobility. I use a wheelchair to move around and a voice synthesiser which is a small version of what Professor Stephen Hawkings uses. I also have two masters degrees from the UK. Yes, I am educated despite the fact that I am moderately severe! My life has been a mixture of both East and West. I have a bachelor’s degree from St Xavier’s College in Mumbai, a diploma in desk top publishing from Oxford Brookes University, two masters one from the London University, and one from the London Metropolitan University. Today, I hold a corporate job in a popular bookstore. Due to technological advances my disabilities do not come in the way of my performance, as I coordinate events through emails and sms’s.

I am glad I was educated!

Soon after my birth, my parents noticed that I was not keeping up to the milestones like a normal child. They went searching for a diagnosis for me. Every doctor they met confirmed that I would be a ‘vegetable’. The doctors told them: ‘just feed her and clothe her as nothing can be done with her.’ My parents refused to give up hope and refused to just dump me. They went in search for a diagnosis for me in England. Indeed they were right. I was assessed with high intelligence! I was put into a special school where I flourished. At that time inclusive education had not happened as it has now, when it is a mandate with Acts of Parliament and budgetary allocations supporting it. I was able to read by the age of one and a half years!  Six years later my parents returned to India, they found no school for children like me. It was a culture shock to confront the oppression around me. When I used to step out, people would either stare at me or make remarks openly in front of me. They would offer unsolicited advice: ‘have you tried homeopathy or why don’t take her to a fakir or a guru, she will be cured. Why don’t you put a collar around her neck? It must be her last life. She doesn’t need to go to school keep her at home’

These kind of comments came from everyone, including the educated rich. I was even discriminated against at children’s birthday parties and social events. I was once stopped from entering a swimming pool because disabled people were considered infectious! Parents with disabled children were frowned upon. I am ashamed to say some of the top families of the country were ashamed to bring out their disabled children into their own drawing rooms in fear of the kind of behaviour that would be meted out. They say ignorance is bliss, but in this case ignorance was harmful and oppressive. The negative attitudes of people would make me cry and my mother would comfort me, but needed comforting herself. I was miserable. Socially, I felt rejected and isolated. On top of this, I had no school to go to.  It was then that my mother, who was influenced by the British model of educating disabled children, opened India’s first special school. The first Spastics Society model was started in 1972 in Colaba, Mumbai. Subsequently, other schools began in Calcutta, Delhi, Madras and Bangalore. My whole family came out in support of children like me.

For me life has not exactly had a silver lining. Looking back at the age of 43, I ask myself — was a special school enough? I was in segregated education till I was 17. Seventeen years of being shut away from my brothers and sisters, from my companions, due to my disability. The system disables one further. Special schools imprison disabled people. Segregation dehumanises.  Fortunately my education was a mixture of segregated special schooling and inclusive higher education. The masters degree changed my adult life. It taught me how to think. It taught me to articulate my inner traumas that come from living in a world full of non-disabled people. It gave me the freedom of speech and the freedom of my age. For the first time in my life it has made me believe in myself and what I stand for.

The most important input that empowered me was education. What would I have done without education! The sad fact however is that for every disabled person who has the privilege of a special school, there are hundreds of disabled children who are shut out of any school at all. Today, I am proud that the government has mandated all schools to be inclusive.  With the Right to Education Act including ‘all children with disabilities, I feel proud that the children of tomorrow will have an opportunity as a right to be able to study with their brothers and sisters in regular schools, and hopefully doctors will not call disabled people ‘vegetables’, and schools will not shut their doors to them, and the community will not shun them.

The writer is a disability activist and senior events manager, Oxford Bookstore (Mumbai)

Indian Express

No child left behind

What may be innocuous for some can be immensely intimidating for others. Take steps — those simplest of concrete blocks which most children take two at a time. For a wheelchair-bound child, however, those very steps could separate her from a decent education. Barriers such as these had threatened to make the right to education legislation fall short of its noble aim: the promise that every child, regardless of circumstance, would get a decent primary education. But serious questions about the insensitivity of the original draft to disabled children came up just as it was set to being passed in Parliament. Amidst an agitation by activists and the prime minister’s intervention, Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal promised Parliament that these concerns would be taken care of. Now that the dust has settled and the law passed, will Sibal deliver?

Reports that the HRD ministry is planning to amend the mint-fresh law to make it more disabled-friendly suggest that he will. Specifically, disabled children are to be included in the category of “children of disadvantage”. Legalese matters. Disadvantaged children get a 25 per cent quota in private schools; currently disabled children cannot benefit from this. The other change the HRD ministry is proposing is in the definition of “disabled”. There is some ambiguity on whether the current definition includes children with mental disabilities such as cerebral palsy. By clearly stating that the definition includes children covered under the National Trust Act and other laws for the disabled, this controversy would be put to rest.

Activists have a third complaint: the need to mandate disabled-friendly infrastructure in schools. So far, the Right to Education Act mandates “barrier-free access” in all schools. But this must include not just ramps for those unable to walk, but Braille books for the visually challenged and special teachers for those with special needs. This is a work in progress; no law can exhaustively enumerate such infrastructure. A lot depends on the perseverance of the HRD ministry and other implementing agencies. But if first moves are anything to go by, the HRD ministry seems headed in the right direction. Intimidating staircases might just become negotiable.

RTE Bill to include all categories of disabilities

Anubhuti Vishnoi

Just a month after it was passed by Parliament, the Right to Education (RTE) Act is set to be amended to include all categories of differently-abled children in its ambit. The move comes after an intervention by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) following protests from disabled rights groups.  The HRD Ministry has conveyed its decision to amend the Act to the PMO, confirmed highly placed sources. In a climbdown from its earlier stand, it has also admitted that the Section of the Act pertaining to the “disadvantaged section” will have to be changed as it does not cover all disabled children.  While the ministry was earlier planning to incorporate enabling provisions in the “Rules” to be framed for the Act, it was later felt that rules alone would not suffice in making it legally binding.  Barely a week after the Act was passed, the PMO had written to the HRD Ministry, asking it to ensure that the concerns of the disabled are addressed. HRD Minister Kapil Sibal had assured, both in Parliament and more recently at the meeting of the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE), that all categories of disabled children would get the benefits of the RTE Act.

The RTE Act proposes free and compulsory education to all children aged between 6 to 14 years, and makes it binding on all public and private schools to reserve 25 per cent of their seats for children from “disadvantaged sections”. Section 3 states that the “disadvantaged sections” will cover children with disabilities as specified under the Persons With Disabilities Act — an Act that is not very comprehensive as it leave out several disabilities like cerebral palsy, autism and other mental disorders.  As per the proposed amendment, the RTE Act will now include children also covered under the National Trust Act and any other legislations which deal with those suffering from mental as well as physical disorders.  The Bill was at the centre of a row just before it was tabled in the Lok Sabha, with activists alleging that it deliberately excludes disabled children from its ambit. They claimed the Bill ignores the rights of disabled children by not providing for disabled-friendly facilities, not including “disability” within the definition of “disadvantaged sections”, and not including the mentally challenged within the definition of “disabled”. Activists had said that where the Bill defines “disability”, it takes the meaning as given in the Disability Act, 1995, which covers people with physical disabilities only.

Indian Express Monday , Sep 21, 2009 at 0507 hrs  New Delhi:

Children of the same God

They are not explicitely characterised as “disadvantaged” children in the Act, and so will not have the right to 25 per cent reservation in private schools. For many of us who have spent our lives working for the education of disabled children, and have shown that people with disability are in special need of education, we are in a state of shock and disbelief to find that the RTE had not included them in the key definition. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh assured us that they would be included, so did UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi. Human Resource Development Minister Kapil SibalSibal gave verbal assurances in Parliament, but to be legally binding, these assurances need to be put into the legal statute. The other problem with the Right to Education Act is the definition of “disability.” HRD Minister Kapil Sibal mentioned in Parliament that all disabled children, as defined by the Persons with Disability (PWD) Act, would get free and compulsory education. But the PWD’s mandate does not give children with disability the fundamental right to free and compulsory education as does the RTE Act. It does not guarantee the 86th amendment to the Constitution which mentions that education for all means children with disability as well which took us three decades to do, when the amendment was tabled in Parliament! Besides the PWD Act has no clear and specific guidelines for implementation with effective dates, deadlines, alternate arrangements, temporary relief etc.

The right to education is specially required for children with disabilities, who suffer from abysmal enrollment and attendance rates in schools. The World Bank Report 2006 states that educational attainment of all persons with disability, especially children, is far below national averages. 38 per cent of disabled children, aged 6-13, are out of schools. Almost all children with severe disabilities (75 per cent) are illiterate and do not attend school. Close to one third of all children with mild disabilities (30 per cent) are not in school. The bulk of schools under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan (SSA) are not accessible for disabled children — nearly all in some states. Physical inaccessibility is a major barrier. The entrances to the schools are narrow and children with mobility difficulties find it difficult to go to schools. There is no proper light or ventilation in the classrooms, neither is there suitable furniture. A lack of infrastructural support and funding has ensured a micro-level coverage of 2 per cent and a macro-level exclusion from the government’s programme showing institutionalised discrimination. And now exclusion from this Act! The child with disability has fallen between the Persons with Disability Act and the Right to Education Act, and is once again left orphaned without a right.

Based on the assurances made in Parliament by the HRD minister, an amendment of the RTE Act could be done through an ordinance (as Parliament is not in session). This amendment needs to bring the words ‘including children with disability’ into the definition of “child from disadvantaged group.” This will remove all ambiguities in the RTE Act. It would also clearly establish the right of an aggrieved disabled child to seek recourse from the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights. It is time for the government to make a clear and unambiguous statement that ‘all’ (disabled and non-disabled) children have a right to education under Section 3 of the RTE Act. Merely adding categories to the ‘disability’ definition is obfuscating the issue. Any disability category that is not included would agitate, and amendments needed again and again.

The RTE Act incorporating the above will also be in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (UNCRPD) that has been ratified by Parliament. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the UNESCO ‘Education for All’ commitments had reiterated that ‘all’ children with disabilities have a right to education. India has been a signatory to all international declarations but has not yet got its house in order. The time has come to bring children with disability into the purview of education where they rightly belonged till 1960 when they were wrongly clubbed with Scheduled castes and tribes and removed from the Ministry of Education to the Ministry of Welfare, where since then they have suffered massive exclusion from education. The prime minister has said that the “government stands committed to inclusive education for all children. I give you my assurance that they will be included so that they have a right to free and compulsory education.” Those words were like manna from heaven for us. Implementing that will be a new beginning in the lives of 30 million children and their families.

Mithu Alur
The writer is founder of the Spastic Society of India (Mumbai). She is also member of the CABE and the National
Executive Mission, SSA

Indian Express, 14th August 2009

Include all disabled in RTE: PM to ministry

Barely a week after the Human Resource Development (HRD) Ministry managed to pass the landmark Right to Education Bill amidst protests by disabled rights groups, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is learnt to have asked the ministry to ensure that no disabled child is left out of the ambit of the legislation that promises free and compulsory education to all children aged 6-14 years. The PM’s letter comes soon after he assured disabled rights activists that their concerns would be addressed.

After being passed by Parliament last week, the landmark legislation is awaiting Presidential assent. Indications are that an amendment will be moved later to ensure that all disabilities are covered under the Bill’s definition of ‘disability’.The long-pending legislation had run into controversy when soon after its introduction in the House social activists pointed out that provisions of the Bill left almost 30 million disabled children out of its ambit. Activists said the Bill ignores the rights of disabled children by not providing for disabled-friendly facilities, by not including “disability” with the definition of “disadvantaged sections” and by not including the mentally challenged within the definition of “disabled.”

Anubhuti Vishnoi

Sibal speech gets thumbs-up from disability rights activists

Vinay Sitapati

Mithu Alur, founder chairperson, Spastic Society of India (Mumbai), was exultant at “the specific assurances that the minister has given towards the education of India’s 30 million disabled children.” According to Alur, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had assured her during their meeting on Monday that Sibal’s statement in the House would be as “as legally binding as the fact that I am PM for the next five years”. Alur, however, said she was waiting to see how the modalities of the Act were “translated on the ground”.  Kamal Bakshi, India’s ambassador to Iraq during the first gulf war, who played an active role in convincing the government of the need to clarify its stand on this issue, told The Indian Express that Sibal’s commitment to the differently-abled was “positive”, but he was “still unclear on the course of action ahead”.

The Right to Education Act provides free and compulsory education to all children aged between 6 and 14. Disability activists had alleged that the final version of the Bill seemed to exclude disabled children from its ambit. The PM intervened, directing Sibal to assuage their concerns in Parliament. Sources also confirmed that UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi had taken a special interest in the issue.  In his speech, Sibal categorically stated that the disabled were included within the definition of a “child belonging to disadvantaged group”. Consequently, disabled children will be able to avail of a 25 per cent quota in private schools across India.

Syamala Gidugu, executive director, Action for Ability Development and Inclusion, an NGO working on disability rights, said she felt reassured, but wondered why the inclusion could not be made in the legislation itself.  Sibal also put to rest the fears of disability activists that cerebral palsy and autism were not covered under the law. In his speech, he referred to autistic children, and used the word “inclusive” to state that all forms of disability were covered under the Act. Javed Abidi, a prominent disability activist, who had previously accused the minister of deliberate apathy, promised to work constructively with the HRD Ministry on framing the model rules regarding disabled children. “We have to put this unfortunate dispute behind us,” he said. “The lives of 30 million children are at stake.”

Indian Express : Thursday , Aug 06, 2009 at 0136 hrs New Delhi:

Whose Right??

To be truly inclusive, the Right to Education Bill must address the concerns of the rights of the disabled

IF there is one lesson that uman Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal has learnt from his predecessor, it is what Martin Luther King Jr termed “the fierce urgency of now”. Sibal’s approach to reform has been as energetic as Arjun Singh’s was staid. The 100 days within which Sibal wants to pass the landmark Right to Education Act is evidence of his fierce urgency. But if speed is the only change that the new minister has brought with him, then that would be only half the lesson learnt. For, while speedy legislation on primary education is important, it is more important that the bill reads right.

One major shortcoming in the proposed legislation is its silence on the needs of disabled children

While the 2005 version of the bill was sensitive to these concerns, the new version has dropped many of the original provisions that dealt with disability. Specifically, the disabled are now not included in the definition of “disadvantaged” children, meaning that they cannot benefit from the 25 per cent quota for the “disadvantaged” in schools,  Second, the definition of “disability” in the bill only covers the physically handicapped, excluding those with mental handicap. And third, the bill does not mandate disability-friendly facilities in schools (such as ramps and special teachers). Of these three concerns, the first two are easy changes to make, without weighty financial consequences.

But the third concern — making schools across India disabledfriendly — will perhaps involve some cost. Already, estimates suggest that the financial cost of the Right to Education Bill will be between Rs 54,000 crore and Rs 73,000 crore a year. Perhaps, departmental mandarins fear the additional costs of ramps and other facilities in every single school across India.  Such fears are misplaced. As disability activists point out, the money is already there: funds for the disabled have been allotted under a host of government schemes such as the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan and the 11th five year plan. Besides, there is the principle of inclusiveness. The bill provides for toilets for girls in every school, which obviously adds to the costs.  Should we remove this facility? Of course not — even the idea seems laughable. Similarly, special facilities for the disabled must never be held hostage to possible budgetary worries (more so when such worries are imaginary). It is hoped that these provisions for the disabled once again find their way into the Right to Education Bill, before it is okayed by Parliament and the president into law.

Differently-abled come out on streets against Education Bill

Disability activists took to the city streets on Monday to protest against the Right to Education Bill. They demanded that the Bill be stalled until it is amended to include provision for disabled children. Protests are being raised against the definition of disadvantaged children, which, at present, includes only SCs, STs and OBCs (along with economically weaker sections) but not the disabled. Even the definition of “school” does not provide for disabled-friendly infrastructure.

“The Bill tabled in the Lok Sabha on July 30 promises to make primary education a right for children between six to 14 years but excludes more than 20 million children with disabilities. The government says it does not have resources to spend on differently-abled children,” said Shampa Sengupta, director, Sruti Disability Rights Centre.  According to the latest census, 18.4 lakh people with disability are in West Bengal but activists say the actual figure can be up to 50 lakh. Differently-abled minors constitute nearly 20 per cent of the disbaled population of the state.  In Bengal, there are 143 state-aided and recognised educational institutions for the disabled. “My daughter, Aparan Bhaduri (31), was mentally-challenged and she could not get school education. The definition of disability in the Bill covers only physical disability and not cerebral palsy and mental retardation,” said Shukla Bhaduri of Jodhpur Park.  “I have a right to education. The Bill marginalises us and if it is passed, many like me will be deprived of their basic right to live,” said Akash Verma (24), a mentally-challenged person.

Express News Service Tags : kolkata, education, bill Posted: Tuesday , Aug 04, 2009 at 0506 hrs Kolkata:

Letter To Shri Kapil Sibal, Minister HRD

Shri Kapil Sibal
Minister of HRD
19, Teen Murti Marg
New Delhi

Sub: Right of children to free and compulsory Education Bill, 2008

Dear Sir,

Members of the Disability Sector- Persons with disability, Professionals, Parents, Activists, and Other People touched by disability – would like to bring to your notice the status of children with disabilities in The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Bill 2008. We hear that it has been passed in the Rajya Sabha and is to be tabled in the Lok Sabha on 30th July, 2009.

The implication of this Bill being passed has grave consequences while addressing the educational needs of all children with disability. There are approximately 20 million children with disability in our country. Less than 2% have access to education. The proposed Bill does not take into account the educational needs of children with disability. We require your URGENT attention to this issue.

India has been one of the first countries to have ratified the Convention on rights of people with disability (UNCRPD)

The UN CRPD advocates the inclusion of children and persons with disabilities in all areas of development.

Article 7 of the UN CRPD states that: “State parties shall take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children.”

Article 24 of the UN CRPD on Education states that: “State parties shall ensure that persons with disabilities are not excluded from the general education system on the basis of disability and that children with disabilities are not excluded from free and compulsory primary education or from secondary education on the basis of disability.”

We are proud that our country was one of the first to ratify the UN Convention Rights of Persons with Disabilities [UN CRPD] in October 2007. For far too long disability has been seen as a separate issue. With the ratification of the UNCRPD and our government’s policies and plans, the focus on inclusion should not be ignored

Lacuna in the Current Bill – Right of children to free and compulsory Education Bill

  • There is no inclusion of children with disability in the main section defining “children. – Refer Chapter 1, 2d & 2e of the Bill. It defines children belonging to disadvantaged group and weaker sections but excludes mentioning children with disability.
  • Chapter 2 of the Right of children to free and compulsory Education Bill, 2008 states that: “Provided that a child suffering from disability, as defined in clause (i) of section 2 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection and Full Participation) Act, 1996 shall have the right to pursue free and compulsory elementary education in accordance with the provisions of Chapter V of the said Act.’

The implications of this are that:

  • Children with disabilities are excluded from the Right to Education Act, an Act that really should cover all children.
  • Not all children with disabilities officially recognized by the country are covered under the Persons with Disabilities Act. It leaves out children with disabilities covered under The National Trust Act for the welfare of persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental retardation and Multiple Disabilities 1999.

The system needs to be flexible to absorb all diversities rather than separating children. Therefore the country’s law on the RTE must be inclusive enough to include the right to education of all children and address their specific needs within the system.

Our Expectation from You

We urge you to engage with the Civil Society on this critical issue so that the component of the Bill, which is a very important step for the country, incorporates the spirit and essence of the UNCRPD. The MHRD had committed itself to inclusive education under the National Action Plan on Inclusive Education for children and Youth with Disability.

We request you to stall the passing of the Bill in the current session as it affects the lives of Children with Disability. With the passing of the Bill the children with disability would be divided between MHRD and MSJE.

INDEFINITE DHARNA AGAINST THE NON – INCLUSION OF DISABILTY IN THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION BILL

HUGE PROTEST ON MONDAY, 3RD AUGUST AT 10.30 A.M.  AT JANTAR MANTAR

Dear Sir/Madam,

The Right to Education Bill was tabled in the Lok Sabha on July 30.

On one hand it promises to make primary education a right for children between 6 – 14 years while on the other, it excludes more than 20 million children with disabilities!

Various disabled rights activists tried to get in touch with Mr.Kapil Sibal. But all he had to say was, “Ab Kuch Nahin Ho Sakta”. A lawyer politician flouting the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that the country has ratified!  A government that harps on inclusiveness claims that it does not have the resources, according to the Minister, to spend on children with disability!

There are some glaring problems in the Bill:

1: Where the Bill defines ‘disadvantaged children’, it talks about SC/ST children and other groups but has no word at all about children with disabilities!

2: Where the Bill defines ‘school’, it does not mention special schools or other infrastructure required for teaching students with disabilities!

3: Where the Bill defines ‘disability’, it takes the meaning as it is given in the Disability Act, 1995. This Act covers people with physical disabilities only. For this very reason The National Trust Act was enacted in 1999 which covers Autism, Cerebral Palsy and Multiple Disabilities. These children are automatically excluded!

Disabled Rights Group (DRG) and all the disability groups in and around NCR are organising a HUGE PROTEST RALLY and INDEFINITE DHARNA on Monday, 3rd August, beginning at 10.30 a.m. at Jantar Mantar. We expect 500 or more disabled people to be there at the Dharna.

We need your best support! Please depute a reporter/photographer/camera crew and help us fight for the rights of millions of disabled children who are being deprived of their right to education.

With best regards,

Javed Abidi

Convenor, Disabled Rights Group

1.8.09