Európsky ombudsman
Súvisiace dokumenty
1. On 19 November 2003, the European Ombudsman opened an own-initiative inquiry concerning the integration of persons with disabilities (reference: OI/3/2003/JMA). This involved, in particular, an investigation of the measures implemented by the European Commission to ensure that persons with disabilities are not discriminated against in their relations with the institution.
2. On 4 July 2007, after a number of consultations with all stakeholders, the Ombudsman issued a reasoned decision which closed his inquiry.[1]
3. On the basis of his findings, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission had made a genuine effort to integrate people with disabilities. He outlined, however, a number of areas, such as financial support given to officials with a disability or with disabled family members; recruitment of disabled persons; access to Commission information; and actions taken to sensitise the institution's staff, where action was still needed. Since the Commission agreed to take a number of corrective measures, the Ombudsman considered that, at that time, no further action in connection with these issues was necessary.
4. The Ombudsman found, however, that the state of affairs concerning one of the aspects reviewed in his inquiry was unsatisfactory. This concerned the way the European Schools are treating children who, because of their disability, have special educational needs (SEN children).
5. The criteria for the European Schools' policy on SEN children were first laid down in an educational programme dating back to 1999. The programme addressed both learning as well as physical disabilities, with a view to integrating SEN children into school life as much as possible. This would be achieved, for example, by using specialised teachers to provide SEN students with extra assistance. In this regard, a tailor-made programme for each SEN student, based on individual ability and needs, had to be decided upon by a special council for each respective School. The outcome of this process was a contract, renewable on a yearly basis, outlining the responsibilities assumed by each party.
6. In light of the comments made by concerned associations and individuals in the course of the Ombudsman's inquiry, it appeared that the implementation of this programme had generated public concern. A number of problems were identified, including the Schools' failure:
(a) to accept SEN children on the grounds that the Schools lack either the know-how or the human resources to deal with some types of disabilities;
(b) to set up a comprehensive programme for SEN children and to make real efforts to promote a more inclusive education; and
(c) to provide qualified staff and support to integrate SEN children.
7. In reply to these comments, the Commission argued that the Schools' Board of Governors had approved a new document in February 2005, entitled 'Integration of SEN pupils into the European Schools'[2], which would provide the basis for a revised policy in this area, by adapting admission and integration procedures for SEN pupils.
8. On 28 October 2005, the Ombudsman asked the Commission to explain how it intended to assess the results of the European Schools' policy on the integration of SEN children and to indicate a timetable for such assessment. However, the Commission's reply of 13 March 2006 did not provide any information in this regard.
9. In the absence of any such information, the Ombudsman drew the Commission's attention to a number of issues which had raised a great deal of public concern. These included:
(1) the view that the educational strategy concerning SEN children should be based on a "preventive integration" approach;
(2) concern over the fact that the annual renewal of the framework agreement, upon which individual programmes for SEN children are established, produces uncertainty among parents regarding how the situation will develop over time;
(3) the need for the Schools to devise adequate programmes for certain learning difficulties, such as dyslexia, which require appropriate in-service training on how to support pupils in their classes;
(4) the risk that parents of SEN children may be excluded from the Schools' SEN advisory groups, as a result of the fact that they do not receive enough information on the status and eventual progress of their children; and
(5) the absence of consistency in the manner in which individual Schools implement the policy towards SEN children, and the need for creating a position of SEN coordinator in each of the Schools.
10. In order to monitor closely how this situation evolved in the period following his decision, the Ombudsman asked the Commission to send him by the end of 2007 a further report on the European Schools' progress in integrating SEN children. This report would enable him to decide whether any further action on his part was necessary.
11. The Ombudsman undertook to publish this report on his website, so as to inform citizens of its contents.
12. On 18 December 2007, the Commission sent the requested report, entitled 'Analysis of the Progress accomplished by the European Schools on Integration of Pupils with Special Educational Needs'.
13. On 1 February 2008, the Ombudsman posted the Commission's report on his website and explained that he would decide whether any further action on his part appeared necessary, taking into consideration the content of the report and the comments made by the public. He explained that, after receiving and analysing potential contributions from citizens, he would inform the Commission of his conclusions by means of a letter, which would be published on his website.
14. In reply to his announcement, the Ombudsman received two contributions from the public, dated 26 May and 9 June 2008, from Ms Morag Ottens and the European Parliament's Disability Support Group, respectively.
Arguments presented by the Commission to the Ombudsman
15. In its report, the Commission acknowledged the existing situation, recalled its role within the context of the European Schools' management and assessed both the integration policy applied by the Schools, as well as the progress accomplished thus far in this regard.
16. The Commission explained that in 1999 the European Schools had adopted an educational programme regarding the integration of SEN children, which was revised in 2005 ('the Programme'). The Programme defines SEN children as pupils who have physical, mental and/or behavioural difficulties affecting their capacity to participate in mainstream education. The aim of the Programme is to integrate SEN children into school life as far as possible, ensuring that they are able to participate actively in mainstream education. Not all SEN children can be accepted into the European School system. The Commission, however, is not a member of the SEN Policy Group, responsible for drafting the Programme.
Role of the Commission
17. The Commission underlined that, since the Schools are ruled by an intergovernmental agreement, it does not have a leading role in the Schools' decisional process. It pointed out that it only has one vote in the Board of Governors, as do each of the EU Member States.
18. As regards the SEN Policy Group, which is the body responsible for drafting the Schools' SEN Programme, the Commission stressed that it has sought to monitor the evolution of the overall integration of SEN pupils and to make the necessary budget available. It also insisted that there is no ceiling on the SEN budget of a European School.
19. The Commission is not entitled to participate in the meetings of the advisory group and is never involved in the decisions concerning individual children. Nevertheless, the Commission informs parents of SEN children about the SEN Programme and all its conditions and implications.
20. The Commission has encouraged the European Schools to do their utmost to integrate SEN children as far as possible, for example, by covering their expenses.
Integration of SEN children into the European Schools
21. On 22 and 23 May 2002, the Schools' Board of Governors mandated the SEN Policy Group to produce an annual report on pupils covered by a SEN framework agreement. Since then, the SEN Policy Group has produced annually a report on the integration progress of SEN children in the European Schools' system, which is then submitted to the Board of Governors. The 'Annual Report on the Integration of SEN pupils in the European Schools' for 2005/2006 was presented on 17 and 18 April 2007, at the meeting of the Board of Governors in Lisbon.
22. In the course of that meeting, the Commission stressed that it considered the report to be of insufficient quality, and requested a more thorough analysis of the figures and causes for withdrawals from the SEN programme to be included in the following year's report.
23. The Commission explained that the integration of each individual SEN child in a European School is a matter which falls under the responsibility of an advisory group comprising the Deputy Director of the School, the responsible SEN inspector, the parents, the teachers and, usually, an outside medical specialist.
24. If the advisory group reaches a positive opinion regarding an SEN child's integration, the Director of the School and the parents of the SEN child approve and sign a framework agreement which is renewable on an annual basis.
25. If the advisory group takes a negative view regarding the child's integration, the relevant School informs the parents of the situation and suggests that they find alternative schooling for their child. The School then gives the parents advice on other schooling possibilities and helps them, as far as possible, to find the most appropriate educational establishment in this regard.
26. Although the European Schools do their utmost to integrate as many SEN children as possible, the Schools have a number of constraints which makes then unable to integrate all SEN children.
The Annual Framework Agreement
27. The advisory group studies in detail every new application for a SEN child. It also assesses the situation of each SEN pupil, at least once a year, in order to reconsider the possibilities and/or modalities for his/her integration. It also adapts, if necessary, the terms of the renewable annual framework agreement.
28. If the advisory group suggests that a SEN child should be admitted to the European Schools, it then defines a learning scheme for that student by, for instance, making the necessary changes in his/her curriculum. SEN children admitted into the Schools are covered by a yearly renewable framework agreement, signed by the parents and the Director of the relevant school. This sets out the acceptance conditions, the individual teaching and learning scheme, the pedagogical and financial support, and the contribution to be made by the parents.
29. The Commission underlined that, to its knowledge, no proposal has been made to reduce or refuse the participation of parents in the advisory group. The input of the parents is of crucial importance for the entire advisory group and especially for the well-being of the children.
30. As regards the annual renewal of the framework agreement upon which individual programmes for SEN children are established, the Commission pointed out that a SEN pupil's situation has to be carefully monitored, as it can change over time. The renewable annual framework agreement allows the parents and the school to make necessary adjustments in order to assure the best possible integration.
The role of the SEN inspector
31. The Programme foresees two SEN inspectors: one for SEN pupils in nursery and primary education, and a second for SEN pupils in secondary education. In order to reach a common position in the different advisory groups, the inspector is present in all advisory groups and follows all files. The Board of Inspectors was asked to draw up a document, in which, in an effort to make the system more objective, the minimum standards for all pupils are described in detail.
32. In 2005, the Board of Governors appointed a working group to elaborate proposals regarding the future of the European Schools. In January 2007, the Board of Governors suggested that the Board of Inspectors should indicate whether further measures were necessary to promote the concept of inclusive education. In this context, the Commission supported the idea of creating a set of minimum standards. These would give all parties involved in the integration of SEN children a solid basis and objective standards on which the enrolment or the refusal of individual SEN children ought to be based.
Progress made regarding the integration of SEN children
33. The 2005/2006 Annual Report on the integration of SEN children into the European Schools was prepared by the SEN inspector and presented to the Board of Governors at its April 2007 meeting. According to the Report, the number of SEN children within the Schools' system experienced a great increase. While in 2004/2005 the number was 274, it increased by 41% in 2006/2007, reaching a figure of 388.
34. According to the Annual Report, 16.3% of the SEN pupils (63 out of 387) withdrew from the framework agreement for the following reasons.
(a) 43.28% of the parents decided to find another school.
(b) 20.89% (14 out of 67) of the withdrawals were due to the fact that parents changed jobs and had to move to another city.
(c) 8.95% of the SEN pupils (6 out of 67) reached a level of progress which allowed them to follow the mainstream curriculum.
(d) 26.88% of the SEN pupils (18 out of 67) were advised by the advisory group that they were not able to participate in a minimum of cognitive activities. As a result, the Director of the School decided not to extend their SEN framework agreement. These students had to find another school that was better suited to their educational needs. The Commission has taken the initiative to ask the Schools to create a set of objective minimum standards to better define this type of situations.
35. The Commission also underlined that it has requested a more detailed analysis of the reasons why 43,28% of parents decided to withdraw their children from the European School System.
Budget considerations
36. The Commission stressed that it supports the Schools' integration policy as long as individual decisions are backed by the advisory group. The budget planned for SEN children in the Schools' 2007 budget was EUR 2 785 927.
37. Almost all of the Schools' premises are built in such a way as to allow the integration of SEN pupils with physical special needs. However, according to the annual report, not all Schools have foreseen an increase in the number of small rooms devoted to individual work with SEN children. The Commission insisted that everything should be done to make integration a reality.
38. If a European School cannot cater for an SEN child, who, as a result, has to go to a specialised school, parents can, under certain conditions, ask for the reimbursement of the school fees. On 12 September 2007, the issue concerning the full reimbursement of educational costs for SEN children was discussed at the 249th meeting of the 'Collège des Chefs d'administration'. At this meeting, it was decided that the 'Comité de Préparation pour les Affaires Sociales' should assess the impact of such full reimbursements on the institutions.
Future trends towards the integration of SEN children
39. The SEN programme states that real integration presupposes the use for all activities of inclusive teaching methods for all activities, which, as far as possible, match the pupils' abilities. In terms of integration, the Commission noted that it would be desirable for SEN children in need of learning assistance to obtain it from SEN teachers, without having to move to a different class. In the working group on the future of the European Schools, the Commission supported the idea of assessing the extent to which inclusive teaching methods are in fact being used in the European Schools. This idea was endorsed by the Board of Governors at its meeting of January 2007. The results of the assessment are not yet available.
40. In the working group, the Commission supported the idea of launching a pilot project for a SEN resource centre. This centre would provide all European Schools with expertise and advice about facilitating, to the maximum degree possible, the integration of SEN children. At its meeting of January 2007, the Board of Governors proposed this idea to the Board of Inspectors, which should report on it.
41. Each School has a certain amount of SEN coordination time, which is used for the compilation of case files, note-taking during advisory group meetings, drawing up agreements, monitoring different cases, liaising with respective SEN inspectors, and so forth. It is for each School's management to decide whether to appoint one SEN Coordinator or to divide the SEN coordination time among different colleagues.
Conclusion
42. The Commission noted that, throughout the SEN Programme's years of operation, the number of SEN children integrated in the European Schools has increased significantly. The Commission has made the necessary budget appropriations available, in order to give the Schools the opportunity to integrate as many SEN pupils as possible.
43. The Commission underlined that it will continue to monitor closely the reason(s) for pupils' withdrawing from the SEN programme and will put pressure on the SEN Policy Group responsible for the annual report, in order to obtain answers to its questions regarding this issue.
44. The Commission continues to participate actively in the debate concerning the improvement of the SEN policy and awaits with great interest the Board of Inspectors' reaction regarding minimum standards for the pilot project for a SEN resource centre. It also awaits the reaction of the Board of Inspectors on whether further assessment regarding inclusive teaching methods is needed.
45. The Commission stressed that it will continue to defend the interests of SEN children in both the Board of Governors and the Administrative Boards of the Schools.
46. The contributions received by the Ombudsman addressed the nature and contents of the European Schools' SEN programme, the Commission's role in this process and the Commission's budget for SEN children.
Limited scope of the SEN programme:
47. It was underlined that the European Schools should agree to educate all SEN children until they reach at least a certain level of competence and/or maturity. This aim would require that, in their education of SEN children, the Schools distance themselves from the current paradigm of integration and move towards a more integrative approach.
48. It was noted that the SEN programme is only addressed to pupils who are able to cope with mainstream education. As a result, a number of SEN children with moderate to severe learning disabilities drop out or are withdrawn. Since there is no overall concept on how to deal with these situations, success in individual cases depends largely on the competence and the willingness of the specific teacher involved. Since most of the teachers have relatively short-term contracts, they lack a detailed knowledge of other school systems in the host or neighbouring countries. As a result, they are often not in a position to offer advice on more appropriate educational establishments if the European Schools are not able to cater to the needs of an individual SEN child.
49. For the public, the attitude of the Schools towards integration is very important and can have a real impact on the percentage of SEN children in each School. Although it has been argued that the percentage of SEN children admitted in each School is the result of the different criteria being used (which supports the argument that a common set of criteria should be created by the SEN inspectors), the public perception is that the different percentages of SEN children in each of the Schools is due to different attitudes and practices. If so, it would be advisable for a set of best practices to be adopted by all of the Schools.
Suggestions for possible improvements
50. A number of suggestions were made to improve the Schools' overall level of competence in order to: encourage, on a general level, a more inclusive policy; reinforce the SEN capacities by training the teachers and offering expert multidisciplinary support; reinforce SEN coordination; involve external experts and national support teams where needed; and exchange best practices. Inclusive education would mean flexibility and tolerance for differences in terms of cognitive levels and individual progress. Inclusive teaching methods would mean that teachers are able to deal with these differences in cognitive levels and in ways of learning.
51. The communication between parents and the relevant Schools continues to be an issue. It was argued that the parents' only point of reference are the Directors of the schools and that the parents' role in advisory group meetings is still very weak. They do not have the right to bring in a third person and they are not given the necessary reports before the advisory group meetings. Admission of SEN children is often granted for a period shorter than 1 year and parents are not sure if their child will be able to continue until the last moment. In certain cases, children with a limited number of SEN-hours are not admitted to the European Schools outside of these hours. As a result, parents of such children have to find alternative solutions. It was suggested that the European Schools should establish a protocol for contacts with parents, based on mutual respect, transparency and partnership.
SEN pilot project
52. Funding a pilot project for a SEN resource centre through the European Communities' 2008 budget could be a starting point for widening the existing SEN programme and improving the Schools' competencies. As a first step, a set of independent experts should review the existing SEN policy across the European School system and establish the needs and requirements of the resource centre in terms of staffing, funding and equipment, for the Schools based both in Brussels and in Luxembourg.
53. Cases where Schools declare themselves not competent to cater for SEN children should be thoroughly investigated. In this regard, an open discussion concerning how to continue the education of the individual SEN child in question ought to be established. The analysis of successful cases could contribute to establishing more general guidelines, as could an examination of best practice.
54. The implications of inclusion and inclusive teaching need to be further explored. The role of all stakeholders (teachers, coordinators, parents and psychologists) in the resource centre also needs to be clarified. The options for providing a multidisciplinary approach, with input from psychologists with SEN experience, as well as other specialists, needs to be analysed.
55. On the individual level, an Individual Education Plan ('IEP'), containing an analysis of each SEN pupil's special learning needs and recommendations for adapted teaching methods, should be established. Particular attention should be given to the support needs of the teachers, since they have to put these recommendations into practice. Most importantly, the training needs of coordinators and teachers who have to deal with a wide range of SEN pupils need to be defined and followed up. Such an approach would pave the way to creating resource centres, which could be located within each school.
The role of the Commission
56. It has been argued that the Commission should adopt a more proactive approach with regard to SEN policy in general, by providing permanent funding for the common aspects of the SEN programme and helping to build up a coherent and effective SEN support structure within the Schools. Currently, the Commission pays large amounts to private schools that accept SEN children, which were rejected by the European Schools. Contributing to the reinforcement and improvement of the SEN programme within each of the Schools could have a positive financial effect on other budget lines.
The EU's contribution to the budget of the European Schools
57. It was noted that, although the Commission appears to insist that there is no ceiling on the SEN budget of a European School, in practice, individual Schools have insisted on limiting the number of hours of help provided each week per child. The Schools argue that this practice is due to lack of funding.
58. In its resolution of 8 September 2005 on the European Schools, Parliament insisted that, since the EU contribution to the European Schools system was equivalent to 57% of its total costs, the Commission should increase its voting rights on the Board of Governors. If so, the Commission should report to Parliament following each of the Board of Governors' meetings. In the same way, the Commission should expand its role as regards the implementation of the SEN programme, and thereby monitor closely the functioning of the resource centres once they are in place.
59. The Commission should review its SEN policy and budget commitments, since it pays large amounts to private schools that do accept SEN children. These amounts could be channelled in a way that both strengthens the European Schools' SEN policy and helps develop alternatives for integrating SEN children into mainstream education.
The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
61. As a preliminary remark, the Ombudsman underlines that his review of the Commission's report of 18 December 2007 should not be perceived as a means of forcing a particular policy on either the European Schools or the Commission. The Ombudsman's principal aim has been to help strengthen the dialogue between the Commission and the public in relation to the issues which have been most criticised by citizens. By so doing, the Ombudsman hopes to contribute to the more effective integration of SEN children.
62. The Ombudsman wishes to thank the citizens who took part in his inquiry and contributed with comments. Their contributions have shed light on the problem, and will hopefully help the Commission identify the actions necessary to improve the situation of SEN children.
63. The Ombudsman has consistently taken the view that the European Schools are not a Community institution or body and are therefore not within his mandate as defined under Article 195 of the EC Treaty. However, he has also pointed out that the Commission has a certain responsibility for the European Schools' operation, since it is represented in their Board of Governors and contributes largely to their financing. Accordingly, the Ombudsman believes that the Commission has a general responsibility to promote good administration in the European Schools. This responsibility includes the obligation to promote a non-discriminatory policy towards SEN children in the European Schools so as to ensure their complete integration. In this regard, the Ombudsman notes that, in its revised 1998 'Code of Good Practice for the employment of people with disabilities',[3] the Commission has undertaken to support the efforts made by the European Schools, with a view to better integrating SEN children.
64. Having assessed the different views expressed in the course of his inquiry, the Ombudsman acknowledges that, despite its limited power in the governing scheme of the European Schools, the Commission has made a genuine effort in the past years to strive towards more effective policies for integrating SEN children. It is commendable that the Commission's primary concern, in both the Board of Governors and the Administrative Boards of the Schools, has, as has underlined, been to defend the interests of SEN children.
65. On balance, the Ombudsman considers that progress has been accomplished in a number of aspects. This is shown by the fact that the number of SEN children integrated in the European Schools in recent years has seen a significant increase. Part of that increase is undoubtedly the result of the Commission's efforts to increase the financial support devoted to the integration of SEN children within the Schools.
66. The Ombudsman regrets, however, that the financial support given to officials with disabled family members is insufficient. This assistance is particularly inadequate with regard to covering expenses incurred by families whose children are excluded from the European Schools because of their disability.
67. As the Ombudsman already stated in his Special Report of 27 May 2005 to the European Parliament in case 1391/2002/JMA,[4] the Commission should have taken the necessary steps to ensure that parents of SEN children, who are excluded from the European Schools because of the degree of their disability, are not required to contribute to the educational costs of their children. The Ombudsman points out that, on 6 April 2006, Parliament endorsed the Ombudsman's recommendation.[5] Several years later, and notwithstanding these recommendations, the Ombudsman notes with dismay that the Commission is still discussing the situation, in order to assess the financial impact on the institutions.
68. The Ombudsman is aware that, as the Commission itself concedes, a significant number of SEN children accepted into the Schools subsequently withdraw for unknown reasons. This is a worrying development which may point to the inadequacies of the European Schools' approach to integrating SEN children. The Ombudsman notes that the Commission has undertaken to closely monitor the reasons for such withdrawals. It has agreed to have this matter explored and clarified by the SEN Policy Group responsible for the annual report.
69. The Ombudsman is pleased that the Commission is willing to play a leading role in the debate concerning the improvement of the SEN policy. In this regard, the Commission has undertaken to consider carefully the replies expected from the Board of Inspectors regarding important issues such as the minimum standards for the pilot project of a SEN resource centre and the further assessment of inclusive teaching methods.
70. The Ombudsman is aware that certain aspects of the European Schools' policy for the integration of SEN children are still perceived with concern by many citizens.
71. The parents' role in any discussions with the Schools appears to be of great importance. Even though the Commission has underlined that no changes have been considered as regards the involvement of parents in SEN matters, many parents appeared to be concerned. They have suggested that the Schools should involve parents to a greater degree. This could be done by creating a protocol in which the Schools accept that contacts with parents have to be based on mutual respect, transparency and partnership.
72. The Ombudsman considers that the European Schools' insistence on integration is not sufficient and that they should therefore move towards a new policy, based on inclusion. A number of improvements in this regard have been suggested by concerned citizens, including increasing the amount of initiatives taken by the Schools; enhancing the role of better trained SEN Coordinators, strengthening the position given to the parents; and/or introducing best practices.
73. The Ombudsman welcomes the European Schools' decision to develop a pilot project which could result in the establishment of a new SEN resource centre. He hopes that the Commission will closely monitor the implementation of this initiative, so that it does not fall short of expectations. One of the tasks that the pilot project could undertake would be to review the existing situation, so as to assess whether the SEN programme meets the public's demands and, if not, which actions would be needed to correct the shortcomings identified.
74. The Ombudsman wishes to draw the Commission's attention to the fact that many citizens wonder why the institution does not have a more active involvement in the SEN policy of the European Schools. Even though this is a decision which is under the ultimate control of the Member States, the Ombudsman believes that, in line with the opinion expressed by the European Parliament,[6] the Commission should try to approach all stakeholders involved in the governance of the European Schools', with a view to strengthening its own role.
75. Finally, the Ombudsman wishes to point out that the future integration of SEN children by the European Schools should take due account of the obligation in this regard, enshrined in Article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.[7] The Convention, adopted on 13 December 2006 (resolution A/RES/61/106), was opened for signature by all States and regional integration organisations on 30 March 2007. It entered into force on 3 April 2008. Both the EU Member States, and the Commission on behalf of the European Communities, have already signed this international instrument. Its proper application will require all parties, including the Commission, to make concerted efforts to move towards an inclusive education which does not exclude SEN children from the general educational system, and which provides SEN pupils with the support they require to obtain an adequate education.
76. As with other aspects of his own initiative inquiry, the Ombudsman hopes that, by opening a further public debate on the integration of SEN children in the European Schools, he has contributed to bringing the voice of disabled citizens closer to the Union's institutions. The Ombudsman is also hopeful that his initiative will help the Commission to reassess some of its actions in this regard, with a view to correcting them if necessary and, in so doing, to serving all European citizens better.
77. In view of the above findings, the Ombudsman does not consider it necessary to pursue any further inquiries at this point in time. He will, however, continue to monitor the situation on the basis of complaints submitted by citizens regarding the integration of SEN children in the European Schools and will again take action when the situation warrants it.
78. In an effort to inform as many citizens as possible, the Ombudsman will publish on his website the full version of this follow-up inquiry in English, as well as a summary of it in all the official languages of the EU.
P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS
Done in Strasbourg on 9 December 2008
[1] http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/decision/en/03oi3.htm
[2] Reference: 2003-D-4710-en-6. This document is available on the European Schools' website: http://www.eursc.org/SE/htmlEn/IndexEn_home.html.
[3] The EU Code of Good Practice is available on the Commission's website:
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/soc-prot/disable/codehaen_en.htm
[4] http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/special/pdf/en/021391.pdf
[5] European Parliament resolution on the Special Report by the European Ombudsman following a complaint against the European Schools (No 1391/2002/JMA) (2005/2216(INI)).
[6] European Parliament resolution of 8 September 2005 on options for developing the European Schools system (INI/2004/2237):
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2005-0336+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN
[7] Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:
http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=259
"Article 24 - Education
1. States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to education. With a view to realizing this right without discrimination and on the basis of equal opportunity, States Parties shall ensure an inclusive education system at all levels and life long learning directed to:
•a. The full development of human potential and sense of dignity and self-worth, and the strengthening of respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and human diversity;
•b. The development by persons with disabilities of their personality, talents and creativity, as well as their mental and physical abilities, to their fullest potential;
•c. Enabling persons with disabilities to participate effectively in a free society.
2. In realizing this right, States Parties shall ensure that:
•a. 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;
•b. Persons with disabilities can access an inclusive, quality and free primary education and secondary education on an equal basis with others in the communities in which they live;
•c. Reasonable accommodation of the individual's requirements is provided;
•d. Persons with disabilities receive the support required, within the general education system, to facilitate their effective education;
•e. Effective individualized support measures are provided in environments that maximize academic and social development, consistent with the goal of full inclusion.
3. States Parties shall enable persons with disabilities to learn life and social development skills to facilitate their full and equal participation in education and as members of the community. To this end, States Parties shall take appropriate measures, including:
•a. Facilitating the learning of Braille, alternative script, augmentative and alternative modes, means and formats of communication and orientation and mobility skills, and facilitating peer support and mentoring;
•b. Facilitating the learning of sign language and the promotion of the linguistic identity of the deaf community;
•c. Ensuring that the education of persons, and in particular children, who are blind, deaf or deafblind, is delivered in the most appropriate languages and modes and means of communication for the individual, and in environments which maximize academic and social development.
4. In order to help ensure the realization of this right, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to employ teachers, including teachers with disabilities, who are qualified in sign language and/or Braille, and to train professionals and staff who work at all levels of education. Such training shall incorporate disability awareness and the use of appropriate augmentative and alternative modes, means and formats of communication, educational techniques and materials to support persons with disabilities.
5. States Parties shall ensure that persons with disabilities are able to access general tertiary education, vocational training, adult education and lifelong learning, without discrimination and on an equal basis with others. To this end, States Parties shall ensure that reasonable accommodation is provided to persons with disabilities."
