“Education for All?

A Historical Analysis of International Inclusive Education Policy

and Individuals With Disabilities
Susan J. Peters, Michigan State University

Education for All (EFA) has been placed on the international policy agenda, but what is meant by “all”?
This historical analysis focuses on 12 major international policy documents pertaining to education of
disabled children and youth, over a period of approximately 40 years. Using Foucault’s effective history
and a conceptual framework of policy-as-discourse, this analysis reveals conflicted discourses and frag-
mented, reinterpreted, and reworked policies towards rights of individuals with disabilities in relation
to EFA. These findings provide a lens for increased understanding of current educational inequalities
and the lack of progress toward EFA for people with disabilities.

We are not the sources of problems. We are the resources EFA has been placed on the international policy agenda,
that are needed to solve them. We are not expenses, but what is meant by all? The EFA global monitoring report
we are investments. for 2005 is virtually silent on disability issues beyond a brief
— Gabriela Arrieta of Bolivia and Audrey Cheynut of mention of overall numbers (UNESCO, 2004, p.143). The re-
Monaco: Opening address at the United Nations Special port also makes no mention of progress toward inclusive ed-
Session on Children, May 2002. ucation for children and youth with disabilities, even though
documented progress is readily available (Enabling Education
Network, 2004; Peters, 2004; UNESCO, 2002b). Furthermore,
In March 1990, participants from 155 countries and rep-
all major policy documents most often refer to disability as a
resentatives of 160 governmental and nongovernmental agen-
problem, not a resource; and to education as an expense, not
cies met in Jomtein, Thailand, for a world conference on
an investment.
Education for All (EFA). The delegates to this conference
This analysis examines EFA in relation to individuals
adopted a World Declaration on Education for All that reaf-
with disabilities through a focus on key international policy
firmed the notion of education as a fundamental human right.
documents pertaining to inclusive education from 1960 to the
Furthermore, the delegates approved a Framework for Action
present. This analysis is important for several reasons. First, as
that provided targets and strategies for addressing the basic
Bengt Lindqvist (1999), former UN Special Rapporteur of the
learning needs of all as an investment in the future. In April
Commission for Social Development on Disability put it:
2000, delegates to the World Education Forum convened in
Dakar, Senegal, establishing the new millennium development A dominant problem in the disability field is the
goal of providing every girl and boy with primary school edu- lack of access to education for both children and
cation by 2015 and assessing progress toward EFA since adults with disabilities. As education is a funda-
Jomtein (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural mental right for all, enshrined in the Universal De-
Organization [UNESCO], 2000a). This time, more than 1,100 claration of Human Rights, and protected through
participants from 164 countries were in attendance. Policy various international conventions, this is a very se-
documents emanating from the United Nations (UN) subse- rious problem. In a majority of countries, there is a
quent to Dakar also clearly identified inclusive education as a dramatic difference in the educational opportuni-
key strategy to address marginalization and exclusion in rela- ties provided for disabled children and those pro-
tion to the millennium development goal: “Inclusion was seen vided for non-disabled children. It will simply not
as the fundamental philosophy throughout UNESCO’s pro- be possible to realize the goal of Education for All
grams and the guiding principle for the development of EFA” if we do not achieve a complete change [emphasis
(UNESCO, 2002a, p. 17). added] in this situation. (p. 7)

98 JOURNAL OF DISABILITY POLICY STUDIES VOL . 18/ NO. 2/2007/ PP. 98–108
Downloaded from dps.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 12, 2015
 JOURNAL OF DISABILITY POLICY STUDIES VOL . 18/ NO. 2/2007 99

Second, international organizations for people with dis- The Salamanca Statement, agreed to by 92 governments
abilities have focused their efforts on international conven- and 25 international organizations at the 1994 World Confer-
tions and declarations because conventions are legally binding ence on Special Needs Education in Salamanca, Spain, added
on signatory member states and because declarations carry the the following:
moral authority of the international community. Third, there
is the belief that legislating rights and declaring the intent of Regular schools with this inclusive orientation are
these rights through formal written policies are essential pre- the more effective means of combating discrimina-
requisites to enforcing rights. Fourth, despite several decades tory attitudes, creating welcoming communities,
of conventions and declarations pertaining to education, these building an inclusive society and achieving educa-
EFA policy documents have not yet resulted in effective en- tion for all; moreover, they provide an effective ed-
acted policy or in significant levels of inclusive education prac- ucation to the majority of children and improve the
tice for people with disabilities. Mittler (2005, p. 33) came to a efficiency and ultimately the cost-effectiveness of
similar conclusion: “Recent assessments raise fundamental the entire education system. (UNESCO, 1994a, p. 2)
questions about the impact of the whole range of UN initia-
tives on the day-to-day-lives of disabled children and their Inclusive education, as conceived in the Salamanca State-
families, especially in developing countries.” Despite the in- ment, is based on the concept of social equity and is consistent
creasingly rapid proliferation of numerous international pol- with a social model of disability. Four assumptions inherent in
icy documents, inclusive education has not yet “gone to scale” this conception of inclusive education are
(Akerberg, 2001; European Agency for Development of Spe-
1. All students come to school with diverse needs
cial Needs Education, 2003; Organisation for Economic Co-
and abilities, so no students are fundamentally
operation and Development, 2000; UNICEF, 2002). In fact,
different.
estimates of the percentage of children and youth with dis-
2. It is the responsibility of the general education
abilities who attend school in developing countries range from
system to be responsive to all students.
1% (UNESCO, 1994a, Section 10) to 5% (Habibi, 1999).
3. A responsive general education system provides
Although one must search for explanations for the cur-
high expectations and standards, quality acade-
rent state of affairs in the context and conditions of educa-
mic curriculum and instruction that are flexible
tional practice, one can make a strong argument that policy
and relevant, an accessible environment, and
also reflects what has been learned from practice and is an in-
teachers who are well prepared to address the
fluential engine for transforming practice. In this analysis, the
educational needs of all students.
search for these explanations essentially asked the following
4. Progress in general education is a process evi-
question: What can researchers learn from international pol-
denced by schools and communities working
icy documents that illuminates the lack of effective progress
together to create citizens for an inclusive soci-
toward EFA and inclusive education? ety who are educated to enjoy the full benefits,
rights, and experiences of societal life.
Conceptual Framework An alternative traditional conception of education for in-
dividuals with disabilities still evident in governmental policy
This analysis starts with the premise that theories and policies discourse and practice is based on a medical/deficit model of
that seek to direct practice are themselves practical activities. disability. There are four basic assumptions inherent in this
Specifically, inclusive education is simultaneously a philoso- approach:
phy and a practice, based on particular theories of teaching
and learning. This analysis defines the term inclusive education 1. Disability is a pathological condition within the
as referring to the education of children and youth with dis- individual student that makes that individual
abilities in general education classrooms with their nondisabled fundamentally different from other students.
peers (Peters, 2002). The philosophy of inclusive education is 2. Differential diagnosis and placement in special
based on the right of all individuals to a quality education with environments is objective and useful.
equal opportunity—one that develops their potential and re- 3. Special education in separate environments
spects their human dignity. Inclusive education means more with special teachers is a rationally conceived
than physical integration, so that in addition to accessible and coordinated system of services that benefits
classrooms and facilities, students with disabilities must be af- diagnosed students.
forded adequate instructional support systems. These sup- 4. Progress in special education is a rational–
ports may include flexible curriculum (for some students), technical process of incremental improvements
adequately prepared teachers, and a welcoming school com- in diagnostic and special instructional practices.
munity culture that goes beyond tolerance to acceptance. (Skrtic, 1995, p. 210)

Downloaded from dps.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 12, 2015
100 JOURNAL OF DISABILITY POLICY STUDIES VOL . 18/ NO. 2/2007

All policies—including those grounded in medical models disability rights movement, beginning with 1960, when the UN
of “special education” and those with social model approaches General Assembly adopted the landmark Convention Against
of inclusive education—are shaped by people (actors) in the Discrimination in Education (December 14). It ends with the
context of society, whether locally, nationally, or globally. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2007.
Every written policy document deploys a particular discourse However, this undertaking is not a traditional historical
as both tactic and theory in a web of power relations (Fulcher, analysis, which assumes uninterrupted progress and rational
1999). For example, how and what one teaches are morally and humanitarian purposes. Foucault (Foucault & Rabinow, 1994,
politically informed—such as decisions about placement, a p. 89) argued that traditional histories aim at “dissolving the
learner’s functioning, and perceptions of a learner’s capabili- singular event into an ideal continuity—as a teleological
ties. Written policy may be enacted at the ground level and movement or natural process.” He refuted this claim by stating,
translated into practice in different forms and at different lev- “The world we know is not (an) ultimately simple configura-
els so that international policy documents do not a priori de- tion where events are reduced to accentuate their essential
termine what education officials and teachers produce as traits, their final meaning, or their initial and final value. On
policy. “Inclusive Education may be implemented at different the contrary, it is a profusion of entangled events” (Foucault &
levels, embrace different goals, and be based on different mo- Rabinow, 1994, pp. 88–89). Specifically, Foucault argued that
tives … and provide services in different contexts” (Peters, events in history are not solely contained in decisions, treaties,
2003, p. 2). However, these documents are typically grounded or battles but in the relationships of power that include the ap-
in what has been learned from practice, represent the moral propriation of language. Foucault described this view of events
authority of the international community, and provide op- as effective history. An effective history becomes an interpretive
portunities for legal sanctions against those who fail to address lens that uses language, rather than chronological time, as a
these policies and related guidelines. From this perspective, point of reference. From the viewpoint of effective history, the
written policy provides a documented legal and moral frame- relationships between historical events and social contexts are
work as well as a critical lens for interpreting and under- an unpredictable and fluid tangle of events.
standing practical action/reaction in everyday practice. At its Armstrong (2003) gave an example of the difference be-
heart, the conceptual framework employed in this analysis tween traditional and effective historical analyses. From the
views policy-as-discourse and the language of policy as social traditional viewpoint, assisted employment opportunities for
constructions. Policy as discourse is dialectically related to people with disabilities represent events denoting progress.
practice, underpinning processes of inclusion and/or exclusion Armstrong, however, argued that policies promoting sheltered
in significant ways. Policy-as-discourse theorists deconstruct workshops for people with disabilities in the 21st century do
the language of policy and seek discursive interpretations and not represent progress but reflect vestiges of 19th-century
explanations, not only of objective principles and procedures, English workhouses that were set up to contain and control
but also of what the language hints or suggests, omits or si- poor, destitute people. In the context of this analysis, Fou-
lences. Some scholars would argue that the complexity of ed- cault’s effective history views policy documents as representa-
ucational practice in context cannot be expressed adequately tive of particular discourses that are value laden and that use
through an analysis of international policy documents. “Nev- language that is fragmented, reinterpreted, and reworked in
ertheless, this material—the formal, public façade of historical response to changing contexts and over time (Armstrong,
development—is important in providing one set of frame- 2003, p. 63). This focus on language and policy as discourse re-
works for understanding social change” (Armstrong, 2003, p. veals an effective history, allowing a critical analysis that delves
73). Other scholars such as Bacchi (2000, p. 46), criticized pol- beneath the chronology of policy as event.
icy-as-discourse theorists for developing “an understanding of
discourse which suits their political purpose.” However, Arm-
strong argued that formal policy is widely thought of as neu- Results and Discussion
tral (i.e., standing outside and above individual and group
differences and interests), but this neutrality is the heart of the
hegemonic language used in various official deliberations and
International Policy Discourse
decision making—especially with regard to disability issues. In an analysis of where the international community stands in
terms of formal inclusive education policy, several key docu-
ments provide an effective history of policy development from
Method 1960 to the present. Table 1 summarizes these documents. I
chose the documents for this analysis based on their (a) sub-
Since the global rise of the disability rights movement in the stantive content related to education and disability and/or
1960s and 1970s, people with disabilities have recognized the (b) substantial impact on establishing rights of people with
right to education as key to employment opportunities, qual- disabilities to education. This section provides a detailed de-
ity of life, self-advocacy, empowerment, social justice, and eq- scription of each document over time but uses effective history
uity in society at large. This analysis begins with the rise of the to illuminate the fragmentation, reinterpretation, and rework-

Downloaded from dps.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 12, 2015
 JOURNAL OF DISABILITY POLICY STUDIES VOL . 18/ NO. 2/2007 101

TABLE 1 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration

International Policy Documents Pertaining to “provides the fundamental normative bases on which interna-
Disability & Education tional norms and standards related to persons with disabilities
have evolved” (UN, 1998, p. 1). This 1948 Declaration, which
Year Policy document Content areas included the basic principle of nondiscrimination, “has be-
1960 United Nations Convention Against 19 articles come part of customary international law and binds all states,
Discrimination in Education (Articles 1, 2, 3, whether or not the state has ratified the treaty” (UN, 2003).
6 on education)
Convention Against Discrimination in Education,
1971 United Nations Declaration on the 7 articles (Article 2
Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons on education)
1960 (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights [OHCHR], 1960). This Convention does not
1975 United Nations Declaration on the 13 articles: integra- explicitly mention disability, but the reader may take disability
Rights of Disabled Persons tion, employment as one factor included under “social origin” in Article 1. Arti-
1981 Sundberg Declaration 16 articles (Articles 1, cle 3 of this convention obliges States Parties to eliminate and
4, 6, 7 on education) prevent discrimination in education. Articles 4 and 6 require
1982 United Nations World Programme prevention, rehabili- that States Parties promote equal opportunity. However, Arti-
of Action 3 goals: Concerning tation, equal oppor- cle 4, Part (a) “makes higher education equally accessible to all
Disabled Persons tunity on the basis of individual capacity,” and Article 4, Part (b)
1989 Tallinn Guidelines for Action on 9 strategies (Section D
states that standards and quality of education provided should
Human Resources Development on education) be “equivalent in all public education institutions.” In this doc-
ument, the language individual capacity (notably, not poten-
1990 Convention on the Rights of the 54 articles (Article 23 tial) covertly reflects the then-current belief in, and
Child (UNICEF) on self-reliance,
widespread use of, the IQ test as an objective and rational way
participation, and
social integration)
to define normal capacity and as a useful way to differentiate
normal intelligence from deviance, subnormality, or “mental
1990 World Declaration on Education 10 articles: access, retardation.” An equivalent education reflects the then-current
for All (UNESCO, Jomtien) enablement, environ- belief (only beginning to be challenged by racial groups) that
ment, partnerships
education could be separate and equal.
1993 United Nations Standard Rules on 22 rules: sectors,
the Equalization of Opportunities supports, access, Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded
for Persons With Disabilities equal opportunity, Persons, 1971 (OHCHR, 1971). The seven articles in this de-
laws claration include Article 2, which asserts the individual’s right
1994 World Congress on Special Needs 85 articles: access, to “such education, training, rehabilitation and guidance as
Education, Salamanca accommodations, will enable him [sic] to develop his [sic] ability and maximum
quality potential.” The Declaration also calls for “promoting their in-
1995 World Summit for Social Develop- 10 commitments, tegration as far as possible in normal life.” The preamble states
ment Programme of that “certain countries at their present stage of development
Action can devote only limited efforts to this end.” This declaration is
2000 Education for All (EFA) Frame- 6 goals: accountabil- a landmark document not only in specifically recognizing the
work for Action (UNESCO, ity, advocacy, partici- right of people with disabilities to education (albeit only a
Dakar) pation segment of the population with disabilities), but also in intro-
ducing the concept of maximum potential (vs. perceived capac-
ity). However, integration is narrowly envisioned as dependent
ing of each discourse. This effective history of policy as dis- on State Parties’ economic capacity.
course lays the foundation for responding to the question,
“What can be learned?” Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons, 1975
The UN involvement with disability issues began long (UN, 1975). This declaration was also a landmark document
before 1960, but despite the 1948 Universal Declaration of Hu- in the context of its time, representing a watershed in drawing
man Rights, disability issues throughout the 1940s and 1950s from the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
promoted a welfare perspective. This perspective focused on recognizing the rights and needs of all people with disabilities
disability prevention and rehabilitation (UN, 2002c). How- for the first time. However, the influence of a medical model of
ever, the 1960s and 1970s showed a perceptible shift toward a integrated education is nevertheless transparent in terms of
rights-based approach. Although this analysis begins with the both its language and focus. Specifically, a person with disabil-
1960 Convention Against Discrimination in Education, virtu- ities is defined as one who is “unable to ensure the necessities
ally all conventions and declarations in this analysis refer to the of normal social life due to deficiency” (p. 1). The goal for peo-

Downloaded from dps.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 12, 2015
102 JOURNAL OF DISABILITY POLICY STUDIES VOL . 18/ NO. 2/2007

ple with disabilities is articulated in this document as the right place in the ordinary schools system [p. 3]). In the introduc-
to “enjoy life as normal as possible [given this deficiency]” (p. 1) tion to the 1982 World Programme of Action, the following
and to “promote integration in normal life” (p. 1). Specific ar- statement appears:
eas of integration delineated in this declaration include em-
ployment, family and social life, and economic opportunities. Persons with disabilities should be expected to ful-
The means to achieve this integration, however, focus on the fil their role in society and meet their obligations as
individual, who needs “treatment” in the areas of rehabilitation, adults. The image of disabled persons depends on
education, and related services. The focus is on assisting the social attitudes based on different factors that may
individual to develop “abilities, capabilities and self-reliance” be the greatest barrier to participation and equality.
(p. 2). It also would be almost two decades before the 1993 UN We see the disability, shown by the white canes,
Standard Rules (United Nations Enable, 1993) would be de- crutches, hearing aids and wheelchairs, but not the
veloped and promulgated to operationalize these rights. person. What is required is to focus on the ability,
not on the disability of disabled persons. (p. 4)
Sundberg Declaration, 1981 (UNESCO, 1981). Repre-
The section entitled “Current Situation,” concerning ed-
sentatives from 103 countries participated in the World Con-
ucation, specifies the following: “They have the same right to
ference on Actions and Strategies for Education, Prevention,
education as non-disabled persons and they require active in-
and Integration convened in Torremolinos, Malaga, Spain. The
tervention and specialized services” (p. 2). The section “Propos-
Sundberg Declaration, agreed to by participating countries,
als for Implementation, National Action (Part 2). Equalization
contains 16 articles and historically coincided with the Inter-
of Opportunities: Education and Training” provides a dis-
national Year of Disabled Persons. In Article 1, the Declaration
course on the location and responsibilities related to the edu-
states that “every disabled person must be able to exercise his
cation of people with disabilities:
fundamental right to have full access to education.” Education
must start in early infancy and be “conceived and implemented The education of disabled persons should as far as
within a global framework of lifelong education” (Articles 4 possible take place in the general school system. Re-
and 7). Article 6 states that education “must be aimed at inte- sponsibility for their education should be placed
grating disabled people into the ordinary working and living upon the educational authorities and laws regard-
environment” and that these people “must receive appropriate ing compulsory education should include children
[emphasis added] education and training, whatever their per- with all ranges of disabilities, including the most se-
sonal situation.” Article 11 adds that persons with disabilities verely disabled. (p. 3)
“must be provided with the facilities and equipment necessary
for their education and training.” Article 3 states that people Also, if general education facilities are inadequate, “schooling
with disabilities must be “given the opportunity to utilize their should then be provided for an appropriate period of time in
creative, artistic, and intellectual potential to the full, not only special facilities. The quality of this special schooling should be
for their own benefit, but also for the enrichment of the com- equal to that of the general school system and closely linked to
munity.” As is the 1971 Declaration on the Rights of Mentally it” (p. 8).
Retarded Persons, the Sundberg Declaration is a landmark The language in this 1982 document reflects the concerns
document in recognizing not only the specific rights of people evidenced by a growing number of statistics that indicated a
with disabilities to education, but also that their education will largely neglected population of persons with severe disabilities
benefit the wider community. The Sundberg Declaration also (Peters, 2003) and the numbers of children with disabilities
recognizes (albeit as perceived future “potential” rather than permanently segregated from their peers in a dual system: spe-
actual current capability) the positive attributes of people with cial and general education (European Agency for Develop-
disabilities. Furthermore, it drops the language of normal in ment of Special Needs Education, 2003). Furthermore, the
favor of ordinary. The adjective appropriate to describe educa- goal of education for people with disabilities is still considered
tion for people with disabilities is still utilized today and has to be equal opportunity, but only “whenever pedagogically
been variously interpreted and appropriated to justify special possible.” This caveat reflects the concern of general educators
and segregated educational provisions. who were experiencing the first wave of inclusive education
laws and policies and who perceived their classes as dumping
World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled grounds for those considered difficult to teach.
Persons, 1982 (United Nations Enable, 1982). This policy The 1982 World Programme of Action is monitored and
document was an important outcome of the 1981 Interna- reviewed every 5 years. The second review, Towards a Society
tional Year of Disabled Persons. It represents the first world- for All (UNESCO, 1992), developed a long-term strategy for
wide international long-term policy in relation to people with implementation at the end of the UN Decade of Disabled Per-
disabilities. The three main goals of this program were pre- sons (1983–1992). Language in this long-term policy docu-
vention, rehabilitation, and equalization of opportunities. Ed- ment asserts that it was built on the strategies that had proven
ucation is addressed under the goal of equal opportunities (i.e., successful during the Decade. It proposes a step-by-step ap-
“Whenever pedagogically possible, education should take proach with strategies focusing on integrating disability issues
Downloaded from dps.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 12, 2015
 JOURNAL OF DISABILITY POLICY STUDIES VOL . 18/ NO. 2/2007 103

into national policies, setting standards, mobilizing resources, Guidelines reestablish that due regard must be paid to educa-
decentralizing program implementation, establishing part- tion to accomplish the goals of the 1982 World Programme of
nerships, strengthening organizations of persons with disabil- Action. Out of nine strategies, Section D is devoted to promo-
ities, strengthening national coordinating committees, and tion of education and training (Paragraphs 22–32). Notable
monitoring progress (p. 3). The UN General Assembly Reso- among the recommendations are that cost-effective alterna-
lution 56/115 at its 88th plenary session, December 19, 2001, tives to segregated school facilities should be developed and
again reinforced the World Programme of Action. implemented. These alternatives include “special education
The fourth and most current review of the World Pro- teachers as consultants to regular education teachers, resource
gramme of Action was submitted in 2002. Two reports at this rooms with specialized personnel and materials, special class-
stage of implementation are illuminating. The first report by the rooms in regular schools and interpreters for deaf students”
Secretary General, entitled Review and Appraisal of the World (Paragraph 25). In addition, “Special education programs and
Programme of Action (UN, 2002a), introduced new principles schools that promote the indigenous sign language and the
in “Part A: Progress in Implementation.” These principles in- indigenous deaf culture must be available to deaf people. Deaf
clude (a) inclusive universal design (p. 2) and (b) a “new universe people should be employed in such programs and schools”
of disability” defined as expanded to include populations of (Paragraph 24). Also, “Special efforts should be made to pro-
people with HIV/AIDS and attention-deficit disorder. This mote education and skills training for disabled girls and
section cites the new International Classification of Function- women, in both urban and rural areas” (Paragraph 28). Finally,
ing, Disability and Health (ICF2) classification of disability “General teacher-training curricula should include a course of
(World Health Organization, 2001), noting that “disablement study in skills for teaching disabled children and young per-
is viewed as a dynamic interaction between health conditions sons in regular schools” (Paragraph 29). The Tallinn Guide-
and other personal factors (age, sex, level of education) as well lines expand the notion of place for education of people with
as social and physical environmental factors.” Furthermore, disabilities into a continuum (consultants in the general edu-
“disability is not an isolated state but an experience that all cation classroom, resource rooms, and special classes). The
may experience as part of the normal life experience. This rep- guidelines also begin to recognize the diversity of the disabil-
resents an important shift in the disability paradigm.” Part B: ity experience, citing deaf culture, the experiences of girls with
Recommendations establishes links between millennium de- disabilities, and those in urban and rural areas. They also in-
velopment goals and disability development. It identifies three troduce training for the general education population—a dis-
priorities for the new millennium: (a) accessibility, (b) social course that earlier documents largely omitted.
service and safety nets, and (c) employment and livelihoods. It
recognizes education as “complementary” to these priorities. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNICEF, 1990).
The second report, Let the World Know (UN, 2000), was This convention, sponsored by UNICEF, also references the
the UN Special Rapporteur’s Report subsequent to a meeting 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and was ratified
with a panel of experts. The purpose of the meeting was to by 191 countries. Containing 54 articles, the preamble to the
draft guidelines for identifying and reporting violations of the 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child stresses the child’s
human rights of people with disabilities. A substantive section right to “full and harmonious development of personality and
entitled “Inclusive Education” presents guidelines for collect- preparation to live a responsible life in a free society” (p. 1). Ar-
ing data in seven areas: (a) law and policy; (b) choice, avail- ticle 23 of the convention addresses disability directly, refer-
ability of services; (c) barriers to accessibility; (d) portrayal of ring to “mentally or physically disabled children” and their
people with disabilities in school environments; (e) curriculum right to “access and integration.” However, these rights should
and materials; (f) school governance; and (g) teacher training be “subject to available resources” and “appropriate to the
and competencies. child’s condition” (p. 8). This language is transparent in its use
These two reports concerning the 1982 World Pro- of a medical model, with its focus on conditions that individ-
gramme for Action reflect the earlier concern of societal atti- uals have, and reflects a reworking of earlier discourses. In its
tudes as barriers to participation. Social factors receive more critique of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Disabil-
prominence in the language of the reports. For example, the ity Awareness in Action (an international information net-
reports introduce new terms such as disablement and argue work on disability and human rights) noted the following:
that disability is normal to life experience. Notably, strategies
no longer focus on the individual but on systemic factors such Article 23, which is grouped in the cluster of articles
as resources, partnerships, and decentralization. The seven ar- on health and welfare, focuses on the individualized
eas proposed for future monitoring all focus on environmen- provisions of “special” needs, reaffirming that it is
tal factors—from teacher training to availability and access of the unhealthy child that should be changed to fit so-
services, with law and policy only one factor to be monitored. ciety rather than society changed to welcome and
include the child. (Hurst & Lansdown, 2001, p. 9)
Tallinn Guidelines for Action on Human Resources
Development, 1989 (UN, 1989). Annexed to a UN General World Declaration on EFA, 1990 (UNESCO, 1990).
Assembly resolution of the 78th plenary meeting, the Tallinn Sponsored by UNESCO, the World Declaration was developed
Downloaded from dps.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 12, 2015
104 JOURNAL OF DISABILITY POLICY STUDIES VOL . 18/ NO. 2/2007

in Jomtein, Thailand, and ratified by 155 countries. This decla- ence further recognized that “any discrimination, intentional
ration contains 10 article and moves closer to a social model of or unintentional, against persons with disabilities is per se a vi-
disability with inclusive concepts. This document stresses uni- olation of human rights” (as cited in UN, 2002c).
versal access and equity. Specifically, the declaration asserts
that children with disabilities should have equal access through World Congress on Special Needs Education, Sala-
an education that is “integral to” (emphasis added) general edu- manca, 1994 (UNESCO, 1994a). The Salamanca Statement is
cation, but notably not integrated with general education. The unique among all of the policy documents in this analysis in
former phrase connotes a single inclusive education system. that education of children and youth with disabilities is its cen-
The latter phrase connotes inclusive education as a program tral focus rather than a background or add-on focus as in Ar-
that should be inserted into the existing system. Furthermore, ticle 23 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The
this document introduces the concept of enablement, which Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994a) was adopted by 92 gov-
no longer strictly focuses on individual development of life skills ernments and 25 international organizations. The central fo-
to function in society but presages factors introduced in the cus is delineated within the context of EFA (in the preamble it
1992 monitoring report of the World Programme of Action (e.g., “renews the pledge” of Jomtein [p. vii]) and is undergirded by
improvement of the environment through active partnership assumptions of inclusive education. Vislie (2003, p. 18) argued
and coordination of government, nongovernmental organiza- that this document set the policy agenda for inclusive educa-
tions, community, and religious groups). These groups are to be tion on a global basis and represented a linguistic shift from in-
held accountable for the planning, implementation, manage- tegration to inclusion as a global descriptor.
ment, and evaluation of educational programs at the institu- The Salamanca Statement assumes that “human differ-
tional level. Organizations and government must also provide ences are normal and that learning must accordingly be
resources and funding solutions to access and equity—a sharp adapted to the needs of the child rather than the child fitted to
departure from the caveat in the Convention on the Rights of preordained assumptions regarding the pace and nature of the
the Child that access should be subject to available resources learning process” (UNESCO, 1994a, p. 7). In addition, in stark
and dependent on the child’s condition. contrast to the definition of disability promulgated in the 1975
UN Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons, a child with
Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities disabilities is seen as one who has “learning difficulties” due to
for Persons With Disabilities, 1993 (United Nations Enable, “environmental disadvantages”(UNESCO, 1994a, p. 6). The def-
1993). These standards promulgate 22 rules. The rules expand inition of disabled/disadvantaged set forth in the Salamanca
the scope of rights to access in society of people with disabili- Statement includes gifted and talented students, those with
ties from that of the 1975 Declaration on the Rights of Dis- linguistic differences, and those in poverty, and expands from
abled Persons. The expanded areas include cultural activities physical and intellectual disabilities to social and emotional
(Rule 10), recreation and sports (Rule 11), and religious partic- disabilities. The Salamanca Statement further asserts that “every
ipation (Rule 12). In 1995, a panel of experts composed of five child has unique characteristics, interests, abilities and learn-
men and five women with different disabilities representing six ing needs” (UNESCO, 1994b, p. 2). The focus at the individual
international disability organizations met to review progress. level is on abilities, rather than deficiencies. At the institutional
This panel prioritized six areas during the first period of mon- level, the Salamanca Statement was unique for its time, going
itoring as follows: accessibility, education, employment, legis- beyond issues of access and equal opportunity to address qual-
lation, coordination of work, and organizations of persons ity in the form of child-centered pedagogy and several other
with disabilities. quality indicators of schooling. In this statement, governments
The Standard Rules represent a definitive move toward a must provide not only policies and resources as in earlier dec-
social model of inclusive education, particularly with respect larations, but accountability measures to address quality. Poli-
to Rule 6 on education. This rule contains nine provisions, in- cies and programs should address the entire life span from
cluding a call for improvements at the school level in the areas early childhood through adult and vocational education (as in
of policy, adapted curriculum, materials, and teacher training. the Sundberg Declaration more than a decade earlier). The
Most of the UN Standard Rules, however, still focus on access concept of inclusive education is clearly defined (see the in-
and equality of opportunity without addressing the quality of troductory section of this article) and receives prominence,
the services to which a child with disabilities may have access. and international donors are called upon to endorse inclusive
At the same time that the UN Standard Rules were being pro- education, to provide technical assistance for its implementa-
mulgated, the World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vi- tion, and to support and encourage multisector collaboration.
enna in 1992, produced its own Program of Action (OHCHR, Concepts of self-reliance and enablement that were pre-
1992) to guide human rights efforts forward in light of the sent in earlier declarations are broadened in the Salamanca
contemporary realities of continued discrimination made all Statement’s Framework for Action to include the notion of con-
too evident in the Despouy report (1993). The Program of Ac- sumer satisfaction:
tion recognized that “all human rights and fundamental free-
doms are universal and thus unreservedly include persons Every person with a disability has a right to express
with disabilities” (OHCHR, 1993, p.16). The Vienna confer- their wishes [emphasis added] with regard to their
Downloaded from dps.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 12, 2015
 JOURNAL OF DISABILITY POLICY STUDIES VOL . 18/ NO. 2/2007 105

education, as far as this can be ascertained. Parents education of children with special needs” (UNESCO, 2000b,
have an inherent right to be consulted on the form p. 15) as a priority area. Section III.3 contains the following
of education best suited to the needs, circumstances proviso:
and aspirations of their children. (UNESCO, 1994a,
Para. 2, p. 6) All partners can share their experience and exper-
tise in designing and implementing innovative
Guidelines for action in this Framework are delineated in measures and activities, and focus their funding for
seven areas at the national level and six areas at the regional/ basic education on specific categories and groups
international level. These guidelines provide an expanded vi- (e.g., women, the rural poor, persons with disabili-
sion of policy over previous documents into areas of increas- ties) to improve significantly the learning opportu-
ing public awareness and changing individual attitudes toward nities and conditions available for them. (UNESCO,
children with disabilities, as well as development of research 2000b, pp. 11–12)
and quality standards of EFA. Specifically, “A change in social In assessing progress since Jomtein, the final report (Part II)
perspective is imperative. For far too long, the problems of peo- contains the subsection “Meeting Special and Diverse Educa-
ple with disabilities have been compounded by a disabling so- tion Needs: Making Inclusive Education a Reality.” This sub-
ciety [emphasis added] that has focused upon their impairments section contains the following statement:
rather than their potential.” (UNESCO, 1994a, Para. 3, p.7)
Concern about inclusion has evolved from a strug-
World Summit for Social Development, Copenhagen, gle in behalf of children “having special needs” into
1995 (UN, 1995). Disability policy studies often cite the agree- one that challenges all exclusionary policies and
ments, commitments, and Programme of Action developed practices in education as they relate to curriculum,
from this “Social Summit.” This summit was the largest gath- culture and local centres of learning. Instead of
ering of world leaders up to that time. In attendance were rep- focusing on preparing children to fit into existing
resentatives of governments, nongovernmental organizations, schools, the new emphasis focuses on preparing
and international organizations (including representatives of schools [emphasis added] so that they can deliber-
Disabled People’s International, World Federation of the Deaf, ately reach out to all children. It also recognizes that
World Blind Union, and Rehabilitation International). Unlike gains in access have not always been accompanied
other conventions and declarations not specifically targeted at by increases in quality. (UNESCO, 2000b, p. 18)
disability (in which disability issues are at best marginalized,
and at worst virtually invisible), this 40-page document con- In response to growing pressure from the disability com-
tains several specific statements regarding people with disa- munity, UNESCO recently established an EFA flagship—The
bilities. The document establishes specific links between Right to Education for Persons with Disabilities: Toward Inclu-
education, poverty, and disability and places people at the cen- sion. In 2004, this flagship began to address the specific chal-
ter of development issues. The “Current Situation” (Part A of lenges in achieving EFA goals for people with disabilities. An
Agreements) establishes that “one of the world’s largest mi- informal consultation with the flagship and UN agencies con-
norities, more than one in ten, are people with disabilities who vened in March 2004 to plan strategies for encouraging and
are too often forced into poverty, unemployment, and social monitoring the access to quality education of people with dis-
isolation” (UN, 1995, Part A – para. h, n. p.). abilities.
Whereas the call to uphold the Convention on the Rights
of the Child appears likely a historical revisiting of the medical Comprehensive and Integral International
model (especially considering the problematic language of Ar- Convention on Protection and Promotion of
ticle 23), the World Summit for the first time acknowledged the Rights and Dignity of Persons With
conditions of poverty as a prima facie cause of disability. It also
acknowledged poverty as a significant barrier to education and
Disabilities
accepted responsibility for these barriers. This acknowledgment Vicente Fox, president of Mexico, put forward a proposal for a
constitutes a policy discourse that is proactive, going beyond convention specifically on disability rights at the general debate
merely the enforcement of rights and nondiscrimination. of the UN General Assembly in 2001. The General Assembly
subsequently passed Resolution 56/168, which established an
EFA Framework for Action, Dakar, 2000 (UNESCO, ad hoc committee to consider proposals for such a convention.
2000a). Specific mention of children with disabilities is not Twenty-four disability nongovernmental organizations re-
prominent within this document. However, many of the same ceived accreditation to the ad hoc committee. These organiza-
concepts and guidelines for action developed in the Sala- tions envisioned that the convention would be based on an
manca Statement are central to EFA’s Framework for Action approach that would take into account social development as
(i.e., attention to multisector strategies, universal access, qual- well as human rights. Several declarations emanating from in-
ity of education). Goal 1 of the EFA Framework includes iden- ternational conferences around the world supported this con-
tifying and enriching (a linguistic nod to quality) “the care and vention, including the Beijing Declaration of March 12, 2000,
Downloaded from dps.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 12, 2015
106 JOURNAL OF DISABILITY POLICY STUDIES VOL . 18/ NO. 2/2007

the Sapporo Declaration of October 2002, the Beirut Declara- Those of us who happen to live with a disability, do
tion of May 2003, and the Resolution by the International Dis- not accept to be viewed as objects of care and ser-
ability Alliance of June 2003. After a series of meetings and vices. We are citizens of our countries, entitled to
much debate, and concerted pressure from disability organi- full participation and equal rights (not the least of
zations, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on which are education and employment). This way of
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and it was subsequently thinking must penetrate all our actions, both na-
signed by 80 countries in 2007 tionally and internationally. (Lindqvist, 2002a, p. 2)
The impetus for this convention stemmed from the fact
that all previous declarations have been insufficient to bring International community values and philosophical com-
about the intended changes in disability policy and develop- mitment, as expressed in the language and discourse contained
ment (Lindqvist, 2002b). It is believed that the newly ratified in policy documents, say more about international collective
convention will “give status and visibility to disability rights, commitment to education than they do about countries’ ca-
which cannot be given by any other measures” (Lindqvist, pacities to provide education in practice. Conditions of mar-
2002a, p. 1). ginalized children at the edge of society reveal more about the
state and progress of society than conditions at the middle.
Children with disabilities, as a radically marginalized sector of
Policy Implications: “All Means All!” society, reflect the unadorned aims of education and of the in-
ternational community.
It is predicted that by the year 2025, the number of people with Analysis of the discourse in international policy docu-
disabilities will have risen from the current 600 million to 900 ments provides a lens for understanding today’s inequalities
million worldwide, of which 650 million will be in developing and state of progress toward the EFA millennium development
countries (disability.dk, 2003, p. 1). The reasons behind this goal of universal primary education. Clearly, the conflicted
phenomenal projection are many: the HIV/AIDS epidemic, language in these documents reflects a profusion of entangled
increased war, and poverty, among the most influential (Mit- events (i.e., a reworking and reinterpretation of language re-
tler, 2005; Rasheed, 1999). For example, in 1997, antipersonnel lating to people with disabilities in response to changing con-
mines were responsible for creating disability in 68 countries, texts over time). Specifically, progress in shifting from a
and the figure increases at a rate of 800 individuals per month. medical model to a social model of disability has not been lin-
(UN, 2002c, p. 2). This growth of the disability experience ear, nor is it explained by traditional historical analysis.
worldwide in and of itself has provided an impetus for change, Understood from the standpoint of effective history, this
prompting J. D. Wolfensohn, recent past president of the analysis reveals that progress toward a social model of disabil-
World Bank, to observe in a Washington Post article (DevNews ity has not been even or continuous. As long as the discourse
Media Center, 2003, p. 1) that “addressing disability is a signif- in international policy documents continues to insist on provid-
icant part of reducing poverty.” ing an education that is “appropriate to the child’s condition”
Clearly, the increase in the number of people with dis- and one that is “subject to available resources” (UNICEF, 1990,
abilities and their exclusion from societal opportunities have p. 7) rather than on preparing schools to reach out to all chil-
come to the attention of international donor agencies. The cur- dren (EFA Framework for Action) and on building an inclu-
rent policy discourse on the part of donor agencies and their sive society (Salamanca Statement’s Framework for Action),
considerable influence on global education agendas reveals inclusive education may not become a reality for the majority
that EFA is driven by a clear economic purpose linked to de- of people with disabilities now excluded from education.
velopment (Peters, 2003, p. 50; Yeo & Moore, 2003). In fact, a A critical reading of these documents still begs the ques-
policy discourse that links economic development to inclusive tion: Are people with disabilities a burden or a resource, an ex-
education is clearly evident throughout many of the policy pense or an investment? Clearly, children and youth with
documents reviewed here. Even the 1994 Salamanca Statement, disabilities do not have to be disadvantaged by treatment “ap-
despite its emphasis on social justice issues, asserts that EFA propriate to their condition” in schools or by exclusion from
will “improve the efficiency and ultimately the cost-effectiveness schools due to lack of resources. As a corollary, it follows that
of the entire education system” (UNESCO, 1994a, p. 2). Tying “if you deny disabled people educational opportunities, then
rights to economic efficiency does not appear to be qualita- it is the lack of education and not their disabilities that limit
tively different from the 19th century workhouses established their opportunities” (World Bank, 2003).
to create productive citizens. In pursuing rights for people with disabilities, Bengt
Meanwhile, in a keynote address at the Osaka Forum, Lindqvist cautioned the disability rights community as follows:
Japan, in October 2002, former UN Special Rapporteur Bengt
Lindqvist noted that the theme “all rights for all” had been We ourselves must never forget those among us,
chosen at the UN celebration of the 50th anniversary of the who for various reasons will not be at the negotia-
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Lindqvist asked, “Do tion table and speak for themselves, be it due to
we mean all or is this just rhetoric?” He continued: their severe disabilities, because they are paralyzed

Downloaded from dps.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 12, 2015
 JOURNAL OF DISABILITY POLICY STUDIES VOL . 18/ NO. 2/2007 107

by extreme poverty or because they have been Mittler, P. (2005). The global context of inclusive education. In D. Mitchell
trapped in large institutions without any contact (Ed.), Contextualizing inclusive education (pp. 22–36). London: Rout-
ledge.
with the outside world. All means all and may we Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (1960).
ourselves never forget this! (Lindqvist, 2002a, p. 2) Convention Against Discrimination in Education. Retrieved from
http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/education.htm
If the world is to meet the EFA millennium development Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (1971)
Declaration on the Rights of mentally Retarded Persons. Retrieved from
goal of universal primary education—ratified by 152 countries http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/m_mental.htm
worldwide—nation states are challenged to commit them- Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (1992).
selves to ensuring that (a) the EFA framework for action ad- Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. Retrieved from http://
dresses people with disabilities effectively, (b) the framework www.ohchr.org/english/law/pdf/vienna.pdf
does not excuse countries for making exceptions, and (c) pol- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2000). Special
needs education statistics and indicators. Paris: Author.
icy discourses challenge all exclusionary policies (and prac- Peters, S. (2002). Inclusive education in accelerated and professional develop-
tices) in education. If future policy discourse does not remove ment schools: A case based study of two school reform efforts in the USA.
its caveats and special conditions when it comes to the educa- International Journal of Inclusive Education, 6, 287–308.
tion of children and youth with disabilities, progress toward Peters, S. (2003). Inclusive education: Achieving education for all by including
EFA and inclusive education for the majority of individuals those with disabilities and special education needs. Washington, DC: Dis-
ability Group, World Bank.
with disabilities may continue to be elusive. Peters, S. (2004). Inclusive education: An EFA strategy for all children. Wash-
ington, DC: Disability Group, World Bank.
Rasheed, S. (1999). Major causes and consequences of childhood disability.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Educator’s Update, 2, 1–4.
Skrtic, T. (1995). Disability and democracy: Reconstructing (special) education
SUSAN J. PETERS, PhD, is an associate professor at Michigan State for postmodernity. New York: Teachers College Press.
University, College of Education. A long-time disability rights activist, UNICEF. (1990). Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: Author.
she combines activism and scholarship with a focus on inclusive ed- UNICEF. (2002). Implementation handbook for the Convention on the Rights of
ucation policy and practice in the United States and sub-Saharan the Child. New York: Author.
Africa. Address: Susan J. Peters, 116K Erickson Hall, Michigan State United Nations. (1975). Declaration on the rights of disabled persons. Geneva:
University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1034; e-mail: [email protected] Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
United Nations. (1989). General assembly—A/RES/44/70—December 8th,
1989. Tallinn Guidelines for Action on Human Resources Development.
Retrieved from http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r070.htm
REFERENCES
United Nations. (1995). World Summit for Social Development—Copen-
Akerberg, A. (2001). Human rights and persons with disabilities. Stockholm: hagen, 1995. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/wssd/
SHIA Human Rights & Disability Network. United Nations. (2000). Let the world know. New York: Author.
Armstrong, F. (2003). Spaced out: Policy, difference and the challenge of inclu- United Nations. (2002a). Review and appraisal of the World Programme of Ac-
sive education. London: Kluwer Academic. tion. New York: Author.
Bacchi, C. (2000). Policy as discourse: What does it mean? Where does it get United Nations. (2002b). Special Session on Children—8 to 10 May, 2002. Re-
us? Discourse, 21, 45–55. trieved from http://www.unicef.org/specialsession/documentation/
Despouy, L. (1993). Human rights and disability. New York: United Nations. childrens-statement.htm
DevNews Media Center. (2003). Poor, disabled and shut out: Wolfensohn. United Nations. (2002c). The UN and disabled persons: A chronology. New
(3 December 2002). Retrieved from http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon York: Author.
/develop/2002/1203disabled.htm United Nations. (2003, June 16–27). Draft report of the ad hoc committee on a
Enabling Education Network. (2004). Special edition: Salamanca—Ten years comprehensive and integral international convention on the protection and
on. Manchester, UK: Author. promotion of the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities. New York:
European Agency for Development of Special Needs Education. (2003). Spe- Author. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ad-
cial needs education in Europe. Brussels, Belgium: Author. hoccom.htm
Foucault, M., & Rabinow, P. (1994). ‘Space, Knowledge and Power’ interview United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (1981). In-
with Michel Foucault conducted by Paul Rabinow. In The Foucault ternational Year of Disabled Persons—Sundberg Declaration. Retrieved
reader: An introduction to Foucault’s thought. London: Penguin Books. from http://www.unesco.org/education/nfsunesco/pdf/SUNDBE_E
Fulcher, G. (1999). Disabling policies? A comparative approach to education and .PDF
disability. Sheffield, UK: Armstrong. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (1990).
Habibi, G. (1999). UNICEF and children with disabilities. Education Update, World Conference on EFA. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/edu-
2, 4–5. cation/information/nfsunesco/pdf/JOMTIE_E.PDF
Hurst, R., & Lansdown, G. (2001). Are disabled children included? Disability United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1992).
Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.daa.org.uk/e_tribune/e_2001_10 Towards a society for all: Long-term strategy to implement the World Pro-
.htm gramme of Action concerning disabled persons to the year 2000 and beyond.
Lindqvist, B. (1999). Education as a fundamental right. Educator’s Update, 2, Paris: Author.
6–7. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1994a).
Lindqvist, B. (2002a,). All means all! Disability World, 16.) Retrieved from The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs edu-
http://www.disabilityworld.org/11-12_02/news/lindqvist.shtml cation. Paris: Author.
Lindqvist, B. (2002b). Thoughts on the elaboration of a disability convention. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1994b).
Retrieved from http://disability.dk/site/viewdoc.php?doc_id=626& The Salamanca statement on principles, policy and practice in special needs
section_id=10 education. Paris: Author.

Downloaded from dps.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 12, 2015
108 JOURNAL OF DISABILITY POLICY STUDIES VOL . 18/ NO. 2/2007

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2000a). United Nations Enable. (1998). Disabled Persons Bulletin, 2. Retrieved from
The Dakar framework for action. Paris: Author. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/dpb19982.htm
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2000b). Vislie, L. (2003). From integration to inclusion: Focusing global trends and
World Education Forum final report: Part II. Improving the quality and eq- changes in the western European societies. European Journal of Special
uity of education for all. Paris: Author. Needs Education, 18, 17–35.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2002a). World Bank Organization. (2003). Press release by the Senior Advisor to the
EFA: Is the world on track? Paris: Author. Disability Group.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2002b). World Health Organization. (2001). International Classification of Functioning,
Inclusive schools and community support programmes. Paris: Author. Disability and Health. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/classifications
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2004). /icf/site/icftemplate.cfm?myurl=homepage.html&mytitle=Home%
EFA: The quality imperative. Paris: Author. 20Page
United Nations Enable. (1982). World Programme of Action Concerning Dis- Yeo, R., & Moore, K. (2003). Including disabled people in poverty reduction
abled Persons. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/ work: “Nothing about us, without us.” World Development, 31, 571–590.
diswpa00.htm
United Nations Enable. (1993). The Standard Rules on the Equalization of
Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www
.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/dissre00.htm

Downloaded from dps.sagepub.com at East Tennessee State University on June 12, 2015