Search results

This chapter presents a research method for operationalizing a human rights approach with children with disability in developing countries that confronts the tension between a universal human rights discourse and local knowledge and customs. This research was undertaken in Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu. Through methods of data collection, analysis of data and the dissemination of findings, the focus was on utilizing human rights concepts and ideas in a way that enabled the local meanings and experiences of children to be re-interpreted against the Articles of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Findings could then be presented in a manner that communicated effectively with governments and local and global organizations, while also honouring the particular experiences of children with disability. Such an approach is, of course, subject to critique and ongoing adaptation.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) (UN, 2006) obliges its signatory states to establish inclusive school systems. Germany ratified the document in 2008. This international steering impulse triggered a real “inclusion shock” (Heinrich, 2015, p. 235) when it came into force, because hardly any other country in Europe has worse conditions for implementing the convention than Germany. The school structure with up to nine special schools was called upon to fundamentally changes or adaptations by the CRPD. Since 2008, it has been observed that the various federal states in Germany react very differently to this impulse according to their own development. From an empirical point of view, this raises the question of the concrete “steering” of these inclusion-oriented transformations. The chapter examines the question of how the actors in the school system of the federal state Schleswig-Holstein reacted to this challenge between 2008 and 2014. The focus of the research interest is above all on the collective coordination of action by state and non-state actors in the multi-level system, the intentions of regulatory impulses and the effects of steering efforts in the process of implementing the CRPD. With regard to the implementation of Art. 24 of the CRPD, the “Governance-perspective“ makes it possible to conceive state activities and hierarchical forms of coordination as an integrative component of political regulatory processes, so that the complex mechanisms of influence, the intention to change, steering decisions and steering effects can be examined from an overarching perspective.

Change is not synonymous with improvement. Improvement of special education requires better instruction of individuals with disabilities. Although LRE and inclusion are important issues, they are not the primary legal or practical issues in improving special education. Federal law (IDEA) requires a continuum of alternative placements, not placement in general education in all cases. To make actual progress in education of students with disabilities, a single and strict principle of equality or/and antidiscriminatory legal instruments, such as the CRPD, is not enough. Social justice as a multifaceted principle can serve the education of the whole spectrum of special educational needs in national and international contexts. Responsible inclusion demands attention to the individual instructional needs of individuals with disabilities and consideration of the practical realities involved in teaching. If inclusive education is to move forward, it must involve placing students with disabilities in general education only if that is the environment in which they seem most likely to learn the skills that will be most important for their futures.

In 2014, Japan ratified the CRPD, which spurred to the development of domestic laws; however, the education section of the Convention does not clarify how to educate children with disabilities in inclusive education. Thus, while the global inclusive education goal advocated by UNESCO and other bodies concerns education for all, inclusive education in Japan is seen as education for children with disabilities, and the philosophies and practices are very different. Therefore, this chapter introduces the policies and current practices of inclusive education in Japan and discusses the possibilities for school education reform from the perspective of real inclusive education.

Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to scrutinize the apparent alliance between international and local disability rights movements by contextualizing the process in which the disability rights model is being diffused globally. It seeks to critically examine the transplantation and promotion of the international disability rights movement's rights-based model in China.

Approach: This chapter draws from 18 in-depth interviews with local and international disability rights activists through multisite ethnographic fieldwork in China in 2019.

Findings: This chapter finds that despite opening up spaces for resistance and emancipation locally, the international disability rights movement nevertheless constitutes what I call an enclave of rights that insulates the international rights model from the political, social, and economic realities on the ground. In the case of China, the authoritarian politics that define the relationship between the state and civil society, as well as the economic vulnerability of people with disabilities in the post-socialist market economy, limit, if not invalidate, the rights model espoused by the international disability rights movement.

Implications: The findings of this chapter challenge and complicate the current scholarship of the transnational disability rights movement beyond its normative claims of emancipation. They also explore potential spaces and direction for building a new transnational alliance that takes into account the local experience of disability in a rapidly globalized world.

The text examines a phenomenon that is particularly evident in the implementation of inclusive reforms in the German education system. With reference to Helmut Fend's New Theory of School, it describes what happens when inclusion is implemented in a school system that seems to be poorly prepared for it. These theoretical considerations related to school can also serve to critically examine the implementation of ‘inclusive diagnostics’ in the context of current inclusive reforms in education.

Abuse and misuse of Substitute Decision-Making (SDMg) authority impacts the lives of children and adults with decision-making disabilities. The concerns raised in this paper amplify previous attention addressed by advocacy agencies and law reformists such as the Law Commission of Ontario. I analyse problems associated with Plenary Guardianship from both the lived experience of the non-guardian perspective and from the authority bestowed to the Guardian pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 of Western Australia legitimating the unintended capacity to abuse one’s substitute decision-making authority. Substitute decision-making arrangements enable decisions to be made on behalf of a person with a decision-making disability; usually made when such arrangements are necessary and subject to safeguards. Detrimentally, the substitute decision-maker (SDM) can assert broader powers beyond sensible measures that include thwarting investigations undertaken by family members; removing family members from the life of the person for whom an order is made; inappropriately applying a paternalistic or ‘best interest’ approach to decision-making where other approaches are required; failing to consider the individual’s wishes or making decisions contrary to those wishes; having insufficient contact with the individual; and, sharing insufficient or incorrect information. Moreover, they may subject the individual for whom an SDM order is made to experimental medical treatment in tandem with imposing or condoning severe and harmful restrictive-practices. Consequently, the second issue addressed in this paper concerns normalising both chemical and physical restrictive-practices that are both morally abhorrent and clinically highly questionable. Furthermore, often undertaken by service providers and their contracted psychiatrists and treating teams, endorsed under authority of a collaborating Guardian or SDM.

Inclusive education is about creating beneficial environments for all students (Booth & Ainscow, 2011). Within Germany, the role of special education within inclusive schools has been widely discussed (Powell et al., 2016). Educators worldwide consider collaborative teaching between special educators and general educators to be a fundamental precondition for inclusive education (Hoppey & McLeskey, 2014).

The history of the German school system, however, is characterized by a rigorous division of special and regular schools that is reflective of broad divisions in teacher education. Since the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in Germany in 2009, more students with special educational needs, as well as special educators, have begun to attend and work in inclusive schools. While cooperation between general and special educators is a key to the development of inclusive schools, many teachers report that responsibilities are divided between special and general teachers, while various challenges exist regarding cooperation (Urban & Lütje-Klose, 2014). Nevertheless, dysfunctional cooperation can foster mechanisms of separation and exclusion even in “inclusive” settings (Idel et al., 2019).

The present chapter offers a reflection on the different roles of special educators and the current state of research on interdisciplinary and multiprofessional cooperation in inclusive schools in Germany. It also provides a discussion of relevant implications for the development of inclusive schools and teacher training.

Welfare policies for persons with disabilities have been strongly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and this introductory chapter provides the theoretical background to the book. Definition, data and main European policies about disabilities are outlined. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) is the key pillar of disability policies in European countries. In line with a Disability Studies perspective, COVID-19 health surveillance regime has been a challenge in the implementation process of the UNCRPD, highlighting the role of lay knowledge and community of practices in managing everyday challenges for persons with disabilities and their families, and therefore their potential role in becoming part of epistemic communities to support the policy making and implementation process of the UNCRPD.

This chapter focusses on contradictions within existing legislation to develop an equitable and effective educational system for those with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). It highlights tensions between the underlying aims of the legislation and the implementation of policies, specifically on admissions and exclusions with reference to the current government proposals for an increase in Alternative Provision (AP). It considers the response of Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs) to ensure an acceptable practice of inclusion while raising overall standards of attainment. It also considers the Government Green paper response to increasing pressure from parents for more appropriate levels of support for their children with SEND.