A Historical Analysis of Inernational Inclusive Education Policy With Disabilities

8/10/2019 A Historical Analysis of Inernational Inclusive Education Policy With Disabilities

1/12

Education for All?

A Historical Analysis of International Inclusive Education Policyand 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 Foucaults 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 inequalitiesand the lack of progress toward EFA for people with disabilities.

EFA has been placed on the international policy agenda,

but what is meant by all? The EFA global monitoring report

for 2005 is virtually silent on disability issues beyond a briefmention of overall numbers (UNESCO, 2004, p.143). The re-

port also makes no mention of progress toward inclusive ed-

ucation for children and youth with disabilities, even though

documented progress is readily available (Enabling Education

Network, 2004; Peters, 2004; UNESCO, 2002b). Furthermore,all major policy documents most often refer to disability as a

problem, not a resource; and to education as an expense, not

an investment.This analysis examines EFA in relation to individuals

with disabilities through a focus on key international policy

documents pertaining to inclusive education from 1960 to the

present. This analysis is important for several reasons. First, asBengt Lindqvist (1999), former UN Special Rapporteur of the

Commission for Social Development on Disability put it:

A dominant problem in the disability field is the

lack of access to education for both children and

adults with disabilities. As education is a funda-mental right for all, enshrined in the Universal De-

claration of Human Rights, and protected through

various international conventions, this is a very se-rious problem. In a majority of countries, there is a

dramatic difference in the educational opportuni-

ties provided for disabled children and those pro-

vided for non-disabled children. It will simply notbe possible to realize the goal of Education for All

if we do not achieve a complete change [emphasis

added] in this situation. (p. 7)

We are not the sources of problems. We are the resources

that are needed to solve them. We are not expenses,we are investments.

Gabriela Arrieta of Bolivia and Audrey Cheynut ofMonaco: Opening address at the United Nations Special

Session on Children, May 2002.

In March 1990,participants from 155 countries and rep-resentatives of 160 governmental and nongovernmental agen-

cies met in Jomtein, Thailand, for a world conference onEducation for All (EFA). The delegates to this conference

adopted a World Declaration on Education for All that reaf-

firmed the notion of education as a fundamental human right.

Furthermore, the delegates approved a Framework for Actionthat provided targets and strategies for addressing the basic

learning needs of all as an investment in the future. In April

2000, delegates to the World Education Forum convened in

Dakar, Senegal, establishing the new millennium developmentgoal of providing every girl and boy with primary school edu-

cation by 2015 and assessing progress toward EFA since

Jomtein (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization [UNESCO], 2000a). This time, more than 1,100participants from 164 countries were in attendance. Policy

documents emanating from the United Nations (UN) subse-

quent to Dakar also clearly identified inclusive education as a

key strategy to address marginalization and exclusion in rela-tion to the millennium development goal: Inclusion was seen

as the fundamental philosophy throughout UNESCOs pro-

grams and the guiding principle for the development of EFA

(UNESCO, 2002a, p. 17).

98 J OURN AL O F DI SA BI LI T Y POL I CY STUDI ES V OL. 18/NO. 2/2007/PP. 98108


2/12

Second, international organizations for people with dis-

abilities have focused their efforts on international conven-tions and declarations because conventions are legally binding

on signatory member states and because declarations carry the

moral authority of the international community. Third, there

is the belief that legislating rights and declaring the intent of

these rights through formal written policies are essential pre-requisites to enforcing rights. Fourth, despite several decades

of conventions and declarations pertaining to education, these

EFA policy documents have not yet resulted in effective en-acted policy or in significant levels of inclusive education prac-

tice for people with disabilities. Mittler (2005, p. 33) came to a

similar conclusion: Recent assessments raise fundamental

questions about the impact of the whole range of UN initia-tives on the day-to-day-lives of disabled children and their

families, especially in developing countries. Despite the in-

creasingly rapid proliferation of numerous international pol-

icy documents, inclusive education has not yet gone to scale

(Akerberg, 2001; European Agency for Development of Spe-cial Needs Education, 2003; Organisation for Economic Co-

operation and Development, 2000; UNICEF, 2002). In fact,

estimates of the percentage of children and youth with dis-abilities who attend school in developing countries range from

1% (UNESCO, 1994a, Section 10) to 5% (Habibi, 1999).

Although one must search for explanations for the cur-

rent state of affairs in the context and conditions of educa-tional practice, one can make a strong argument that policy

also reflects what has been learned from practice and is an in-

fluential engine for transforming practice. In this analysis, the

search for these explanations essentially asked the followingquestion: What can researchers learn from international pol-

icy documents that illuminates the lack of effective progresstoward EFA and inclusive education?

Conceptual Framework

This analysis starts with the premise that theories and policiesthat seek to direct practice are themselves practical activities.

Specifically, inclusive education is simultaneously a philoso-

phy and a practice, based on particular theories of teaching

and learning. This analysis defines the term inclusive educationas referring to the education of children and youth with dis-

abilities in general education classrooms with their nondisabledpeers (Peters, 2002). The philosophy of inclusive education is

based on the right of all individuals to a quality education withequal opportunityone that develops their potential and re-

spects their human dignity. Inclusive education means more

than physical integration, so that in addition to accessible

classrooms and facilities, students with disabilities must be af-forded adequate instructional support systems. These sup-

ports may include flexible curriculum (for some students),

adequately prepared teachers, and a welcoming school com-

munity culture that goes beyond tolerance to acceptance.

The Salamanca Statement, agreed to by 92 governments

and 25 international organizations at the 1994 World Confer-ence on Special Needs Education in Salamanca, Spain, added

the following:

Regular schools with this inclusive orientation are

the more effective means of combating discrimina-tory attitudes, creating welcoming communities,

building an inclusive society and achieving educa-

tion for all; moreover, they provide an effective ed-ucation to the majority of children and improve the

efficiency and ultimately the cost-effectiveness of

the entire education system. (UNESCO, 1994a, p.2)

Inclusive education,as conceived in the Salamanca State-

ment, is based on the concept of social equity and is consistent

with a social model of disability. Four assumptions inherent in

this conception of inclusive education are

1. All students come to school with diverse needsand abilities, so no students are fundamentallydifferent.

2. It is the responsibility of the general education

system to be responsive to all students.

3. A responsive general education system provideshigh expectations and standards, quality acade-

mic curriculum and instruction that are flexible

and relevant, an accessible environment, and

teachers who are well prepared to address theeducational needs of all students.

4. Progress in general education is a process evi-

denced by schools and communities working

together to create citizens for an inclusive soci-ety who are educated to enjoy the full benefits,

rights, and experiences of societal life.

An alternative traditional conception of education for in-dividuals with disabilities still evident in governmental policy

discourse and practice is based on a medical/deficit model of

disability. There are four basic assumptions inherent in this

approach:

1. Disability is a pathological condition within theindividual student that makes that individual

fundamentally different from other students.2. Differential diagnosis and placement in special

environments is objective and useful.3. Special education in separate environments

with special teachers is a rationally conceived

and coordinated system of services that benefits

diagnosed students.4. Progress in special education is a rational

technical process of incremental improvements

in diagnostic and special instructional practices.

(Skrtic, 1995, p. 210)

J OURN AL O F DISAB I LI TY PO LI CY ST UDIES VO L. 18/NO. 2/2007 99


3/12

100 J OU RN AL O F D ISAB I LI TY PO LI CY ST UD IES VO L. 18 /NO. 2/2007

All policiesincluding those grounded in medical models

of special education and those with social model approachesof inclusive educationare shaped by people (actors) in the

context of society, whether locally, nationally, or globally.

Every written policy document deploys a particular discourse

as both tactic and theory in a web of power relations (Fulcher,

1999). For example,how and what one teaches are morally andpolitically informedsuch as decisions about placement, a

learners functioning, and perceptions of a learners capabili-

ties. Written policy may be enacted at the ground level andtranslated into practice in different forms and at different lev-

els so that international policy documents do not a priori de-

termine what education officials and teachers produce as

policy. Inclusive Education may be implemented at differentlevels, embrace different goals, and be based on different mo-

tives and provide services in different contexts (Peters,

2003, p. 2). However, these documents are typically grounded

in what has been learned from practice, represent the moral

authority of the international community, and provide op-portunities for legal sanctions against those who fail to address

these policies and related guidelines. From this perspective,

written policy provides a documented legal and moral frame-work as well as a critical lens for interpreting and under-

standing practical action/reaction in everyday practice. At its

heart, the conceptual framework employed in this analysis

views policy-as-discourse and the language of policy as socialconstructions. Policy as discourse is dialectically related to

practice,underpinning processes of inclusion and/or exclusion

in significant ways. Policy-as-discourse theorists deconstruct

the language of policy and seek discursive interpretations andexplanations, not only of objective principles and procedures,

but also of what the language hints or suggests, omits or si-lences. Some scholars would argue that the complexity of ed-

ucational practice in context cannot be expressed adequatelythrough an analysis of international policy documents. Nev-

ertheless, this materialthe formal, public faade of historical

developmentis important in providing one set of frame-

works for understanding social change (Armstrong, 2003, p.73). Other scholars such as Bacchi (2000, p. 46), criticized pol-

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-tral (i.e., standing outside and above individual and group

differences and interests), but this neutrality is the heart of thehegemonic language used in various official deliberations and

decision makingespecially with regard to disability issues.

Method

Since the global rise of the disability rights movement in the

1960s and 1970s, people with disabilities have recognized the

right to education as key to employment opportunities, qual-

ity of life, self-advocacy, empowerment, social justice, and eq-uity in society at large. This analysis begins with the rise of the

disability rights movement,beginning with 1960,when the UN

General Assembly adopted the landmark Convention AgainstDiscrimination in Education (December 14). It ends with the

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2007.

However, this undertaking is not a traditional historical

analysis, which assumes uninterrupted progress and rational

humanitarian purposes. Foucault (Foucault & Rabinow, 1994,p. 89) argued that traditional histories aim at dissolving the

singular event into an ideal continuityas a teleological

movement or natural process.He refuted this claim by stating,The world we know is not (an) ultimately simple configura-

tion where events are reduced to accentuate their essential

traits, their final meaning, or their initial and final value. On

the contrary, it is a profusion of entangled events (Foucault &Rabinow, 1994, pp. 8889). Specifically, Foucault argued that

events in history are not solely contained in decisions, treaties,

or battles but in the relationships of power that include the ap-

propriation of language.Foucault described this view of events

as effective history. An effective history becomes an interpretivelens that uses language, rather than chronological time, as a

point of reference. From the viewpoint of effective history, the

relationships between historical events and social contexts arean unpredictable and fluid tangle of events.

Armstrong (2003) gave an example of the difference be-

tween traditional and effective historical analyses. From the

traditional viewpoint, assisted employment opportunities forpeople with disabilities represent events denoting progress.

Armstrong, however,argued that policies promoting sheltered

workshops for people with disabilities in the 21st century do

not represent progress but reflect vestiges of 19th-centuryEnglish workhouses that were set up to contain and control

poor, destitute people. In the context of this analysis, Fou-caults effective history views policy documents as representa-

tive of particular discourses that are value laden and that uselanguage that is fragmented, reinterpreted, and reworked in

response to changing contexts and over time (Armstrong,

2003,p. 63).This focus on language and policy as discourse re-

veals an effective history, allowing a critical analysis that delvesbeneath the chronology of policy as event.

Results and Discussion

International Policy DiscourseIn an analysis of where the international community stands interms of formal inclusive education policy, several key docu-

ments provide an effective history of policy development from

1960 to the present. Table 1 summarizes these documents. I

chose the documents for this analysis based on their (a) sub-stantive content related to education and disability and/or

(b) substantial impact on establishing rights of people with

disabilities to education. This section provides a detailed de-

scription of each document over time but uses effective historyto illuminate the fragmentation, reinterpretation, and rework-


4/12

ing of each discourse. This effective history of policy as dis-course lays the foundation for responding to the question,What can be learned?

The UN involvement with disability issues began long

before 1960,but despite the 1948 Universal Declaration of Hu-

man Rights, disability issues throughout the 1940s and 1950spromoted a welfare perspective. This perspective focused on

disability prevention and rehabilitation (UN, 2002c). How-

ever, the 1960s and 1970s showed a perceptible shift toward a

rights-based approach. Although this analysis begins with the1960 Convention Against Discrimination in Education, virtu-

ally all conventions and declarations in this analysis refer to the

1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration

provides the fundamental normative bases on which interna-tional norms and standards related to persons with disabilities

have evolved (UN, 1998, p. 1). This 1948 Declaration, which

included the basic principle of nondiscrimination, has be-

come part of customary international law and binds all states,

whether or not the state has ratified the treaty (UN, 2003).

Convention Against Discrimination in Education,

1960 (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for

Human Rights [OHCHR], 1960). This Convention does not

explicitly mention disability, but the reader may take disability

as one factor included under social origin in Article 1. Arti-

cle 3 of this convention obliges States Parties to eliminate andprevent discrimination in education. Articles 4 and 6 require

that States Parties promote equal opportunity. However, Arti-

cle 4, Part (a) makes higher education equally accessible to all

on the basis of individual capacity, and Article 4, Part (b)

states that standards and quality of education provided shouldbe equivalent in all public education institutions. In this doc-

ument, the language individual capacity(notably, notpoten-

tial) covertly reflects the then-current belief in, andwidespread use of, the IQ test as an objective and rational way

to define normal capacity and as a useful way to differentiate

normal intelligence from deviance, subnormality, or mental

retardation.An equivalenteducation reflects the then-currentbelief (only beginning to be challenged by racial groups) that

education could be separate and equal.

Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded

Persons, 1971 (OHCHR, 1971). The seven articles in this de-

claration include Article 2, which asserts the individuals rightto such education, training, rehabilitation and guidance as

will enable him [sic] to develop his [sic] ability and maximumpotential. The Declaration also calls for promoting their in-

tegration as far as possible in normal life. The preamble states

that certain countries at their present stage of development

can devote only limited efforts to this end. This declaration isa landmark document not only in specifically recognizing the

right of people with disabilities to education (albeit only a

segment of the population with disabilities), but also in intro-

ducing the concept ofmaximum potential(vs.perceived capac-

ity). However,integration is narrowly envisioned as dependent

on State Parties economic capacity.

Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons, 1975

(UN, 1975). This declaration was also a landmark document

in the context of its time, representing a watershed in drawing

from the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and

recognizing the rights and needs of all people with disabilitiesfor the first time. However,the influence of a medical model of

integrated education is nevertheless transparent in terms of

both its language and focus. Specifically, a person with disabil-

ities is defined as one who is unable to ensure the necessitiesof normal social life due to deficiency(p.1). The goal for peo-


TABLE 1

International Policy Documents Pertaining to

Disability & Education

Year Policy document Content areas

1960 United Nations Convention Against 19 articles

Discrimination in Education (Articles 1, 2, 3,

6 on education)

1971 United Nations Declaration on the 7 articles (Article 2

Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons on education)

1975 United Nations Declaration on the 13 articles: integra-

Rights of Disabled Persons tion, employment

1981 Sundberg Declaration 16 articles (Articles 1,

4, 6, 7 on education)

1982 United Nations World Programme prevention, rehabili-

of Action 3 goals: Concerning tation, equal oppor-

Disabled Persons tunity

1989 Tallinn Guidelines for Action on 9 strategies (Section DHuman Resources Development on education)

1990 Convention on the Rights of the 54 articles (Article 23

Child (UNICEF) on self-reliance,

participation, and

social integration)

1990 World Declaration on Education 10 articles: access,

for All (UNESCO,Jomtien) enablement, environ-

ment, partnerships

1993 United Nations Standard Rules on 22 rules: sectors,

the Equalization of Opportunities supports, access,

for Persons With Disabilities equal opportunity,

laws1994 World Congress on Special Needs 85 articles: access,

Education, Salamanca accommodations,

quality

1995 World Summit for Social Develop- 10 commitments,

ment Programme of

Action

2000 Education for All (EFA) Frame- 6 goals: accountabil-

work for Action (UNESCO, ity, a dvocacy,p artici-

Dakar) pation


5/12

102 J OURN AL O F DISAB I LI TY PO LI CY ST UDIES VO L. 18/NO. 2/2007

ple with disabilities is articulated in this document as the right

to enjoy life as normal as possible [given this deficiency](p. 1)and to promote integration in normal life (p. 1). Specific ar-

eas of integration delineated in this declaration include em-

ployment, family and social life, and economic opportunities.

The means to achieve this integration, however, focus on the

individual,who needs treatmentin the areas of rehabilitation,education, and related services. The focus is on assisting the

individualto develop abilities, capabilities and self-reliance

(p. 2). It also would be almost two decades before the 1993 UNStandard Rules (United Nations Enable, 1993) would be de-

veloped and promulgated to operationalize these rights.

Sundberg Declaration, 1981 (UNESCO, 1981). Repre-sentatives from 103 countries participated in the World Con-

ference on Actions and Strategies for Education, Prevention,

and Integration convened in Torremolinos, Malaga,Spain.The

Sundberg Declaration, agreed to by participating countries,

contains 16 articles and historically coincided with the Inter-national Year of Disabled Persons. In Article 1,the Declaration

states that every disabled person must be able to exercise his

fundamental right to have full access to education. Educationmust start in early infancy and be conceived and implemented

within a global framework of lifelong education (Articles 4

and 7). Article 6 states that education must be aimed at inte-

grating disabled people into the ordinary working and livingenvironment and that these people must receive appropriate[emphasis added] education and training, whatever their per-

sonal situation. Article 11 adds that persons with disabilities

must be provided with the facilities and equipment necessaryfor their education and training. Article 3 states that people

with disabilities must be given the opportunity to utilize theircreative, artistic, and intellectual potential to the full, not only

for their own benefit, but also for the enrichment of the com-munity. As is the 1971 Declaration on the Rights of Mentally

Retarded Persons, the Sundberg Declaration is a landmark

document in recognizing not only the specific rights of people

with disabilities to education, but also that their education willbenefit the wider community. The Sundberg Declaration also

recognizes (albeit as perceived future potential rather than

actual current capability) the positive attributes of people with

disabilities. Furthermore, it drops the language ofnormal infavor ofordinary. The adjective appropriate to describe educa-

tion for people with disabilities is still utilized today and hasbeen variously interpreted and appropriated to justify special

and segregated educational provisions.

World Programme of Action Concerning DisabledPersons, 1982 (United Nations Enable, 1982). This policy

document was an important outcome of the 1981 Interna-tional Year of Disabled Persons. It represents the first world-

wide international long-term policy in relation to people with

disabilities. The three main goals of this program were pre-

vention, rehabilitation, and equalization of opportunities. Ed-ucation is addressed under the goal of equal opportunities (i.e.,

Whenever pedagogically possible, education should take

place in the ordinary schools system [p. 3]). In the introduc-

tion to the 1982 World Programme of Action, the followingstatement appears:

Persons with disabilities should be expected to ful-

fil their role in society and meet their obligations as

adults. The image of disabled persons depends onsocial attitudes based on different factors that maybe the greatest barrier to participation and equality.

We see the disability, shown by the white canes,

crutches, hearing aids and wheelchairs, but not the

person. What is required is to focus on the ability,not on the disability of disabled persons. (p. 4)

The section entitled Current Situation, concerning ed-ucation, specifies the following: They have the same right to

education as non-disabled persons and they require active in-

tervention and specialized services(p.2). The section Propos-

als for Implementation, National Action (Part 2). Equalization

of Opportunities: Education and Training provides a dis-course on the location and responsibilities related to the edu-

cation of people with disabilities:

The education of disabled persons should as far as

possible take place in the general school system.Re-sponsibility for their education should be placed

upon the educational authorities and laws regard-

ing compulsory education should include children

with all ranges of disabilities, including the most se-verely disabled. (p. 3)

Also, if general education facilities are inadequate, schooling

should then be provided for an appropriate period of time inspecial facilities.The quality of this special schooling should be

equal to that of the general school system and closely linked toit (p. 8).

The language in this 1982 document reflects the concerns

evidenced by a growing number of statistics that indicated a

largely neglected population of persons with severe disabilities(Peters, 2003) and the numbers of children with disabilities

permanently segregated from their peers in a dual system: spe-

cial and general education (European Agency for Develop-

ment of Special Needs Education, 2003). Furthermore, thegoal of education for people with disabilities is still considered

to be equal opportunity, but only whenever pedagogicallypossible. This caveat reflects the concern of general educators

who were experiencing the first wave of inclusive educationlaws and policies and who perceived their classes as dumping

grounds for those considered difficult to teach.

The 1982 World Programme of Action is monitored and

reviewed every 5 years. The second review, Towards a Society

for All(UNESCO, 1992), developed a long-term strategy for

implementation at the end of the UN Decade of Disabled Per-

sons (19831992). Language in this long-term policy docu-

ment asserts that it was built on the strategies that had provensuccessful during the Decade. It proposes a step-by-step ap-

proach with strategies focusing on integrating disability issues


6/12

into national policies, setting standards, mobilizing resources,

decentralizing program implementation, establishing part-nerships, strengthening organizations of persons with disabil-

ities, strengthening national coordinating committees, and

monitoring progress (p. 3). The UN General Assembly Reso-

lution 56/115 at its 88th plenary session, December 19, 2001,

again reinforced the World Programme of Action.The fourth and most current review of the World Pro-

gramme of Action was submitted in 2002. Two reports at this

stage of implementation are illuminating.The first report by theSecretary General, entitled Review and Appraisal of the World

Programme of Action (UN, 2002a), introduced new principles

in Part A: Progress in Implementation. These principles in-

clude (a) inclusive universal design (p.2) and (b) a new universeof disability defined as expanded to include populations of

people with HIV/AIDS and attention-deficit disorder. This

section cites the new International Classification of Function-

ing, Disability and Health (ICF2) classification of disability

(World Health Organization, 2001), noting that disablementis viewed as a dynamic interaction between health conditions

and other personal factors (age, sex, level of education) as well

as social and physical environmental factors. Furthermore,disability is not an isolated state but an experience that all

may experience as part of the normal life experience. This rep-

resents an important shift in the disability paradigm. Part B:

Recommendations establishes links between millennium de-velopment goals and disability development. It identifies three

priorities for the new millennium: (a) accessibility, (b) social

service and safety nets,and (c) employment and livelihoods. It

recognizes education as complementary to these priorities.The second report, Let the World Know(UN, 2000), was

the UN Special Rapporteurs Report subsequent to a meetingwith a panel of experts. The purpose of the meeting was to

draft guidelines for identifying and reporting violations of thehuman rights of people with disabilities. A substantive section

entitled Inclusive Education presents guidelines for collect-

ing data in seven areas: (a) law and policy; (b) choice, avail-

ability of services; (c) barriers to accessibility; (d) portrayal ofpeople with disabilities in school environments; (e) curriculum

and materials; (f) school governance; and (g) teacher training

and competencies.

These two reports concerning the 1982 World Pro-gramme for Action reflect the earlier concern of societal atti-

tudes as barriers to participation. Social factors receive moreprominence in the language of the reports. For example, the

reports introduce new terms such as disablementand arguethat disability is normalto life experience. Notably, strategies

no longer focus on the individual but on systemic factors such

as resources, partnerships, and decentralization. The seven ar-

eas proposed for future monitoring all focus on environmen-tal factorsfrom teacher training to availability and access of

services, with law and policy only one factor to be monitored.

Tallinn Guidelines for Action on Human Resources

Development, 1989 (UN, 1989). Annexed to a UN General

Assembly resolution of the 78th plenary meeting, the Tallinn

Guidelines reestablish that due regard must be paid to educa-

tion to accomplish the goals of the 1982 World Programme ofAction. Out of nine strategies,Section D is devoted to promo-

tion of education and training (Paragraphs 2232). Notable

among the recommendations are that cost-effective alterna-

tives to segregated school facilities should be developed and

implemented. These alternatives include special educationteachers as consultants to regular education teachers, resource

rooms with specialized personnel and materials, special class-

rooms in regular schools and interpreters for deaf students(Paragraph 25). In addition, Special education programs and

schools that promote the indigenous sign language and the

indigenous deaf culture must be available to deaf people. Deaf

people should be employed in such programs and schools(Paragraph 24). Also, Special efforts should be made to pro-

mote education and skills training for disabled girls and

women,in both urban and rural areas(Paragraph 28). Finally,

General teacher-training curricula should include a course of

study in skills for teaching disabled children and young per-sons in regular schools (Paragraph 29). The Tallinn Guide-

lines expand the notion of place for education of people with

disabilities into a continuum (consultants in the general edu-cation classroom, resource rooms, and special classes). The

guidelines also begin to recognize the diversity of the disabil-

ity experience, citing deaf culture, the experiences of girls with

disabilities, and those in urban and rural areas. They also in-troduce training for the general education populationa dis-

course that earlier documents largely omitted.

Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNICEF, 1990).This convention, sponsored by UNICEF, also references the

1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and was ratifiedby 191 countries. Containing 54 articles, the preamble to the

1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child stresses the childsright to full and harmonious development of personality and

preparation to live a responsible life in a free society(p.1).Ar-

ticle 23 of the convention addresses disability directly, refer-

ring to mentally or physically disabled children and theirright to access and integration. However, these rights should

be subject to available resources and appropriate to the

childs condition (p. 8). This language is transparent in its use

of a medical model, with its focus on conditions that individ-uals have, and reflects a reworking of earlier discourses. In its

critique of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Disabil-ity Awareness in Action (an international information net-

work on disability and human rights) noted the following:

Article 23, which is grouped in the cluster of articles

on health and welfare,focuses on the individualized

provisions of special needs, reaffirming that it isthe unhealthy child that should be changed to fit so-

ciety rather than society changed to welcome and

include the child. (Hurst & Lansdown, 2001, p. 9)

World Declaration on EFA, 1990 (UNESCO, 1990).Sponsored by UNESCO,the World Declaration was developed



7/12


in Jomtein, Thailand,and ratified by 155 countries. This decla-

ration contains 10 article and moves closer to a social model ofdisability with inclusive concepts. This document stresses uni-

versal access and equity. Specifically, the declaration asserts

that children with disabilities should have equal access through

an education that is integral to (emphasis added) general edu-

cation, but notably not integrated with general education. Theformer phrase connotes a single inclusive education system.

The latter phrase connotes inclusive education as a program

that should be inserted into the existing system. Furthermore,this document introduces the concept of enablement, which

no longer strictly focuses on individual development of life skills

to function in society but presages factors introduced in the

1992 monitoring report of the World Programme of Action (e.g.,improvement of the environment through active partnership

and coordination of government, nongovernmental organiza-

tions,community, and religious groups).These groups are to be

held accountable for the planning, implementation, manage-

ment, and evaluation of educational programs at the institu-tional level. Organizations and government must also provide

resources and funding solutions to access and equitya sharp

departure from the caveat in the Convention on the Rights ofthe Child that access should be subject to available resources

and dependent on the childs condition.

Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities

for Persons With Disabilities, 1993 (United Nations Enable,

1993). These standards promulgate 22 rules. The rules expand

the scope of rights to access in society of people with disabili-

ties from that of the 1975 Declaration on the Rights of Dis-abled Persons. The expanded areas include cultural activities

(Rule 10), recreation and sports (Rule 11), and religious partic-ipation (Rule 12). In 1995, a panel of experts composed of five

men and five women with different disabilities representing sixinternational disability organizations met to review progress.

This panel prioritized six areas during the first period of mon-

itoring as follows: accessibility, education, employment, legis-

lation, coordination of work, and organizations of personswith disabilities.

The Standard Rules represent a definitive move toward a

social model of inclusive education, particularly with respect

to Rule 6 on education. This rule contains nine provisions, in-cluding a call for improvements at the school level in the areas

of policy, adapted curriculum, materials,and teacher training.Most of the UN Standard Rules, however, still focus on access

and equality of opportunity without addressing the quality ofthe services to which a child with disabilities may have access.

At the same time that the UN Standard Rules were being pro-

mulgated,the World Conference on Human Rights,held in Vi-

enna in 1992, produced its own Program of Action (OHCHR,1992) to guide human rights efforts forward in light of the

contemporary realities of continued discrimination made all

too evident in the Despouy report (1993). The Program of Ac-

tion recognized that all human rights and fundamental free-doms are universal and thus unreservedly include persons

with disabilities (OHCHR, 1993, p.16). The Vienna confer-

ence further recognized that any discrimination, intentional

or unintentional,against persons with disabilities is per se a vi-olation of human rights (as cited in UN, 2002c).

World Congress on Special Needs Education, Sala-

manca, 1994 (UNESCO, 1994a). The Salamanca Statement is

unique among all of the policy documents in this analysis inthat education of children and youth with disabilities is its cen-

tral focus rather than a background or add-on focus as in Ar-

ticle 23 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. TheSalamanca Statement (UNESCO,1994a) was adopted by 92 gov-

ernments and 25 international organizations. The central fo-

cus is delineated within the context of EFA (in the preamble it

renews the pledge of Jomtein [p. vii]) and is undergirded byassumptions of inclusive education. Vislie (2003, p.18) argued

that this document set the policy agenda for inclusive educa-

tion on a global basis and represented a linguistic shift from in-

tegration to inclusion as a global descriptor.

The Salamanca Statement assumes that human differ-ences are normal and that learning must accordingly be

adapted to the needs of the child rather than the child fitted to

preordained assumptions regarding the pace and nature of thelearning process(UNESCO, 1994a, p. 7). In addition, in stark

contrast to the definition of disability promulgated in the 1975

UN Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons,a child with

disabilities is seen as one who has learning difficulties due toenvironmental disadvantages(UNESCO, 1994a,p.6).The def-

inition of disabled/disadvantaged set forth in the Salamanca

Statement includes gifted and talented students, those with

linguistic differences, and those in poverty, and expands fromphysical and intellectual disabilities to social and emotional

disabilities. The Salamanca Statement further asserts that everychild has unique characteristics, interests, abilities and learn-

ing needs(UNESCO, 1994b, p. 2). The focus at the individuallevel is on abilities, rather than deficiencies.At the institutional

level, the Salamanca Statement was unique for its time, going

beyond issues of access and equal opportunity to address qual-

ity in the form of child-centered pedagogy and several otherquality indicators of schooling. In this statement,governments

must provide not only policies and resources as in earlier dec-

larations, but accountability measures to address quality. Poli-

cies and programs should address the entire life span fromearly childhood through adult and vocational education (as in

the Sundberg Declaration more than a decade earlier). Theconcept of inclusive education is clearly defined (see the in-

troductory section of this article) and receives prominence,and international donors are called upon to endorse inclusive

education, to provide technical assistance for its implementa-

tion, and to support and encourage multisector collaboration.

Concepts of self-reliance and enablement that were pre-sent in earlier declarations are broadened in the Salamanca

Statements Framework for Action to include the notion of con-

sumer satisfaction:

Every person with a disability has a right to express

their wishes [emphasis added] with regard to their


8/12

education, as far as this can be ascertained. Parents

have an inherent right to be consulted on the formof education best suited to the needs, circumstances

and aspirations of their children. (UNESCO, 1994a,

Para. 2, p. 6)

Guidelines for action in this Framework are delineated inseven areas at the national level and six areas at the regional/

international level. These guidelines provide an expanded vi-

sion of policy over previous documents into areas of increas-ing public awareness and changing individual attitudes toward

children with disabilities, as well as development of research

and quality standards of EFA. Specifically, A change in social

perspective is imperative.For far too long, the problems of peo-ple with disabilities have been compounded by a disabling so-

ciety[emphasis added] that has focused upon their impairments

rather than their potential. (UNESCO, 1994a, Para. 3, p.7)

World Summit for Social Development, Copenhagen,1995 (UN,1995). Disability policy studies often cite the agree-

ments, commitments, and Programme of Action developed

from this Social Summit. This summit was the largest gath-ering of world leaders up to that time. In attendance were rep-

resentatives of governments, nongovernmental organizations,

and international organizations (including representatives of

Disabled Peoples International,World Federation of the Deaf,World Blind Union, and Rehabilitation International). Unlike

other conventions and declarations not specifically targeted at

disability (in which disability issues are at best marginalized,

and at worst virtually invisible), this 40-page document con-tains several specific statements regarding people with disa-

bilities. The document establishes specific links betweeneducation,poverty, and disability and places people at the cen-

ter of development issues. The Current Situation (Part A ofAgreements) establishes that one of the worlds largest mi-

norities, more than one in ten, are people with disabilities who

are too often forced into poverty, unemployment, and social

isolation (UN, 1995, Part A para. h, n. p.).Whereas the call to uphold the Convention on the Rights

of the Child appears likely a historical revisiting of the medical

model (especially considering the problematic language of Ar-

ticle 23), the World Summit for the first time acknowledgedconditions of poverty as aprima facie cause of disability. It also

acknowledged poverty as a significant barrier to education andaccepted responsibility for these barriers.This acknowledgment

constitutes a policy discourse that is proactive, going beyondmerely the enforcement of rights and nondiscrimination.

EFA Framework for Action, Dakar, 2000 (UNESCO,

2000a). Specific mention of children with disabilities is notprominent within this document. However, many of the same

concepts and guidelines for action developed in the Sala-

manca Statement are central to EFAs Framework for Action

(i.e., attention to multisector strategies, universal access, qual-ity of education). Goal 1 of the EFA Framework includes iden-

tifying and enriching(a linguistic nod to quality) the care and

education of children with special needs (UNESCO, 2000b,

p. 15) as a priority area. Section III.3 contains the followingproviso:

All partners can share their experience and exper-

tise in designing and implementing innovative

measures and activities, and focus their funding forbasic education on specific categories and groups

(e.g., women, the rural poor, persons with disabili-

ties) to improve significantly the learning opportu-nities and conditions available for them.(UNESCO,

2000b, pp. 1112)

In assessing progress since Jomtein,the final report (Part II)

contains the subsection Meeting Special and Diverse Educa-tion Needs: Making Inclusive Education a Reality. This sub-

section contains the following statement:

Concern about inclusion has evolved from a strug-

gle in behalf of children having special needs intoone that challenges all exclusionary policies and

practices in education as they relate to curriculum,

culture and local centres of learning. Instead offocusing on preparing children to fit into existing

schools, the new emphasis focuses on preparingschools [emphasis added] so that they can deliber-

ately reach out to all children. It also recognizes thatgains in access have not always been accompanied

by increases in quality. (UNESCO, 2000b, p. 18)

In response to growing pressure from the disability com-munity, UNESCO recently established an EFA flagshipThe

Right to Education for Persons with Disabilities: Toward Inclu-sion. In 2004, this flagship began to address the specific chal-

lenges in achieving EFA goals for people with disabilities. An

informal consultation with the flagship and UN agencies con-vened in March 2004 to plan strategies for encouraging and

monitoring the access to quality education of people with dis-

abilities.

Comprehensive and Integral InternationalConvention on Protection and Promotion ofthe Rights and Dignity of Persons WithDisabilities

Vicente Fox, president of Mexico, put forward a proposal for a

convention specifically on disability rights at the general debateof the UN General Assembly in 2001. The General Assembly

subsequently passed Resolution 56/168, which established an

ad hoc committee to consider proposals for such a convention.

Twenty-four disability nongovernmental organizations re-ceived accreditation to the ad hoc committee. These organiza-

tions envisioned that the convention would be based on an

approach that would take into account social development as

well as human rights. Several declarations emanating from in-ternational conferences around the world supported this con-

vention, including the Beijing Declaration of March 12, 2000,



9/12


the Sapporo Declaration of October 2002, the Beirut Declara-

tion of May 2003,and the Resolution by the International Dis-ability Alliance of June 2003. After a series of meetings and

much debate, and concerted pressure from disability organi-

zations, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on

the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,and it was subsequently

signed by 80 countries in 2007The impetus for this convention stemmed from the fact

that all previous declarations have been insufficient to bring

about the intended changes in disability policy and develop-ment (Lindqvist, 2002b). It is believed that the newly ratified

convention will give status and visibility to disability rights,

which cannot be given by any other measures (Lindqvist,

2002a, p. 1).

Policy Implications: All Means All!

It is predicted that by the year 2025,the number of people withdisabilities will have risen from the current 600 million to 900

million worldwide, of which 650 million will be in developing

countries (disability.dk, 2003, p. 1). The reasons behind thisphenomenal projection are many: the HIV/AIDS epidemic,

increased war, and poverty, among the most influential (Mit-

tler, 2005; Rasheed, 1999). For example, in 1997, antipersonnel

mines were responsible for creating disability in 68 countries,and the figure increases at a rate of 800 individuals per month.

(UN, 2002c, p. 2). This growth of the disability experience

worldwide in and of itself has provided an impetus for change,

prompting J. D. Wolfensohn, recent past president of theWorld Bank, to observe in a Washington Postarticle (DevNews

Media Center, 2003, p. 1) that addressing disability is a signif-icant part of reducing poverty.

Clearly, the increase in the number of people with dis-abilities and their exclusion from societal opportunities have

come to the attention of international donor agencies. The cur-

rent policy discourse on the part of donor agencies and their

considerable influence on global education agendas revealsthat EFA is driven by a clear economic purpose linked to de-

velopment (Peters, 2003, p. 50; Yeo & Moore, 2003). In fact, a

policy discourse that links economic development to inclusive

education is clearly evident throughout many of the policydocuments reviewed here. Even the 1994 Salamanca Statement,

despite its emphasis on social justice issues, asserts that EFAwill improve the efficiency and ultimately the cost-effectiveness

of the entire education system (UNESCO, 1994a, p. 2). Tyingrights to economic efficiency does not appear to be qualita-

tively different from the 19th century workhouses established

to create productive citizens.

Meanwhile, in a keynote address at the Osaka Forum,Japan, in October 2002, former UN Special Rapporteur Bengt

Lindqvist noted that the theme all rights for all had been

chosen at the UN celebration of the 50th anniversary of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Lindqvist asked,Dowe mean all or is this just rhetoric? He continued:

Those of us who happen to live with a disability, do

not accept to be viewed as objects of care and ser-vices. We are citizens of our countries, entitled to

full participation and equal rights (not the least of

which are education and employment). This way of

thinking must penetrate all our actions, both na-

tionally and internationally. (Lindqvist, 2002a, p. 2)

International community values and philosophical com-

mitment, as expressed in the language and discourse containedin policy documents, say more about international collective

commitment to education than they do about countries ca-

pacities to provide education in practice. Conditions of mar-

ginalized children at the edge of society reveal more about thestate and progress of society than conditions at the middle.

Children with disabilities, as a radically marginalized sector of

society, reflect the unadorned aims of education and of the in-

ternational community.

Analysis of the discourse in international policy docu-ments provides a lens for understanding todays inequalities

and state of progress toward the EFA millennium development

goal of universal primary education. Clearly, the conflictedlanguage in these documents reflects a profusion of entangled

events (i.e., a reworking and reinterpretation of language re-

lating to people with disabilities in response to changing con-

texts over time). Specifically, progress in shifting from amedical model to a social model of disability has not been lin-

ear, nor is it explained by traditional historical analysis.

Understood from the standpoint of effective history, this

analysis reveals that progress toward a social model of disabil-ity has not been even or continuous. As long as the discourse

in international policy documents continues to insist on provid-ing an education that is appropriate to the childs condition

and one that is subject to available resources(UNICEF,1990,p. 7) rather than on preparing schools to reach out to all chil-

dren (EFA Framework for Action) and on building an inclu-

sive society (Salamanca Statements Framework for Action),

inclusive education may not become a reality for the majorityof people with disabilities now excluded from education.

A critical reading of these documents still begs the ques-

tion: Are people with disabilities a burden or a resource, an ex-

pense or an investment? Clearly, children and youth withdisabilities do not have to be disadvantaged by treatment ap-

propriate to their condition in schools or by exclusion fromschools due to lack of resources. As a corollary, it follows that

if you deny disabled people educational opportunities, thenit is the lack of education and not their disabilities that limit

their opportunities (World Bank, 2003).

In pursuing rights for people with disabilities, Bengt

Lindqvist cautioned the disability rights community as follows:

We ourselves must never forget those among us,

who for various reasons will not be at the negotia-

tion table and speak for themselves, be it due totheir severe disabilities, because they are paralyzed


10/12

by extreme poverty or because they have been

trapped in large institutions without any contactwith the outside world. All means all and may we

ourselves never forget this! (Lindqvist, 2002a, p. 2)

If the world is to meet the EFA millennium developmentgoal of universal primary educationratified by 152 countries

worldwidenation states are challenged to commit them-

selves to ensuring that (a) the EFA framework for action ad-

dresses people with disabilities effectively, (b) the frameworkdoes not excuse countries for making exceptions, and (c) pol-

icy discourses challenge all exclusionary policies (and prac-

tices) in education. If future policy discourse does not remove

its caveats and special conditions when it comes to the educa-tion of children and youth with disabilities, progress toward

EFA and inclusive education for the majority of individuals

with disabilities may continue to be elusive.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

SUSAN J. PETERS, PhD, is an associate professor at Michigan State

University, College of Education. A long-time disability rights activist,

she combines activism and scholarship with a focus on inclusive ed-

ucation policy and practice in the United States and sub-Saharan

Africa. Address: Susan J. Peters, 116K Erickson Hall, Michigan State

University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1034; e-mail: [email protected]

REFERENCES

Akerberg, A. (2001). Human rights and persons with disabilities. Stockholm:

SHIA Human Rights & Disability Network.

Armstrong, F. (2003). Spaced out: Policy, difference and the challenge of inclu-sive education. London: Kluwer Academic.

Bacchi, C. (2000). Policy as discourse: What does it mean? Where does it get

us? Discourse,21, 4555.

Despouy, L. (1993). Human rights and disability. New York: United Nations.

DevNews Media Center. (2003). Poor, disabled and shut out: Wolfensohn.

(3 December 2002). Retrieved from http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon

/develop/2002/1203disabled.htm

Enabling Education Network. (2004). Special edition: SalamancaTen years

on. Manchester, UK: Author.

European Agency for Development of Special Needs Education. (2003). Spe-

cial needs education in Europe. Brussels, Belgium: Author.

Foucault, M., & Rabinow, P. (1994). Space, Knowledge and Power interview

with Michel Foucault conducted by Paul Rabinow. In The Foucault

reader: An introduction to Foucaults thought. London: Penguin Books.

Fulcher, G. (1999). Disabling policies? A comparative approach to education anddisability. Sheffield, UK: Armstrong.

Habibi, G. (1999). UNICEF and children with disabilities. Education Update,

2, 45.

Hurst, R., & Lansdown, G. (2001). Are disabled children included? Disability

Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.daa.org.uk/e_tribune/e_2001_10

.htm

Lindqvist, B. (1999). Education as a fundamental right. Educators Update,2,

67.

Lindqvist, B. (2002a,). All means all! Disability World, 16.) Retrieved from

http://www.disabilityworld.org/11-12_02/news/lindqvist.shtml

Lindqvist, B. (2002b). Thoughts on the elaboration of a disability convention.

Retrieved from http://disability.dk/site/viewdoc.php?doc_id=626&

section_id=10

Mittler, P. (2005). The global context of inclusive education. In D. Mitchell

(Ed.), Contextualizing inclusive education (pp. 2236). London: Rout-

ledge.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (1960).

Convention Against Discrimination in Education. Retrieved from

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/education.htm

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (1971)

Declaration on the Rights of mentally Retarded Persons.Retrieved fromhttp://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/m_mental.htm

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (1992).

Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. Retrieved from http://

www.ohchr.org/english/law/pdf/vienna.pdf

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2000). Special

needs education statistics and indicators. Paris: Author.

Peters,S. (2002). Inclusive education in accelerated and professional develop-

ment schools:A case based study of two school reform efforts in the USA.

International Journal of Inclusive Education, 6, 287308.

Peters, S. (2003). Inclusive education: Achieving education for all by including

those with disabilities and special education needs. Washington, DC: Dis-

ability Group, World Bank.

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.Educators Update,2, 14.

Skrtic, T. (1995). Disability and democracy: Reconstructing (special) education

for postmodernity. New York: Teachers College Press.

UNICEF. (1990). Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: Author.

UNICEF. (2002). Implementation handbook for the Convention on the Rights of

the Child. New York: Author.

United Nations. (1975). Declaration on the rights of disabled persons. Geneva:

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

United Nations. (1989). General assemblyA/RES/44/70December 8th,

1989. Tallinn Guidelines for Action on Human Resources Development.

Retrieved from http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r070.htm

United Nations. (1995). World Summit for Social DevelopmentCopen-

hagen, 1995. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/wssd/

United Nations. (2000). Let the world know. New York: Author.

United Nations. (2002a). Review and appraisal of the World Programme of Ac-tion. New York: Author.

United Nations. (2002b). Special Session on Children8 to 10 May, 2002. Re-

trieved from http://www.unicef.org/specialsession/documentation/

childrens-statement.htm

United Nations. (2002c). The UN and disabled persons: A chronology. New

York: Author.

United Nations. (2003, June 1627). Draft report of the ad hoc committee on a

comprehensive and integral international convention on the protection and

promotion of the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities. New York:

Author. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ad-

hoccom.htm

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (1981). In-

ternational Year of Disabled PersonsSundberg Declaration. Retrieved

from http://www.unesco.org/education/nfsunesco/pdf/SUNDBE_E

.PDFUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (1990).

World Conference on EFA. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/edu-

cation/information/nfsunesco/pdf/JOMTIE_E.PDF

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1992).

Towards a society for all: Long-term strategy to implement the World Pro-

gramme of Action concerning disabled persons to the year 2000 and beyond.

Paris: Author.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1994a).

The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs edu-

cation. Paris: Author.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1994b).

The Salamanca statement on principles, policy and practice in special needs

education. Paris: Author.



11/12



The Dakar framework for action. Paris: Author.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2000b).

World Education Forum final report: Part II. Improving the quality and eq-

uity of education for all. Paris: Author.


EFA: Is the world on track?Paris: Author.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2002b).Inclusive schools and community support programmes. Paris: Author.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2004).

EFA: The quality imperative. Paris: Author.

United Nations Enable. (1982). World Programme of Action Concerning Dis-

abled Persons. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/

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

United Nations Enable. (1998). Disabled Persons Bulletin, 2. Retrieved from

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/dpb19982.htm

Vislie, L. (2003). From integration to inclusion: Focusing global trends and

changes in the western European societies. European Journal of Special

Needs Education, 18, 1735.

World Bank Organization. (2003). Press release by the Senior Advisor to the

Disability Group.

World Health Organization. (2001). International Classification of Functioning,Disability and Health. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/classifications

/icf/site/icftemplate.cfm?myurl=homepage.html&mytitle=Home%

20Page

Yeo, R., & Moore, K. (2003). Including disabled people in poverty reduction

work: Nothing about us, without us. World Development, 31, 571590.

Now Available From the Hammill Institute on Disabilities

Autism: Facts and Strategies for Parents (12506)Janzen

Classroom Intervention for the School-Based Therapist(12509)Bryte

COTA Exam Study Guide (12512)Ahmad and Kallem-

bach

Feeding and Nutrition for the Child with Special Needs(12519)Klein and Delaney

Feeding and Swallowing Disorders in Infancy (12520)

Wolf and Glass

Is It SensoryCards (12529)

Motor Development Program for School-Age Children

(2nd ed.) (12536)Sellers

Normal Development of Functional Motor Skills (12538)

Alexander, Boehme, and Cupps

Exploring the Spectrum of Autism and Pervasive Develop-

mental Disorders (12541)Murray-Slutsky

and Paris

Progressive Individual Exercises (12556)Schneiderand Passanisi

Promoting Social Competence (12557)Williamson

and Dorman

Sensory Motor Handbook, (2nd ed.) (12563)Bissell,

Fisher, Owens, and Polcyn Sensory Motor Issues in Autism (12564)Anderson

Understanding the Nature of Autism (2nd ed.)(12569)

Janzen

Hammill Institute on Disabilities8700 Shoal Creek Boulevard

Austin, Texas 78757-6897512/451-3521 Fax 512/451-3728

Murray-Slutsky

Is It Sensory or Is It Behavior? (12528)Paris and


12/12