C Explanatory memorandum
by Mr Pavlo Sushko, rapporteur
1 Introduction
1. The motion for a resolution
(Doc. 15447) which initiated the present report stated that: “During
the Covid-19 pandemic, distanced learning has become a new form
of education, obligatory to everyone. Adjustment to this new reality
was accompanied by serious difficulties experienced by children
and their parents. Even though online learning created a challenging
environment for almost everyone, children with severe disabilities
(…) and their families suffered most.”
2. Indeed, the Covid-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact
on the learning and well-being of children around the globe. On
a massive scale, it has thrown a spotlight on the consequences of
inaccessible learning opportunities, resulting in learning deficits,
social isolation, psychological problems and increased risk of violence
and abuse. It has also shed light on the compromised ability of
education and child protection systems to respond to the challenge,
despite world-wide policy efforts to ensure “Education for All”
by creating more “inclusive education systems”.
3. In this respect, the pandemic, but also the migration crisis
and now the war have exposed the weaknesses of a narrow understanding
of inclusive education as “all children in regular classrooms, rather
than special classes or special schools”. If schools are closed
due to a pandemic, damaged or destroyed by deliberate attacks on
civilian infrastructure, or simply out of reach for refugee children
or children on the move, the limitations of such a narrow understanding
become evident.
4. An initial analysis of the effectiveness of distance learning
for children with special education needs (SEN) has shown that special
educational institutions managed to cope much better than mainstream education.
In mainstream inclusive classes, children with SEN tend to be left
behind. The alternative with individual lessons, also has drawbacks
as it hinders the development of their social skills and children
feel isolated. Moreover, appropriate psychological support in times
of crisis has become important for all children, with and without
SEN. Access to and the quality of the educational material is another
concern, and a balance needs to be established between the needs
of pupils and the resources available to ensure optimal learning and
developmental outcomes.
5. It is also necessary to highlight specific methods of teaching
children with certain types of disabilities. For example, due to
lack of tactile contact in online teaching, children with visual
impairments require a more detailed audio commentary and more time
to process the material. In contrast, children with intellectual disabilities
struggle most with their attention, motivation to study, and time
management.
6. The Parliamentary Assembly should recommend developing guidelines
for Council of Europe member States to ensure an effective, high-quality
learning process for children with SEN in times of crisis. The very idea
of high quality and meaningful learning opportunities needs to be
expanded beyond ordinary classrooms to embrace all effective learning
spaces, including digital learning environments. It would be important
to focus on the analysis of and possible solutions to common issues
faced not only by teachers and children with SEN, but also their
parents, who are often compelled to assume the role of teaching
assistants.
7. I thank Dr Judith Hollenweger Haskell, Professor at the Centre
for Teaching and Transcultural Learning in Switzerland, who has
assisted me in preparing this report. I also wish to thank experts
Note who contributed to our
work. A bibliography with listed reference studies and documents,
which would be relevant for developing the proposed guidelines on
quality education for children with SEN, was prepared in the context
of this report.
Note
2 Reconciling “special needs” and “inclusive
education”
8. Inclusion is a core principle
of the Sustainable Development Goals (Agenda 2030) and the Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD); it is referenced
as a goal with regard to the education of vulnerable groups such
as children and youth with disabilities, minorities, migrants, Roma,
girls, boys, the LGBT+ communities. To achieve better inclusion
for these groups, various initiatives, programmes and policies are
developed, often in parallel and without concerns about overlap
or conflicting strategies. Since Covid-19, disparate teaching and
learning materials, trainings and support systems have also expanded
massively into digital space, resulting in excessive demands and
uncertainty among teachers. The shortcomings of such unco-ordinated
initiatives can be best exemplified through the lens of “disability,
special needs or learning difficulties”, a group of learners identified
in most European countries.
Note
9. According to the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive
Education,
Note most member countries still focus
primarily on the access and placement of learners with SEN and/or
disabilities in mainstream classrooms, despite evidence that the
quality of instruction is the decisive factor to ensure positive
student outcomes.
Note Some argue rightly that “placement”
is part of instruction in so far that it is considered as a learning ecosystem
able to adapt to the specific learning situation of all students.
Note But the dilemma remains: is inclusive education
for some students or is it for all students? Is it about the rights
of children with disabilities to receive the highest quality education
which may need to be delivered by specially trained and highly qualified professionals
or is it about the rights of all children and their diverse needs
to have the opportunity to learn together? Education systems seem
to struggle to achieve a balance between these mutually exclusive
visions of inclusive education. It may be the time to redefine the
problem, not as an issue of placement, but solely of achieving the
best education for all wherever it can be best provided. Clearly
effective instruction and appropriate education should take precedence
over the place of instruction.
10. The two conflicting visions of inclusive education are also
reflected in the increasing percentages of students identified as
having special needs. At the same time, higher percentages of children
with SEN are being included in regular education. It seems that
the attempt to consolidate diverse visions of inclusive education
leads to identifying more students as having special needs or a
disorder, impairment or disability. Labels do not only come with
resources, but also with the risk of stigmatisation, they may lead
to greater understanding, but also to lower expectations in teachers.
Despite the evidence of harm done by labelling children, the practice
continues and has been extended to cover other vulnerable groups
as well.
11. The dilemma of labelling vs. generating accurate, helpful
and unbiased information is still unresolved in most European countries
which rely on lists of health conditions or impairments.
Note As a consequence, disability assessment
is not aligned with a social-contextual concept of disability, as
disability status is attributed solely on categorical diagnosis.
While most countries generally define disability in line with the
CRPD and wish to leave behind the medical model, they fall short
of achieving the human rights objectives.
Note
12. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability
and Health (ICF)
Note is based on a non-categorical
and multidimensional conceptualisation of disability in line with
the CRPD. It enables policy makers to describe human functioning
on a continuum and thus develop an inclusive approach across different
policy domains (namely for prevention, intervention, compensation).
The ICF offers a language to describe people, participation and
environments – necessary components to focus on persons and the
barriers they encounter. Consequently, it would be a better tool
to assess barriers to participation in different educational settings
than categories that unilaterally identify a child as having a problem.
13. However, the ICF only covers functioning in the context of
health and environmental barriers that impact on functioning, and
it does not consider participation restrictions due to social disadvantage,
gender discrimination or migrant status, as well as educational
achievements that fall short of children’s potential due to low
expectations, discouragement and demotivation. Although the ICF
has the potential of being used to assess the variety of factors
that might lead to exclusion, isolation and an infringement of personal
rights, its applications still fall short of focusing on these interactions
between person and environment. Functional profiles or other checklists,
draw attention solely to the problem child and reinforce a medical
and individualistic rather than an educational and interactive approach.
Such an approach is not compatible with a human rights-based approach
to disability assessment.
14. Last but not least, a “flexible curriculum” is understood
as a key factor in promoting inclusive education as highlighted
in a recent European report about promoting diversity and inclusion
in schools.
Note But competency-based curricula set
out expectations which are exclusionary by nature as certain learners
will be unable to meet these aims. In reality, most countries provide
“adjustments”, “modification” or “disapplication” of the curriculum
for certain learners. There is a symbolic commitment to diversity,
but an overriding rhetoric of normative expectations while problematising
the learner. Although in theory, a human rights-based approach requires
the system to progressively realise inclusive education and respect
individual rights, in reality, resources are identified in the education
system and problems in the child. Still today, “many young people leave
school with no worthwhile qualifications, whilst others are placed
in special provision … and some choose to drop out since the lessons
seem irrelevant”.
Note
15. Teachers are given little practical guidance on how to overcome
these dilemmas and confusion around inclusive education. Rather,
education systems so far have invested much in administrative procedures, adding
to the workload of professionals, including writing individual education
plans (IEP) which quiet parents down, but do not adequately guide
a personalised instruction, since the different parts are often
not aligned, and teachers feel unprepared to write high quality
IEP goals. It is therefore not surprising that some teachers understand
“differentiation” as achieving common goals with individual levels
of support, while others understand the same concept as achieving
individual goals with common amounts of support.
16. We can conclude that different notions of inclusive education
have not yet been consolidated to ensure accessibility, participation,
representation, equity and fairness in everyday practice, whatever
the setting they are working in, in regular or special schools,
at home, in digital, social and physical learning spaces. These learning
spaces exist, and their quality should be evaluated against these
human rights principles independently of narrow ideological conceptions
of inclusive education as the placement of all children in regular
classrooms at the expense of ensuring the individual rights of a
person. So what can we learn from the experience of teachers, children
and their families who were forced to find ways to maintain quality
education in the absence of a regular classroom?
3 Disruption
and fragmentation of learning
17. Children with disabilities
have not been the focus of much discussion during the pandemic,
despite ethical concerns about whether their needs can be met in
times of crisis. Realisation of children’s rights require acknowledgment
of the different life realities of children, yet this was not the
case during the pandemic. The Covid-19 pandemic overwhelmed the
functioning and outcomes of the education system in general, but
it affected the most vulnerable children the most, and worsened
their opportunities. The shift to online learning created new barriers
and challenges. Learning deficits arose early in the pandemic and
persisted throughout the pandemic, and they were significantly more
pronounced for disadvantaged children. Learning losses were observed
in most children, but more so in vulnerable children, as well as
in low-income schools. There is a need for more research to fully
understand the effects of the pandemic on the education of children
with special needs. But the need to redefine curricula, assessment
procedures and learner progress has already been expressed by international
organisations.
Note
18. The life experience of children with multiple vulnerabilities
illustrates the limits of support systems fully relying on regular
schools. With schools closed, the services provided within the schools
were restricted or disrupted: the reduction, cessation or change
of specialised support services or inadequate service provision demonstrated
the need to build up services in the context of school closures.
Schools mandated to implement multiple support measures for diverse
student populations were faced with several challenges. There were deficits
in schools’ adaptability to the situation of students suffering
social exclusion and difficulties in monitoring when not attending
school.
19. The disruption of routines affects children with disabilities
more than less vulnerable children, including difficulties with
home-schooling. In children with Down Syndrome in the UK, deterioration
in speech, language, communication, emotional well-being and behaviour
was observed. In low-income countries, children with disabilities
were excluded from basic services such as education and health.
For children with visual impairments or deafness, online educational
provision was not compatible with the assistive technology upon which
they rely in order to learn. Study findings provide clear evidence
that greater pandemic-related stressor exposure was associated with
greater discrimination, which in turn increased the psychologically
distressing aspects of the pandemic for people with disabilities.
20. Covid-19 and other crises, including the war in Ukraine, have
increased the diversity between students. How can teachers manage
these individual learning demands, whilst “differentiated instruction”
(or “personalised education”) remains an unclear concept.
21. The common denominator of recent innovative approaches is
a child-centred, personalised and holistic approach to learning,
with a focus on first ensuring physical and emotional well-being,
addressing the need for safe and stable relationships, and creating
sustainable networks of support that reach beyond schools. These strategies
also proved effective in providing distance learning for children
with disabilities. Personalised education should aim at ensuring
access to instruction, promoting participation as well as nurturing
talents and interests in all children, thereby respecting human
rights, fundamental freedoms, and human diversity. As the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) puts it: there
is a need for a framework for responsiveness and resilience, with
“education actors nurturing resilient mind-sets that value people
and processes over classrooms and devices”.
Note
22. In recent years, there has been a shift away from concerns
about the organisation of teaching to creating personalised learning
environments and learning pathways tailored to individual needs,
abilities, and interests; often involving the use of technology,
adaptive learning software, problem-based approaches to teaching
and collaborative learning. Competency-based curricula support shifting
from content to learning outcomes, from a teaching to a learning
perspective. Yet these innovations seldomly consider the specific
learning situation of children with disabilities while policies
for “inclusive education” are still developed and implemented apart
from such innovations. There were some exceptions, for example already
before the pandemic, there were students with disabilities enrolled
in online schools with very positive outcomes
Note who continued these practices successfully
during Covid-19 school closures.
23. The Covid-19 pandemic exposed gaps in accessibility and equity
in remote learning. Yet, there are actionable steps and resources
available to improve the accessibility of remote learning activities
for students with disabilities. The pandemic also created an opportunity
to reevaluate what schools should look like and which new services
and accommodations might be appropriate that are specific to remote
learning. Four principles of accessibility are important here: perceivable,
operable, understandable, robust.
Note
24. According to UNICEF only 22% of digital learning platforms
contain features to make them accessible to children with disabilities.
Even among the few, the provisions are basic, such as closed captions
for videos. Most are not interactive and therefore do not enable
personalised adaptive learning. The need for quality digital solutions
is due to their inclusiveness, for example by using the principles
of the Universal Design for Learning.
Note A study about barriers and enablers
for teaching with technology in special education
Note identifies primarily structural barriers
(for example decision making around teacher training and technology
resources, structures for student digital literacy training) due
to school-based structures for resource allocation amongst others.
Research calls on key stakeholders to prioritise a holistic approach
to education, empowering teachers, school leaders as well as learners
and caregivers to meet children’s needs where they are in their
learning. Reference is also made to the need for coherency across
policy documents rather than contrasting inclusive education with
“special educational needs and disability”.
4 Inclusive
education for social cohesion in diverse societies
25. In times of crisis, when social
structures collapse, when key resources are no longer available, communication
difficult, and priorities shift, key caregivers are challenged to
protect the rights of children. For many children with disabilities
and their families, such meltdowns are experienced without war,
pandemic or displacement: for some they are an everyday experience.
Insights into effective practices during and after the pandemic
therefore may help to avoid exclusion, discrimination, and disempowerment
of the most vulnerable in the future.
26. Equity in diverse societies starts with addressing micro-inequity
in everyday life such as not hearing the voice of certain people,
allowing interruptions of learning experiences, biases in assessment
or with “forgetting” the needs of children when designing digital
learning environments. As was learnt from school closures, negative
effects on learning and well-being are immediate and hard to reverse.
“Including” children with disabilities in unprepared learning environments
has the same effects. The pandemic has raised awareness of the price
that children pay when they are exposed to inaccessible and fragmented
learning environments, both physical and digital.
27. Quality of education, participation, learning opportunities
and support should be more important than achieving “inclusive education
as physical presence” by sending children with complex needs to
unprepared regular schools or exposing them to digital environments
which are not accessible. The “reality issues” of limited educational
funding, the power of attitudes and the fact that it is not absolutely
clear whether some form of separate schooling is really unnecessary
for certain students raise doubts about the practical validity of
the claim that truly inclusive systems need to abolish specialised
schools. Cohesion in societies should be supported by establishing
linkages between diverse learning spaces used by individuals, whether
online, in regular or special schools or in institutions like hospitals
to create an open learning space for diverse student populations.
28. The experiences during the pandemic indicate that trusted
leaders and positive social norms were critical for adherence to
government recommendations as were social consensus and bipartisan
agreement. The same applies also to education in times of crisis:
keeping in touch with parents and students, acknowledging that learning
can only be supported through close collaboration, proved to be
of critical importance. Clearly, this was not the case for all children.
The Disabled Children’s Partnership initiated the campaign “#LeftInLockdown”
conducting research throughout the pandemic to track the experience
of disabled children and their families, which included a report
entitled “
Then
there was Silence”Note highlighting
how families felt isolated, abandoned and not listened to, how services
stopped or were reduced, how mental health and well-being deteriorated
and children’s conditions worsened.
29. Contrary to the education system, the charity sector demonstrated
agility and flexibility. A report entitled “
Unseen
and Unheard”
Note provides evidence of the detrimental
impact of Covid-19 on children with disabilities from ethnic minority
backgrounds and their families and how they were exposed to even
more stressors and discrimination than other families. All equity
concerns and ideas of inclusive education seemingly broke down in
this time of crisis – when the opposite should have been true.
30. The Council of Europe’s
Digital
Citizenship Education Project addresses the challenges and dangers that come with
being closely connected to digital technology. The report entitled
“
Artificial
Intelligence and Education” highlights the risks attached to “platform colonialism”
or “platformisation” as the domination of the internet by a small
number of large companies increased. “In combination, these digital
platforms represent a fragmentation of the right to education”.
The platformisation of education opens up numerous ethical questions:
Note who
are the authors of learning platforms, who defines the content and
who controls the algorithms that personalise and guide learning
and consequently controls learning pathways?
31. Little is known yet about how the right to education will
be transformed – for the better or worse – through technology-enabled
distance learning. The power concentrated in digital platforms enables
the State to have a direct impact on student learning, which up
to now, was moderated by local culture and teachers’ personal approaches
and personalities. This may have some benefits, but also harbours
many risks. These need to be better understood with regard to the
impact on vulnerable students, especially students with disabilities.
It is questionable if learning pathways managed by algorithms and
educational content used globally will be beneficial for the social
cohesion of school communities.
32. Research evidence points to new opportunities as well as new
barriers that children with disabilities encounter in digital environments.
The effects of remote learning forced by Covid-19 related school
closures were not all negative, some children benefited from teachers
starting to supplement their online instructions with links to videos
that were really helpful to children with special needs. Also, children
had greater control over making decisions about breaks, which improved
their self-regulation. Advantages of online learning for children
also include lack of bullying, peer pressure and social anxiety.
Some innovations developed in response to school closures proved
very effective, such as collaborative emphatic tele-intervention
for children with disabilities or restorative practices. The ability
to self-regulate seems to be an important factor in maintaining
learning beyond the classroom.
5 Capacity
building as a key strategy
33. Inclusion needs to be conceptualised
as something we seek to achieve for ourselves as a community, not
for a small group of marginalised students or problem children.
Diversity protects the democratic foundations of societies, and
democratic communities only thrive through the debate of diverse
opinions. Innovations of teaching and learning emerge where competent
professionals accept the challenges of teaching children with diverse
backgrounds. Why then vehemently oppose special schools, if they
are centres of excellence and able to contribute meaningfully to
the quality of education? Why not learn from the successes and failures
of both, regular and special schools and integrate effective practices
developed during and after the Covid-19 pandemic?
34. Covid-19 forced teachers to seek new ways of reaching their
students, ensuring engagement and positive learning outcomes, including
emotional well-being and the ability to self-regulate learning.
What really made a difference to students was the resourcefulness
of their teachers, commitment and determination, collegial support
and solidarity. Also, the need was identified for special educational
needs coordinators to get out of their theoretical and professional
“bubbles” and build bridges. Co-operation between education leaders was
identified as an important strategy. Teacher collaboration was positively
associated with higher degrees of adaptive teaching and lower losses
in adaptive teaching throughout the pandemic.
35. Collective efficacy of teachers is one of the key factors
in achieving better student outcomes; schools with a high sense
of collective efficacy are also more likely to foster inclusive
practices. In crisis situations, the capacity of schools and teachers
to act creatively, communicate and negotiate effectively, access
available resources and integrate them into meaningful practice
despite severe and limiting constraints is of key importance. Whether
teachers are able to creatively react to constraints, grasp new
opportunities and transition to other modalities of teaching (for
example online, using sign language) is closely linked to teachers’
agency. Teacher agency can be understood as the capacity of teachers
to act upon their ideas and plans to transform current thinking
or practice. Digital competencies are important in overcoming current
emergency situations, but also for future sustainable teaching and
learning practices. Teachers need to be able to manage digital content,
tools, learning and assessment processes – rather than being managed
by digital platforms. Humans are able to imagine an open future
and explore the unrealised potential, talents and interests of their
students, but algorithms cannot.
36. Education systems need not only to invest in (digital) infrastructure,
competencies of teachers and accessible learning materials, but
even more so in the resourcefulness of everyone involved. Schools
and students who are more self-directed in their own teaching and
learning managed better, but disadvantaged schools received less
guidance and could apply fewer practices linked to digital devices.
Clearly, there is a need to support teacher collaboration and use
of digital media to promote adaptive teaching. Also increased practitioner
agency and autonomy is of key importance but was not supported enough.
Confronted with a crisis, people need the ability to analyse unexpected
situations, acquire the flexibility to respond to new challenges as
well as persist in pursuing goals despite the uncertainty of success.
A human-centred approach to teaching and learning strengthens competencies,
but also the sense of autonomy as well as belonging, both in individuals
and communities.
37. Physical, social and digital learning spaces need to be closely
aligned with our vision of inclusion and learning in order to not
only be accessible and adaptable, but also acceptable. Teachers
need to be empowered to effectively use diverse digital technologies
and online resources suited to the needs and interests of students,
identify barriers and find alternative approaches when learning
platforms prove inaccessible or when lacking learning materials
adapted to minimise the impact of functional limitations (for example
seeing, hearing, attention). By now, there are uncountable digital
resources and guidelines available online that cater to the needs
of children with diverse disabilities. But it requires teachers
with a vision of fostering students’ capabilities to become independent
learners and responsible citizens to combine them meaningfully and
maintain a strong relationship.
38. Schools need to become centres of excellence for learning
able to reach all children in their catchment area whether they
are physically present or not. Capacity-building activities should
aim at providing a more meaningful and empowering learning experience
for all, teachers, parents and students. Teachers need to improve
their ability to identify talents, interests and potential not only
in “average” students with similar social and cultural backgrounds
to their own, but also of children with unusual learning biographies
or living in very different life situations. Just like students,
parents, teachers and other professionals also need to be approached
with a growth-mindset, focusing on their specific talents, not their
shortcomings, and with respect for their human rights.
6 The
situation of children with special education needs in Ukraine
39. Children across Ukraine are
currently facing their fifth year of fragmented education; first
Covid-19 forced them out of their classrooms, now Russia’s full-scale
war of aggression is damaging their schools, destroying their homes,
with the learning process constantly interrupted due to alarms,
power cuts and stress. According to UNICEF (2023),
Note 5.3
million children face barriers preventing access to education, including
3.6 million children directly affected by school closures. Moreover,
1.8 million children have left the country, struggling between integration
into host countries’ education systems and continuing their education
in accordance with the Ukrainian curriculum. An additional 2.6 million
children are internally displaced within Ukraine (UNICEF 2022).
Note UNICEF reported widespread learning
loss in August 2023,
Note with “up to 57% of teachers reporting deterioration
in students’ Ukrainian language abilities, up to 45% reporting reduction
in mathematics skills and up to 52% reporting a reduction in foreign
language abilities”.
40. Displacement and trauma are likely to have a long-term effect
on well-being and learning; affected children and their families
are in desperate need of specialist care and support. It can be
anticipated that Ukraine’s education system will need to provide
personalised learning pathways and services to meet the needs of
these children over the coming years.
41. A reform of the education system has been conducted in Ukraine.
The “New Ukrainian School” reform is guided by the core values of
(1) respect for human dignity, (2) democratic freedoms, (3) the
right to self-determination, national identity, social cohesion,
justice integrity and (4) mutual assistance. The reform focuses on
a competency-based approach to learning, both for teachers and students,
on safe learning environments, inclusion and the digitalisation
of education. The nationwide roll-out was initiated in 2017 and
is planned to be completed in 2030. Russia’s war against Ukraine
has not only delayed reform efforts, but has also required changes
to the curriculum to ensure “everyday resilience, civil defence,
addressing the war in instruction and the new position of Ukraine
as a frontier State in the defence of democratic values”.
42. Before the war, Ukraine created the necessary foundations
for a high-quality education for all and developed a system of educational
institutions, research institutes, and institutions for training
specialists. To ensure a positive continuation of these efforts
has been a most difficult task. So far, the country is trying to
cope the best it can and the education of children during the war
continues. Yet according to Save the children, since the start of
the school year in autumn 2023, 1.7 million children in Ukraine
(42%) have limited access to in-person teaching, with about 1 million
students who need to rely solely on remote learning. The resilience
with which Ukraine confronts all these tests is impressive. In Kharkiv,
Ukraine’s first underground school is being built, enabling 900
students to study in safety, in addition to the five metro stations
which have already been converted into schools.
43. In 2020, the platform “All-Ukrainian Online School” was created
as a national e-platform for distance and blended learning for students
in grades 5-11. Osvitoria, a non-governmental organisation, co-operated
with the Ministry of Education and Science in creating the platform
and has since then developed, with the support of UNICEF, methodological
materials on the organisation of distance and blended learning on
the basis of the platform.
44. Limited internet connectivity, lack of access to devices for
online learning and inadequate public support for distance learning
pose challenges, especially in rural areas and for families with
fewer financial opportunities. The continued use of digital technologies
is of special importance during wartime to ensure access to education
through hybrid and/or remote learning. Distance schools provide
free access to education during martial law, a list of schools and
organisations is provided by the Ukrainian Ministry of Education
and Science.
45. For children with SEN in particular, their parents and teachers,
distance learning was and remains extremely challenging due to the
limited availability of websites, digital platforms, e-learning
materials and lack of educational digital content specifically designed
for children with SEN as well as a lack of direct social interaction
with peers and opportunities to participate in projects with others.
The problems of organising distance learning for children with special
needs are caused not only by technical problems, such as lack of high-quality
internet connection, computers and special equipment, but also by
the lack of qualified support from specialists familiar with the
specifics of teaching children with SEN. This leads to the fact
that many children were left without qualified assistance and could
not receive a full education.
46. Establishing and improving inclusive education practices is
an important component of the New Ukrainian School reform. The Ministry
of Education and Science opened a network of inclusive resource centres,
regular schools hired assistance, and additional funding to accommodate
children with disabilities was made available. The reform process
was interrupted by the war, with a shortage of experts and funding.
In some communities, civil society initiatives and non-governmental
organisations stepped in trying to ensure continuity of services,
especially for the most vulnerable.
47. Online learning remains a challenge as one survey showed:
62% of respondents declared a lack of support for a holistic educational
process adapted to e-learning; 90% of children with visual impairments
and blindness and 96% of children with hearing impairments or deafness
face problems with access to information, and 87% emphasised that
almost all children with special needs cannot process information
on their own and are in need of constant help. This raises the issue
of parents having to assume the role of teachers without the relevant
knowledge and training (on methodology and pedagogy).
48. Despite all the difficulties in organising distance learning
for children with SEN, there are initiatives
in Ukraine to improve this situation. For example, the Mykola Yarmachenko
Institute of Special Pedagogy and Psychology of the National Academy
of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine has developed materials to help organise
the training and adaptation of children with SEN during the war
for children with visual impairments, with hearing impairments and
with intellectual disabilities. There
is evidence
Note that in the context of the rapid transition
to distance learning, teachers of special general secondary education
institutions coped much better with this challenge than colleagues
providing educational services in inclusive environments. Children
with special needs and disabilities are especially vulnerable in
the current situation in Ukraine. There is a danger of fragmentation
and discontinuity of education, of child trafficking and irregular
adoptions, especially as the war continues.
49. A significant share of displaced families included at least
one family member with disabilities or a serious medical condition.
Note Four EU+ countries (Belgium,
Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland) reported having received a
number of children with disabilities evacuated from facilities in
Ukraine. Support in the host country was organised by various stakeholders,
including international organisations, civil society organisations
and non-governmental organisations in collaboration with national
authorities. But according to the European Disability Forum (EDF),
Note data is not identifying refugees
with disabilities; leaving them invisible as a result. Under the
conditions of distance learning, it is difficult or impossible to
support children with speech therapy, physical therapy and work
with psychologists, to name just a few support measures needed for
children with disabilities to ensure their readiness to learn. Most
children with disabilities have difficulties adjusting to new routines
and lack the ability to effectively self-regulate.
50. In the event of an emergency situation (pandemic or war),
when there is a need for distance learning, governments should consider
providing a form of paid leave for parents of children with SEN,
since in the absence of support from teachers and assistants for
children with SEN, parents must fill in the gaps and help their
children to continue their education at home.
7 Required
policy actions
7.1 Rethinking
inclusion and quality education for children with special education
needs
51. A rights-based approach to
education implies that every human being should be given the opportunity to
develop competencies needed to enjoy personal freedoms, rights and
responsibilities while fully participating in social life and contributing
to values such as equality, fairness and solidarity. The negative
effects of Covid-19, war and other crises are exacerbating pre-existing
inequalities.
52. Seven years after the Committee on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities adopted General Comment No. 4
Note to define and clarify Article 24
of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, still
no country in the world can claim to have achieved an inclusive
education system. Various experts see recent changes in international
educational policy and provision towards innovative learning environments
as an opportunity for systematic changes in beliefs, values, policies
and practices in inclusive education. Inclusive innovative learning
environments emerge as a result of transformative processes through
the interaction of policy, pedagogy and space. Such learning environments
hold great promise to overcome the current restrictions imposed
by rigid curriculum, pedagogy and assessment strategies, – and one
may add “rigid learning environments”.
53. Why not think across physical and digital spaces to ensure
a coherent learning experience? Why not start with providing inclusive
learning opportunities where children are? Why not learn from effective
practices developed and tested for emergency situations, for children
on the move or learning at home, or in institutions such as hospitals?
Why not implement the lessons learned from Covid-19 to build more
resilient education systems
Note and to enhance learning through the provision
of accessible and meaningful digital learning resources?
54. In order to do justice to the complex life situations of vulnerable
children, education systems and schools need to develop truly inclusive
approaches that primarily promote their abilities, potential, talents
and respect their sense of dignity and identity – as requested by
the CRPD. During the last few years, Covid-19, migration crises
and war have highlighted the limits of today’s conceptualisation
of “inclusive education”, the unresolved dilemmas, unclear definitions
and contradicting practices.
55. Education needs to be available, accessible, acceptable and
adaptable: “Functioning institutions and programmes must be available in
the State, but also physically and economically accessible for all
— without discrimination in law or in fact. Acceptability requires
that its form and substance, including curricula and teaching methods,
are relevant, of high quality and culturally appropriate. Adaptable education
is flexible enough to meet the changing needs of societies, communities
and students”.
Note
56. They key outcome for all students should be that they can
enjoy the rights a democratic society endorses them with. Therefore,
inclusive education should be understood as something that empowers
children and youth to develop their capabilities, rather than being
guided by pathologised ideas of difference and a misguided focus
on technical compliance that is dismissive of lived experience and
emotions.
57. Respecting and ensuring children’s rights is a precondition
to inclusive education, not its outcome. Maybe more important than
prescribing teachers training courses with the hope that they will
become more inclusive practitioners, international organisations
and national policy makers should aim at turning the elusive concept
of “inclusion” into a human rights-based vision of a coherent and
equitable approach to address diversity which puts humans – and
not technology or ideology – at the centre of its attention. Essentially, inclusion
should be understood as a concept just as dynamic and individualised
as the diverse group of people it represents.
58. Learning knows no boundaries. The concept of inclusive education
needs to be expanded beyond the physical classroom into digital
space. Bridges need to be built between existing learning spaces,
whether in regular schools, special schools, in hospitals, at home
or elsewhere (for example refugee centres) to ensure learning without
interruption, by taking a learner-centred approach. Schools should
be conceptualised as centres of excellence able to reach out to
all children, whether physically present or not.
7.2 Council
of Europe member States: general policy actions
59. Member States ought to redefine
“inclusive education” as an evidence-based, transformative process
to ensure resilience, responsiveness, and adaptive capacity of the
education system at every level (national, regional, school, classroom,
individual levels) to prevent future breakdowns of education, whether
they affect individuals, a specific group or all children and youth.
This process would strengthen operational resilience and the resourcefulness
of all stakeholders to ensure meaningful opportunities to learn,
socio-emotional well-being, development of talents, creativity and
a sense of dignity and self-worth. High quality education requires primarily
investments in the resourcefulness and agency of teachers, families
and children, not only in additional resources or personnel. Knowledge
and capacities within special education should be used more broadly
to ensure that all children with SEN receive adequate quality education.
Moreover, improving the capacity of all stakeholders, but especially
of school leaders and teachers, should take priority over establishing separate
support structures.
60. Public authorities should implement the International Classification
of Functioning, Disability and Health in accordance with its philosophical
underpinning of universality, describing situations rather than
people, structuring information in a meaningful and interrelated
way. ICF should be used as a human rights tool, rather than to promote
a medical model of disability. An interactive and situational understanding
can prevent disabilities from being characterised as problematic
and the labelling of children and their families. This approach
should focus on the improvement of all learning environments.
61. Inclusive education cannot be achieved by structural reforms
alone, targeting pre-identified groups of children. Ministries of
Education, non-governmental organisations and international organisations
need to ensure that their various support measures, programmes,
projects, and initiatives create coherent, high quality and inclusive
learning opportunities for all children, especially vulnerable children.
The quality of all learning spaces should be a priority, as well
as ensuring smooth transitions between support structures (for example
in regular schools and special schools) and modes of instruction
(for example onsite and distant instruction, traditional and digital
learning).
62. Programmes that take a personalised approach towards learning
loss and learning recovery should be developed, rather than relying
on algorithms embedded in digital platforms or normative assumptions
on what needs to be learned first. Initiatives towards digitalisation
of education should be in line with the principles of the Council
of Europe’s Digital Citizenship Education Project. These programmes
should take the most vulnerable children into account without infringing
on their rights.
7.3 Ukraine
63. Due to the pandemic, and now
due to the war, most children in Ukraine are experiencing an unprecedented
disruption of their education, with devastating effects, especially
on the most vulnerable. The Government of Ukraine, together with
its non-governmental and international partners, needs to do everything in
their power to create meaningful and safe learning opportunities
wherever children are, respecting their human rights and dignity.
Supported by expertise from within Ukraine and abroad, the priority
now should be to ensure consistency, a person-centred approach,
and flexible support systems that make use of all quality learning
spaces, whether in special schools, regular schools, or in the digital
space. This may include financial support for parents of children
with disabilities restricted to remote learning in the absence of
teachers or other available support.
64. When implementing education reforms, the authorities in Ukraine
must take action to prevent unjustified measures that lead to violations
of children’s rights to education and their safety. They must prevent
closures of special schools and structural divisions of preschool
education that would limit the access to education of children with
SEN. The Government of Ukraine should instead develop a broader
understanding of the concept of “inclusive education” and establish
the right of parents of children with SEN to independently choose
the most appropriate solution in accordance with the needs of their
child and according to the institution’s ability to provide children
with SEN with quality education in a safe environment. The war has
led to an increase in the number of families forced to live in unstable
conditions, which makes it difficult for children with SEN to receive quality
education. It would therefore be important to strengthen the capacity
of the education system to provide high-quality education in its
various forms to all children, and in particular, children with
disabilities who are most vulnerable.
65. It is necessary to provide adequate funding for special schools
and other structural subdivisions, where children with SEN study,
as well as to ensure necessary training for relevant specialists.
Continuity in education and the welfare of children must be prioritised
over structural reforms to avoid learning fragmentation and to prevent
further trauma. Moreover, it is important to build adequate safe
shelters in all educational institutions in Ukraine and particularly
in institutions of special education. During the construction of
such shelters, it is necessary to take into account the physical
characteristics of children who require special technical means
and the conditions of stay in the shelter.
7.4 Council
of Europe
66. The experiences of Ukraine
and Ukrainian children in host countries could be valuable for Council
of Europe policies and guidelines, especially in the area of inclusive
education, digital transformation and democratic citizenship, to
support member States in building more resilient and responsive
education systems.
67. An evidence-based rather than ideologically driven implementation
of inclusive education should be promoted in member States based
on the principles of good governance, respect for human rights,
democratic values and social cohesion. Governments should not only
set standards for their curricula, teacher competencies, service
provision and eligibility criteria, but also for responsiveness
to diverse learner situations and flexibility to accommodate learning
across physical and digital spaces.
68. The Council of Europe could assist governments and international
partners in identifying weaknesses and gaps in the provision of
services by supporting research into the facilitators and barriers
encountered by Ukrainian children with disabilities or special needs
and their families in their host countries. This includes a critical
appreciation of the effectiveness and adequateness of the systems’
response to crises and emergencies. This information will be critical
to improve services for children with disabilities and special needs.
69. A co-ordinated improvement of accessibility, adaptability,
acceptability of digital resources and platforms should be promoted
as well as increased transparency regarding underpinning algorithms
and premises guiding the learning process, to ensure these platforms
do not exclude or discriminate untypical learners, minority groups
and users with functional limitations.
