Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Holds Follow-Up Dialogue on Inquiry Report of Spain
The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities today held a follow-up dialogue on the inquiry report of Spain with representatives of organizations of persons with disabilities, of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism in Spain (CERMI), and of the State party.
In the discussion with organizations of persons with disabilities, speakers said the situation in Spain was worse than at the time of the Committee’s visit in 2017. There had been significant backsliding, which could be seen in the alarming increase of children attending special schools. Segregation had almost doubled and there had been a 180 per cent increase in segregated classrooms. There was an impasse, and malpractice was being endorsed. If these children managed to complete secondary education, their certificates were often not issued. The pupils were being marginalised. Speakers expressed concern about the systematic violation of the rights of these children.
Gregorio Saravia, representing the Independent Monitoring Mechanism in Spain (CERMI), said in Spain, inclusive education was not a reality. Although the Convention came into force over 16 years ago, it had not been fully implemented. Children with disabilities were segregated in inclusive education. There was a lack of support and resources, including a lack of teaching support in mainstream classes. This was a critical issue. Spanish law made it an obligation for inclusive education to become a reality within 10 years. The plan needed to be adopted following a dialogue with all stakeholders in the education system. There needed to be greater investment in education in transforming schools to provide an equal response to all pupils.
Speakers for the State party said, among other things, that the Committee’s recommendations had guided the Spanish laws designing public policy implemented in recent years, and allowed them to comply with treaty obligations. Today, there had been a transformation of the Spanish education system. In 2017, 20 per cent of children attended special education centres. In 2021, this figure had fallen to 16 per cent. It was not true that Spain had moved backwards; in fact, the State was one of the leading European countries when it came to fostering the diversity of pupils in mainstream schools. The educational equality law had additional measures to promote diversity and prevent segregation. Almost 84 per cent of pupils with disabilities were in mainstream schools, which was improvement from 2017. Spain was committed to inclusive education and had taken the recommendations of the Committee very seriously.
The following speakers spoke on behalf of organizations of persons with disabilities: Nuria Apraricio and Carmen Ocaña.
The following representatives of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism in Spain (CERMI) spoke: Gregorio Saravia and Isobel Perogil.
The delegation of Spain consisted of representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation; the Ministry of the Presidency, Justice and Relations with the Courts; the Ministry of Social Rights, Consumer Affairs and the 2030 Agenda; and the Permanent Mission of Spain to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here. The programme of work of the Committee’s thirtieth session and other documents related to the session can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. this afternoon, Monday, 18 March, for a follow-up dialogue on the inquiry report of the United Kingdom.
Opening Remarks by Committee Chairperson
GERTRUDE OFORIWA FEFOAME, Committee Chairperson, said the Committee would hold a follow-up dialogue on the inquiry report of Spain.
Statements by Representatives of Organizations of Persons with Disabilities
In the discussion, speakers said the situation in Spain was worse than at the time of the Committee’s visit in 2017. There had been significant backsliding, which could be seen in the alarming increase of children attending special schools. Segregation had almost doubled and there had been a 180 per cent increase in segregated classrooms. There was an impasse, and malpractice was being endorsed. The exception of special schools had not been repealed. From an early age, children were taken to education centres. Children who managed to stay in mainstream schools faced bullying and rejection. There should be protocols in place to protect these pupils. Children with disabilities were kept away from normal classrooms and did not share the same curricula. If these children managed to complete secondary education, their certificates were often not issued. The pupils were being marginalised. Speakers expressed concern about the systematic violation of the rights of these children.
Thirteen years on from the royal decree setting standards in accessibility, there had been some progress in architecture but not in materials or exams, or digital accessibility. This situation was worse in rural areas where students needed to travel up to 100km to a centre to receive support. There was no government policy investing in inclusion in Spain. The State had not responded to any of the requests made by the Committee; the commitment to change was only on paper, and no political measures had been made to ensure this change. Certain degrees were progressive but they all continued to leave the door open for special education centres in special schools.
Support for special education continued and no one knew what the transition would be. Courts handed down their rulings without considering the Committee’s jurisprudence. It was vital that the findings of the Committee were binding. There needed to be closer monitoring of the Spanish State. Parents of children with disabilities provided overviews of the dire situation on inclusive education in Spain, and asked for real education for their children. There had been traumatic incidents, including where children had been placed in handcuffs and thought only of suicide.
Comments and Questions by Committee Experts
AMALIA GAMIO, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, said the 2018 recommendations from the Committee had not been followed. The medical model was still in place, which was shocking. How was it possible that the required individualised environments were not provided? It was very concerning that the law 3220 continued to mention that there were still special education centres. Were there plans to establish an educational plan that went with the new law 220 on education? Were there stances being taken by civil society against regular inclusive education? What was being done to raise awareness among civil society?
ROSA IDALIA ALDANA, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, thanked the civil society organizations that had contributed to the report. There were numerous concerns, including the students who did not receive degrees. Was there data on how many students with disabilities had reached higher education? Was there an intention to modify the article in the Constitution to allow parents to choose education for their children? Was there a possibility to incorporate Spanish sign language into educational centres?
A Committee Expert said Spain had been on a positive trajectory for inclusive education, but there had been a backslide. What had happened in the classrooms in the past 10 years which had contributed to this turn around? Or was it due to a fundamental political shift in thinking?
Another Expert asked what was being done to implement inclusive education in the country?
A Committee Expert asked what happened to the students who did not receive their education certificate? What options did they have when they finished their studies?
An Expert asked if persons with disabilities were not recognised by the education system?
Another Expert said education was a pillar in the lives of everyone. Spain had been distinguished in education but now there had been a regression. What was the reason for these shortcomings?
Responses by Representatives of Organizations of Persons Disabilities
In response to questions, speakers said it was frustrating that there was no plan or budget to support inclusive education. There was no effort to bring transformational or structural change. The Government had announced a budget of 500 million euros to strengthen the areas of math and language and extracurricular classes. In the decade following the adoption of the Convention, it seemed that the Spanish State did not commit to eliminating segregated schools. There had been 872 classrooms which were newly created for special education, which marked an increase of 180 per cent.
What was most worrisome about the situation of students not receiving diplomas was that they would never be able to use the skills they had been taught. Sign language was not being implemented in schools. Students were using other systems and schools were banning them. There was a lack of will to allocate the resources necessary for sign language in the majority of cases. There was no clear understanding of what inclusion was in schools. The right conditions needed to be created.
Statements from the Independent Monitoring Mechanism in Spain (CERMI)
GREGORIO SARAVIA, Independent Monitoring Mechanism in Spain (CERMI), said in Spain, inclusive education was not a reality. Educational segregation of persons with disabilities had not been eradicated. This was a problem for families who were forced into special education through a lack of support in mainstream schools. Although the Convention came into force over 16 years ago, it had not been fully implemented. Children with disabilities were segregated in inclusive education. In some regions there was no political will to take up the Convention and its mandate. Educational authorities continued to segregate pupils with disabilities. There was a lack of support and resources, including a lack of teaching support in mainstream classes. This was a critical issue. There were structural patterns of exclusion of children with disabilities in mainstream schools which were not compatible with the Convention. Reasonable accommodation should be provided and persons with disabilities should be able to attend primary and secondary schools in their own communities. A human rights-based approach was one of the fundamental advances made by the Convention. Inclusive education must not be put off and postponed. This was a human rights issue and was part of democracy.
Spanish law made it an obligation for inclusive education to become a reality within 10 years. The plan needed to be adopted following a dialogue with all stakeholders in the education system. In a case which went through to the Supreme Court, the Committee’s views had been recognised as binding, even though they had been contrary to those of parliament. The Independent Monitoring Mechanism in Spain wanted to cooperate with educational authorities on all aspects of defending the rights of persons with disabilities. This process should be led by the authorities and based on dialogue and tranquillity. Actions should be preventative and not remedial. There needed to be greater investment in education in transforming schools to provide an equal response to all pupils. Inclusive education meant all students could improve their learning according to their own capabilities. Too often, the vocational model was used without addressing the needs of functionality of diverse students. There needed to be a holistic education model which was participatory and which ensured the wellbeing of all staff and pupils.
ISOBEL PEROGIL, Independent Monitoring Mechanism in Spain (CERMI), said she had a nine-year-old daughter who had a high level of support needs and used a wheelchair. Her daughter had mobility needs, including technical devices, and required full-time educational support. She had faced numerous barriers in her schooling, including at the creche when she was under one year old. In seven years of schooling, her rights had been consistently denied. Her daughter had a right to be educated as any other child, in the mainstream school in her town, not to travel 25 kilometres away to a special education centre. No one had found an answer to this issue, and special education centres were seen as the easy option. There was no obligation for Spanish authorities to oblige with the Convention; if there were no consequences or penalties, nothing would happen.
Comments and Questions by Committee Experts
AMALIA GAMIO, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, said there were two different camps in Spain; one backing special education and another for inclusive education. Was this a correct assumption? What happened with all the reports from civil society about the schooling of children with disabilities? Did the existence of complaints to the Independent Monitoring Mechanism in Spain influence authorities? What was the Mechanism doing to raise awareness? What were they doing to ensure that special education was not just accepted? Could the Independent Monitoring Mechanism in Spain introduce a suggested reform for the legislation in autonomous communities?
ROSA IDALIA ALDANA, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, asked if more information could be provided about the families fighting for special education? Had authorities provided necessary adaptations for pupils? Could students with disabilities apply to benefit from Spain’s personal assistant service? Could this service be used directly in schools? What had the Independent Monitoring Mechanism in Spain done regarding the cases of the inauguration of three special education centres in Madrid?
A Committee Expert asked if there were any positive views on the part of the Government regarding any reports they received?
Another Expert said families and organizations of persons with disabilities needed reinforcement. It was necessary for the Independent Monitoring Mechanism in Spain to hold a discussion on how they could assist in the various regions in the sensitisation on the right to inclusive education.
Responses from the Independent Monitoring Mechanism in Spain
GREGORIO SARAVIA, Independent Monitoring Mechanism in Spain (CERMI), said it was true that not all of society was in agreement. There was a sector which was not the majority, but which had politically lobbied to bring visibility to the fact that some families had chosen special education. There was a sector of parents who had chosen special education, but they had done this because they were exhausted, having seen that in normal education there was no personalised accommodation, especially for those with more intense needs. Since 2008, the Independent Monitoring Mechanism had been drafting an annual report on persons with disabilities. The concept of personal assistant services had only been developed in certain areas of Spain. The Mechanism was an umbrella organization, representing numerous types of disabilities, working to send a unified message. Together, all organizations could work to obtain objectives. Non-governmental organizations needed support. A transformation needed to be achieved by everyone, together.
Mr. Saravia said the Independent Monitoring Mechanism in Spain worked intensely, conceiving information through social media. The organization understood they needed to improve their communication. It was not easy to gain followers in social media, which would increase impact. The organization was using the technology which was available. The aim was to increase the relevance of the Convention in Spain, not just in New York or Geneva. Ideally, the whole of Spain would understand their part in the educational system. The Independent Monitoring Mechanism in Spain wished to issue a sustained and public criticism of the autonomous law of Madrid. This was a terrible law which had left the organization completely surprised. The Committee’s criticism and claims had not been heard. It would continue to support the Convention.
Statements by Representatives of the State party
Speakers, among other things, said the Committee’s recommendations had guided the Spanish laws designing public policy implemented in recent years and allowed them to comply with treaty obligations. Speakers emphasised the importance that foreign policy attached to meeting obligations under the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs had created the position of Ambassador with a special mission for persons with disabilities to contribute to the effective implementation of the Convention. States parties had an obligation to ensure the right to education for persons with disabilities in an inclusive system at all levels, from nursery school to higher education. It was also important to change discriminatory attitudes and systems to create inclusive societies which respected and valued the dignity of all.
Today, there had been a transformation of the Spanish education system. In 2017, there were 466 special education centres and over 23,000 mainstream schools. There were 219,000 pupils with special needs spread across those two kinds of schools. In 2017, 20 per cent of children attended special education centres. In 2021, this figure had fallen to 16 per cent. Segregation was only used as an exceptional measure. It was not true that Spain had moved backwards; in fact, the State was one of the leading European countries when it came to fostering the diversity of pupils in mainstream schools. The educational equality law had additional measures to promote diversity and prevent segregation. School curricula had also been reformed. Spain was committed to inclusive education and had taken the recommendations of the Committee very seriously.
An entity had been created to promote the inclusion of persons with disabilities in 2021. Spain sent in transparent data to the European Statistics Centre on persons with disabilities, and the country was above average when it came to inclusive education. Some 83.7 per cent of pupils with disabilities were in mainstream schools, which was improvement from 2017. Spain had also increased the budget in education. Family guidance units had been created for vulnerable pupils. The units recruited specialised staff, including speech therapists and educational psychologists. An investment had been made in education with the issuance of scholarships. Spain was committed to this process. A comprehensive law had been adopted on violence against children, which included mechanisms, safeguards and guarantees when it came to co-existence in schools.
Three key documents had led to a series of educational reforms. Spain was familiar with the situation of all classrooms of the region. The organic law of 2016 stipulated that students with special educational needs should be included in mainstream schooling. It was vital that there was a digital transformation. Education authorities needed to provide the necessary support to special education centres. Curricula had previously been a barrier; however, the new curriculum was flexible and dynamic.
Comments and Questions by Committee Experts
AMALIA GAMIO, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, said the inquiries were aimed at ensuring the State party made improvements. The State was commended for the reform of article 49. Why was Spain still speaking on students with special needs? This was not Convention language. Spain had transferred the authority to the autonomous communities when it came to some matters such as education. While seeking the rights to inclusive education, did the autonomous communities protect special education, such as seen in the law on educational freedom in Madrid? What would be done to turn around trends which were part of the medical model of education for students with disabilities? There was no clear definition of the best interest of the child in inclusive education.
ROSA IDALIA ALDANA, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur, asked if the Spanish State had done enough to increase the support and resources to inclusive education? What was the State doing to turn around the situation of the three special education centres being built in Madrid? Were the autonomous community administrations effectively offering sign language interpretation? Did the guidance services address the need for reasonable accommodation for students when it came to transportation and other accessibility issues? Had the State undertaken a deep review of the teaching programmes for inclusive education? What was the State doing to provide a more accelerated response to the parents of children with disabilities? What measures would be adopted against cases of school harassment of children with disabilities?
A Committee Expert said inclusive education was fundamental to the Convention. The increase in the number of special education centres was the wrong direction. Would the State be prepared to establish a social contract on inclusive education?
Responses by Representatives of the State party
In response to the questions, the delegation said there were some issues which went beyond disability and had to do with ethnicity. Spain had an administrative procedure for the recognition of a disability, but there were issues that were not picked up during this procedure. Terminology had to reflect this. In the area of disability, there was always more which needed to be done. Spain did have the will, the commitment and the resources to ensure the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities. All of the autonomous communities allocated resources to having sign interpreters in their educational institutions. A royal decree had been adopted on sign language. A social contract was being implemented for inclusive education.
A territorial cooperation programme had been launched for inclusive education, to allow all-inclusive education centres to be references for resources and information. Graduation was adapted for all students with special education needs. The curricula were being reviewed, with the idea to move towards complete inclusion. It was hoped that this would be fully launched at the beginning of 2025. The centres were not a matter of perpetuating a model of specialised education. The existing educational systems supported the Government and the mindset of moving towards a truly inclusive system.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CRPD24.009E