Amparo on educational inclusion of minor with Down SyndromeAmparo sobre inclusión educativa de menor con Síndrome de Down

I.- PURPOSE OF THE ACTION. The claimants allege that the authorities of the Andrés Bello Educational Center have decided to place the protected person, who suffers from Down Syndrome, into an integrated classroom (aula integrada), despite the fact that both the academic and professional recommendation, as well as what has been authorized by the Ministry of Public Education in that regard, is that the minor should instead be in a regular classroom (aula regular), sharing with children without disabilities. In addition to this, they indicate that the respondents do not provide her in the regular classroom with the individualized attention the girl requires to develop her potential.

IV.- ON THE ENJOYMENT OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES. The Law of Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities aims as its fundamental objective to achieve the necessary conditions so that these persons may attain their full social participation. Precisely because of its foundation, the enjoyment of equal opportunities for access and participation in identical circumstances ceases to be a mere aspiration for the disabled and becomes a fundamental right. To guarantee the exercise of their rights and duties, the Law and its Regulations require the Public Administrations and the subjects of private law that provide public services to provide the disabled with the required support services and technical aids. Within this order of ideas, the breach of the public interest that the law enshrines implies a flagrant violation of the fundamental rights of that social group.

V.- ON ACCESS TO EDUCATION FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. Specifically in the educational field, Article 78 of the Political Constitution states that "General basic education is compulsory; this, together with preschool and diversified education, are free and funded by the Nation." The Costa Rican State has enacted legislation that guarantees the timely access of persons to education, regardless of their physical or mental disability, from early stimulation (estimulación temprana) through to higher education, including both public and private education in all modalities of the National Educational System. Such legislation obviously also includes minors who present such a disability. From the foregoing, the real and concrete possibility is deduced that all minors, who may present such disabilities, as future citizens, have the right to access education with equal opportunities compared to other minors who do not present that special condition.

VI.- ON THE MERITS. In the present action, the claimants alleged that the educational authorities of the Andrés Bello Educational Center decided to place the protected person, who suffers from Down Syndrome, into an integrated classroom (aula integrada), despite the fact that both the academic and professional recommendation, as well as what has been authorized by the Ministry of Public Education in that regard, is that the minor should instead be in a regular classroom (aula regular), sharing with children without disabilities, and also that the respondents do not provide her in the regular classroom with the individualized attention the girl requires to develop her potential. From the case file (autos) and the reports rendered under oath by the respondent authorities, the harm alleged by the claimants cannot be considered as proven. This is so because it was established that from the first day the protected minor entered the respondent Institution, she was placed in a regular classroom (aula regular) under the charge of Professor Alejandra López Sequeira, where the aim is to develop the potential of the protected person, and that of all her classmates (report folio 29), a situation which has not changed. As for what was stated by the claimants regarding the integrated classroom (aula integrada), it is seen from the case file and the report that this is only one of the possibilities used in teaching centers to work with children with disabilities, which in the case of the protected person, as has been established, has not been implemented as alleged. On the other hand, it is also corroborated from the case file that a significant curricular accommodation (adecuación curricular significativa) was applied to the protected minor, which has been necessary and adequate for her particular needs, based on technical pedagogical criteria created by professionals of the Ministry of Public Education, and transmitted to that teaching center through directives generated to be applied to children with special needs (report folio 30 and folio 43 front and back), without it having been observed in the file that actions were taken that harmed the minor's educational process, since, as stated in the report, if there were adaptations in the student's study programs, these are due to the requirement of attending to the specific and special needs of the minor. Likewise, consistently with the attention provided to the protected person, it was indicated that the respondent institution has the Fixed Support in Mental Retardation service (Apoyo Fijo en Retardo Mental), which is the permanence of the teacher in a single institution, with a population of 12 students who have equality of rights and opportunities to receive this service in the best manner (report folios 31 and 32), and that the minor is being provided with all the required services in accordance with the lessons that correspond to her, and the rest of the time Professor Alejandra López attends to her with techniques and methodologies specific to her initial first-grade level (preparation for learning, apresto), based on the documents received from the educational centers where she previously studied and in accordance with the pedagogical diagnosis (diagnóstico pedagógico) performed when she entered that educational center (report folio 36). Similarly, and always related to the attention provided to the protected person, it was established in the file that, although a violation of the minor's rights cannot be corroborated, since, as indicated thus far, the authorities have sought the most adequate attention with the institution's professionals and with the resources available for that purpose, the respondent educational authorities, from before the filing of the action, proceeded to take measures so that the conditions under which the minor is attended would be more favorable; thus, the Director of the teaching center processed before the Budget Programming Department (Departamento de Programación Presupuestaria) of the Ministry of Public Education the request to open a new basic general education code, on April 10 of the current year (report folios 32, 33, and folio 42). In addition to the foregoing, it has likewise been indicated that regarding the attention provided to the minor, related to feeding, safety, taking her to the bathroom, receiving her, and handing her over to the person in charge, among other things, all of this has been carried out uninterruptedly from the day of entry to the institution, and in no way have those services been denied (report folio 36), it being noted that the teaching center also covers the particular needs of the minor resulting from her special condition. To all the foregoing, it must be added that in relation to her parents and their participation in their daughter's schooling process, it was accredited that on May 2, 2007, they were summoned to a meeting with the professionals of that educational center who attend the protected person, to deliver various documents to them, such as the annual program containing the contents, strategies, methodologies, and other procedures being applied to the student, the monthly performance report for the month of March, the exam schedule, extra-class work, a document clarifying all the information required by the parents, and suggestions to support the teaching and learning process; however, they did not appear and communicated by telephone to indicate that they could not attend on that date, but only on May 3, 2007, their request being granted (report folio 37 and folio 130 and 131). By virtue of all the foregoing, the alleged violations of the protected person's rights are not noted, since it has not been demonstrated that there is a violation of her enjoyment of equal opportunities for access and participation in her educational process, and therefore the action must be dismissed, as is hereby ordered…” **“…I.- PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL.** The appellants allege that the authorities of the Andrés Bello Educational Center have decided to place the protected party, who suffers from Down Syndrome, in an integrated classroom, despite the fact that both the academic and professional recommendation, as well as what was authorized by the Ministerio de Educación Pública in that regard, is that the minor should instead be in a regular classroom, sharing with children without disabilities. In addition, they indicate that the respondents do not provide her, in the regular classroom, the individualized attention that the girl requires to develop her potential.

**IV.- REGARDING THE ENJOYMENT OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES.** The Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities Act (Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades para las Personas con Discapacidad) has as its fundamental objective the achievement of the necessary conditions for these persons to attain full social participation. Precisely because of its foundation, the enjoyment of equal opportunities for access and participation under identical circumstances ceases to be a simple aspiration for persons with disabilities and becomes a fundamental right. To guarantee the exercise of their rights and duties, the Act and its Regulations require Public Administrations and private-law subjects that provide public services to provide persons with disabilities with the required support services and technical aids. Within this framework, non-compliance with the public interest enshrined in the law implies a flagrant violation of the fundamental rights of that social group.

**V.- REGARDING ACCESS TO EDUCATION FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES.** Specifically in the educational field, Article 78 of the Constitución Política states that "General basic education is compulsory; this, preschool, and diversified education are free and funded by the Nation." The Costa Rican State has enacted legislation guaranteeing persons timely access to education, regardless of their physical or mental disability (discapacidad), from early stimulation through higher education, including both public and private education in all modalities of the National Educational System. Such legislation obviously also includes minors who present said disability. From the foregoing, the real and concrete possibility is deduced for all minors who may present such disabilities, as future citizens, to have the right to access education, with equality of opportunities (igualdad de oportunidades) with respect to other minors who do not present that special condition.

**VI.- ON THE MERITS.** In the present appeal (recurso), the appellants alleged that the educational authorities of the Andrés Bello Educational Center decided to place the protected party (amparada), who suffers from Down Syndrome, in an integrated classroom, despite the fact that both the academic and professional recommendation, as well as what was authorized by the Ministerio de Educación Pública in that regard, is that the minor should instead be in a regular classroom, sharing with children without disabilities; furthermore, that the respondents do not provide her, in the regular classroom, the individualized attention that the girl requires to develop her potential. From the case record (autos) and the reports rendered under oath by the respondent authorities, the harm indicated by the appellants cannot be taken as proven. This is so because it was established that from the first day of admission of the protected minor to the respondent Institution, she was placed in a regular classroom under the charge of Teacher Alejandra López Sequeira, where the aim is to develop the potential of the protected party and that of all her classmates (report on folio 29), a situation that has not changed. As for what was stated by the appellants regarding the integrated classroom, it is seen from the record and the report that this is only one possibility among those used in educational centers to work with children with disabilities, which in the case of the protected party, as has been established, was not implemented as alleged. On the other hand, it is also corroborated from the record that a significant curricular adaptation (adecuación curricular significativa) was applied to the protected minor, which has been the necessary and appropriate one for her particular needs, based on technical pedagogical criteria created by professionals of the Ministerio de Educación Pública, and transmitted to that educational center through directives generated to be applied to children with special needs (report on folio 30 and folio 43 front and back), without it having been observed in the case file (expediente) that actions had been taken that would harm the minor's educational process, since, as stated in the report, if there were adaptations in the student's study programs, these responded to the requirement of attending to the specific and special needs of the minor. Likewise, consistent with the attention given to the protected party, it was indicated that the respondent institution has the Fixed Support in Mental Retardation (Apoyo Fijo en Retardo Mental) service, which entails the teacher's permanence in a single institution, with a population of 12 students who have equal rights and opportunities to receive this service in the best manner (report on folios 31 and 32), and that the minor is being provided with all the required services in accordance with the lessons allocated to her, and the rest of the time she is attended by Teacher Alejandra López with techniques and methodologies specific to her initial first-grade level (pre-reading/writing readiness, apresto), this based on documents received from the educational centers where she previously studied and in accordance with the pedagogical diagnosis performed when she entered that educational center (report on folio 36). Similarly, and always related to the attention provided to the protected party, it was established in the case file (expediente) that although a violation of the minor's rights cannot be corroborated, since, as has been indicated until now, the authorities have sought the most appropriate attention with the institution's professionals and with the resources available for this, the respondent educational authorities, even before the filing of the appeal (recurso), took measures so that the conditions under which the minor is attended would be more favorable; thus, the Director of the educational center processed before the Budgetary Programming Department of the Ministerio de Educación Pública the request for the opening of a new general Basic education code (código de enseñanza general Básica), this on April 10 of the current year (report on folios 32, 33, and folio 42). In addition to the foregoing, it has likewise been indicated that regarding the attention provided to the minor, relating to food, safety, taking her to the bathroom, receiving her, and handing her over to the person responsible, among others, all of this has been carried out uninterruptedly since the day of admission to the institution, and in no way have those facilities been denied to her (report on folio 36), and it is confirmed that the educational center also covers the minor's particular needs resulting from her special condition. To all of the foregoing, it must be added that in relation to her parents and their participation in their daughter's schooling process, it was proven that on May 2, 2007, they were summoned to a meeting with the professionals of that educational center who attend to the protected party, to deliver to them various documents, such as the annual program containing the contents, strategies, methodologies, and other procedures being applied to the student, a monthly performance report for March, an exam schedule, extra-class assignments, a document clarifying all information required by the parents, and suggestions to support the teaching and learning process; however, they did not attend and communicated by telephone to indicate that they could not appear on that date, but rather until May 3, 2007, and their request was granted (report on folio 37 and folio 130 and 131). By virtue of all the foregoing, the alleged violations of the rights of the protected party (amparada) are not confirmed, since it has not been demonstrated that there exists a violation of her enjoyment of equal opportunities for access and participation in her educational process; therefore, it is appropriate to dismiss the appeal (recurso), as is hereby ordered…”

“…I.- OBJETO DEL RECURSO. Alegan los recurrentes que las autoridades del Centro Educativo Andrés Bello han decidido incorporar a la amparada que sufre de Síndrome de Down a un aula integrada, a pesar de que tanto la recomendación académica y profesional, como lo autorizado por el Ministerio de Educación Pública a ese respecto, es que la menor más bien esté en un aula regular, compartiendo con niños sin discapacidad. Aunado a ello, indican que los accionados no le suministran en el aula regular la atención individualizada que la niña requiere para desarrollar sus potencialidades.

IV.- SOBRE EL DISFRUTE DE IGUALES OPORTUNIDADES. La Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades para las Personas con Discapacidad, pretende como objetivo fundamental que se logren las condiciones necesarias para que estas personas alcancen su plena participación social. Precisamente, por su fundamento es que el disfrute de iguales oportunidades de acceso y participación en idénticas circunstancias deja de ser para los discapacitados una simple aspiración y se convierte en un derecho fundamental. Para garantizar el ejercicio de sus derechos y deberes, la Ley y su Reglamento imponen a las Administraciones Públicas y a los sujetos de derecho privado que brindan servicios públicos proveer a los discapacitados de los servicios de apoyo y las ayudas técnicas requeridas. Dentro de este orden de ideas, el incumplimiento del interés público que la ley consagra, implica una violación flagrante de los derechos fundamentales de ese grupo social.

V.- DEL ACCESO A LA EDUCACIÓN DE PERSONAS CON DISCAPACIDAD. Específicamente en el campo educativo, el artículo 78 de la Constitución Política señala que "La educación general básica es obligatoria, ésta, la preescolar y la educación diversificada son gratuitas y costeadas por la Nación." El Estado costarricense ha promulgado una legislación que garantiza el acceso oportuno de las personas a la educación, independientemente de su discapacidad física o psíquica, desde la estimulación temprana hasta la educación superior, incluyendo tanto la educación pública como la privada en todas las modalidades del Sistema Educativo Nacional. Tal legislación, incluye obviamente también a los menores que presenten dicha discapacidad. De lo anterior, se deduce, la posibilidad real y concreta de todos los menores de edad, que puedan presentar tales discapacidades, como futuros ciudadanos, de tener el derecho de acceder a la educación, en igualdad de oportunidades respecto a otros menores de edad que no presentan esa condición especial.

VI.- SOBRE EL FONDO. En el presente recurso los accionantes alegaron que las autoridades educativas del Centro Educativo Andrés Bello decidieron incorporar a la amparada que sufre de Síndrome de Down a un aula integrada, a pesar de que tanto la recomendación académica y profesional, como lo autorizado por el Ministerio de Educación Pública a ese respecto, es que la menor más bien esté en un aula regular, compartiendo con niños sin discapacidad, además que los accionados no le suministran en el aula regular la atención individualizada que la niña requiere para desarrollar sus potencialidades. De los autos y de los informes rendidos bajo juramento por las autoridades recurridas, no se puede tener por acreditado el perjuicio que señalan los recurrentes. Ello es así, pues se estableció que desde el primer día de ingreso de la menor amparada a la Institución recurrida se le ubicó en un aula regular a cargo de la Profesora Alejandra López Sequeira, donde se busca desarrollar las potencialidades de la amparada, y las de todos sus compañeros de clase (informe folio 29), situación que no ha variado. En cuanto a lo manifestado por los recurrentes sobre el aula integrada, se ve de los autos y del informe que ello es solo una posibilidad de las que se utilizan en los centros de enseñanza para trabajar con niños con discapacidad, que en el caso de la amparada como se ha establecido, no se ha implementado como se alegó. Por otra parte, también se corrobora de los autos que a la menor amparada se le aplicó una adecuación curricular significativa, que ha sido la necesaria y adecuada para sus necesidades particulares, basándose en criterios técnicos pedagógicos, creados por profesionales del Ministerio de Educación Pública, y trasmitidas a ese centro de enseñanza por medio de directrices generadas para ser aplicadas a los niños con necesidades especiales (informe folio 30 y folio 43 fte. y vlto.), sin que se haya observado en el expediente que se hubiesen tomado acciones que perjudicaran el proceso educativo de la menor, pues como fuera manifestado en el informe, si existieron adaptaciones en los programas de estudio de la estudiante, estos obedecen a la exigencia de atender las necesidades específicas y especiales de la menor. Asimismo, consecuentemente con la atención de la amparada, se indicó que la institución recurrida cuenta para el servicio de Apoyo Fijo en Retardo Mental, que es la permanencia del docente en una sola institución, con una población de 12 estudiantes los cuales tienen igualdad de derechos y oportunidades a recibir este servicio de la mejor manera (informe folios 31 y 32), y que a la menor se le está brindando todos los servicios requeridos de acuerdo con las lecciones que le corresponden y el resto del tiempo la atiende la profesora Alejandra López con técnicas y metodologías propias a su nivel de primer grado inicial (apresto), ello con base en los documentos recibidos de los centros educativos donde estudió con anterioridad y de acuerdo con el diagnóstico pedagógico que se le realizó cuando ingresó a ese centro educativo (informe folio 36). De igual forma, y siempre relacionado con la atención que se le brinda a la amparada, se estableció en el expediente, que aunque no se puede corroborar una violación a los derechos de la menor, pues como se ha indicado hasta ahora, las autoridades han procurado la más adecuada atención con los profesionales de la institución y con los recursos con que se cuenta para ello, las autoridades educativas recurridas, desde antes de la interposición del recurso, procedieron a tomar medidas para que las condiciones en que se atiende a la menor fueran más favorables, así la Directora del centro de enseñanza tramitó ante el Departamento de Programación Presupuestaria del Ministerio de Educación Pública la solicitud de apertura de un nuevo código de enseñanza general Básica, ello el 10 de abril del año en curso (informe folios 32, 33 y folio 42). Aunado a lo dicho, de igual manera se ha indicado que en cuanto a la atención que se le brinda a la menor, relativa a alimentación, seguridad, llevarla al baño, recibirla y entregarla al encargado, entre otros, todo eso se ha venido realizando de manera ininterrumpida desde el día de ingreso a la institución, y de ninguna forma se le han negado esas facilidades (informe folio 36), constatándose que en el centro de enseñanza también se cubren las necesidades particulares de la menor producto de su especial condición. A todo lo anterior hay que agregar que en relación con sus padres y la participación de estos en el proceso de escolarización de su hija, quedó acreditado que el día 2 de mayo de 2007 se les convocó a reunión con los profesionales de ese centro educativo que atienden a la amparada, para hacerles entrega de diversos documentos, como la programación anual donde consta los contenidos, estrategias, metodologías y demás procedimientos que se están aplicando a la estudiante, informe de rendimiento mensual del mes de marzo, calendario de los exámenes, trabajos extra clase, un documento aclarando toda la información requerida por los padres, y sugerencias para apoyar el proceso de enseñanza y aprendizaje, sin embargo no se hicieron presentes y se comunicaron vía telefónica para indicar que no podían presentarse en esa fecha, sino hasta el 3 de mayo de 2007, concediéndoles la solicitud (informe folio 37 y folio 130 y 131). En virtud de todo lo anterior no se constatan las alegadas violaciones a los derechos de la amparada, pues no se ha demostrado que exista violación a su disfrute de iguales oportunidades de acceso y participación en su proceso educativo, por lo que procede desestimar el recurso, como en efecto se dispone…”