No. 07-00-630/2016-02 Date: 27.3.2017.

OPINION

Opinion was issued in proceeding upon complaint filed by A.M. from B. on behalf of underaged son N.M. against elementary school “P.P.Nj.” in B. and class teacher J.D. It was stated in the complaint that N.M. is a first grade pupil and a child with diagnosed pervasive development disorder, who was asked to provide additional documentation for enrollment – a new opinion of inter-department commission, which made enrollment in the school more difficult for him. Along with the statement of the school principal, statements by both class teachers, secretary and school pedagogue were also submitted. It was stated in those statements that there were no additional request for the enrollment in school, but only discrepancy in dates on documents. It was also stated that the pupil was included in regular educational and upbringing process, that he is treated equally as other pupils, integrated in the collective and that he equally participates all curricular and non-curricular activities. It was determined, during the proceeding, that elementary school “P.P.Nj.” in B. didn’t prove that their acting during the enrollment was not conditioned by pupil’s personal characteristics, that the school didn’t make enrollment more difficult for the boy with development disorders by asking additional documents. Furthermore, it was determined that all children attending the first grade in elementary school have certain period at the beginning for adaptation to new environment and rules and that N.M. was no exception in that sense, as well as that N.M. was included in all activities, as other children. Commissioner for the Protection of Equality issued opinion that school director and secretary did make enrollment in the first grade in elementary school “P.P.Nj.” in B. more difficult for the pupil N.M. on grounds of his personal characteristic – development disorders and thus they violated prohibition provisioned in Article 19. of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination. Based on submitted and presented evidence in this case it was not possible to determine that pupil N.M. was put in disadvantaged position compared to other pupils from the first grade, because of his personal characteristic, by expert and pedagogic work of teacher J.D. That is why the elementary school “P.P.Nj.” in B. was recommended to provide timely elimination of physical and communication barriers during the schooling of pupil N.M. and also to take other necessary measures to timely plan support for this pupil in accordance with his age, development needs and interests, along with inclusion of parents and other actors who know child well, in accordance with the law; not to violate the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination in future, when enrolling children belonging to vulnerable groups and also in acting upon other matters from their competences, as well as to organize trainings and education for school employees about discrimination in education, especially related to pupils who need additional support in education due to social exclusion, development disorders, disabilities, learning difficulties and other reasons.

Commissioner for the Protection of Equality

Brankica Janković

Complaint by A.M. against elementary school P.P.NJ. in B. because discrimination on grounds of disability in area of education