Legal Protection For People With Disabilities In Terms Of Fulfilling The Right To Education In Higher Education (Case Studies Of Aw In Indonesia And Ra In Canada)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The urgency of this research is because the reality in the field shows that people with disabilities still face various obstacles in accessing higher education, both in terms of infrastructure, policies, and social acceptance. Legal protection must be given to anyone without exception, including people with disabilities. Persons with disabilities are part of a society that has equal rights in various aspects of life, including education, employment, health, and social participation. One of the rights of people with disabilities that is the main issue in this study is the right to education. In this study, the author uses normative juridical legal research methods or literature research. The results of the study show that Regulations in Indonesia and Canada both guarantee the right to education for people with disabilities, but the implementation is different. In Indonesia, Law No. 8 of 2016 and Permendikbud No. 46 of 2014 have regulated the obligations of universities in providing accessibility, but do not have binding technical standards and strong supervisory mechanisms. Meanwhile, Canada has more comprehensive regulations such as the Accessible Canada Act of 2019, which not only establishes rights but also regulates funding, supervision, and sanctions for institutions that do not comply with the rules. In Indonesia, weak technical standards, lack of infrastructure, and lack of funding are the main obstacles to realizing optimal inclusive education. Meanwhile, in Canada, despite more advanced systems, challenges such as uneven distribution of funds and gaps in facilities in remote areas still need to be addressed. From the results of the study, it can be concluded that legal protection for persons with disabilities in fulfilling the right to education in higher education has been regulated both in Indonesia and Canada, but with a different approach. In addition, that although regulations are in place, the main challenge lies in the implementation of policies at the university level. From this conclusion, the author can provide suggestions that there is a need for policy improvements in both countries so that the implementation of inclusive education can really run effectively and evenly for all students with disabilities Keywords: Legal Protection, Disability, Right to Education
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».