also, we may argue, not be unduly lengthened – running the risk of becoming another addition to the great library of unread and the impractical recommendations. The draft should eventuate in an array of suggestions achievable in a variety of situations. This does not rule out sharper language or more direct comment on obligations: on the contrary. It was suggested that the basis and intention of the recommendations should be clearer. A new introductory paragraph to this effect would be of great assistance, serving, inter alia, to allay any fears that the Forum was devising new standards. There is work to be done on the removal of ambiguities, including the ambiguity referred to by the representative of EBLUL concerning the use of the terms ‘special schools’ and ‘special classes’. Professor Thornberry noted in particular the emphasis in many interventions on ‘outcomes’: the further orientation of the recommendations towards ‘outcomes’ in education will improve the draft. Many points were made on data, and sensitivities in this respect were evident over the two days. Language in this area requires a certain delicacy. The draft needs greater specificity on budgets and resources – valuable interventions were made here under the overall rubric of resources necessary for minority education. On participation, Professor Thornberry highlighted that, when the term is used, it carries the conceptual baggage elaborated through international instruments and is understood as being more than ‘mere’ consultation. The term ‘interculturalism’ was not used in the draft and perhaps could be, where appropriate. The draft needs more on monitoring and evaluation of results, and on mechanisms, for example, to challenge school exclusions. Further points have been made on ‘intersectionality’ and this deserves greater attention. Another issue arising is that of co-ordination with the work of the new indigenous mechanism, in order to avoid overlaps and inconsistencies. Professor Thornberry assured that this will be looked at very seriously as the drafting revision proceeds. On the forms and varieties of ‘discrimination’, he suggested that it may be helpful to distinguish further the meanings of this term, but usage is already complex in international law and we should not, it is suggested, be over-elaborate. Particular paragraphs may be looked at to see if extra specificity would assist. 19