The Special Rapporteur emphasized that more could be said on nomadism in view of interventions. This prompts one to ask: what is ‘the school’? Is it a building, a place, or a concept or institution? Must it have a fixed location or can it move as a community moves? Interesting points were made on secularism and on religious ‘symbols’ which should certainly be accounted for in the revision. Other important questions were raised on language revitalization, notably by Professor de Varennes. The language provisions could use an additional paragraph or two, proportionately to other concerns. Professor Thornberry expressed his gratitude for the emphasis by Professor Gifford on ‘change agents’ in education, and hope that the recommendations could themselves be viewed in this light. He underscored that the useful observations on behalf of UNESCO should also guide the revision, especially in relation to refreshing the terminology to incorporate references to ‘inclusive education’ and ‘quality education’. The recommendations could naturally develop their own terminology to guide other drafts in due course. ‘Outcomes’ is one such concept, fitting well with the general distinction in international law between obligations of means and obligations of result: this could be useful elsewhere. The balance between general rights and specific rights remains a difficult one in the context of these or analogous recommendations. Fine lines need to be drawn between integration and assimilation, between segregation and the demand for minority schools. ‘Desegregation’ was not a clear term to some, or suggested an aggressive approach. General terms may not always help. For many indigenous peoples, for example, ‘integration’ has had often a negative meaning, though it may be perceived as a good elsewhere. The reiteration of such terms is not sufficient. The precise meaning to be attributed to them must emerge in the draft: the devil is in the details. The abstractions need to be made as concrete as possible. Much of the focus in discussion has been on the ‘official’, child-centred school. Professor Thornberry expressed his hope that, in our enthusiasm for fairness and equality in the ‘formal’ system, we are not neglecting the area of in-community education, education in tradition as well as language, the informal sector of education, or the way education is transmitted through the media. Education is about the ‘drawing out’ of human potential. It is a lifelong process, implicating all of us. Perhaps we should have spent as much time in discussing ‘what is education?’ as we allocated to discussing our understanding of ‘minority’. The Special Rapporteur underlined that the recommendations will work if they can make useful if generic connections to the widest spectrum of minority groups. They will not work if they are perceived as only a ‘wilderness of single instances’. The eventual text should be read as a whole. 20