The Equal Partners Foundation, a parent-run NGO providing support programmes to children with disability and/or learning difficulties, has issued its reactions to the publication of the 'Inclusive and Special Education Review Report', published by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Employment in June.

Since its inception in 1999, Equal Partners has always been at the forefront in the advocacy for inclusive education and all services provided by the foundation are given out in the community.

Definition of inclusion

Section 5 of the report begins with a working definition of inclusion: "Inclusion should mean enabling all students to participate in the life of mainstream institutions to the best of their abilities, whatever their needs" (p. 53). This paragraph carries on by saying: "...inclusion in the Maltese educational system is deeply embedded in a framework of selectivity - and implicitly thereby, exclusion", underlining the inherent philosophical and operational contradiction found in our educational system as a result of streaming. On the same lines the foundation believes that streaming should be abolished altogether from the system since, as well noted by the Working Group, it "...contradicts the commitment to inclusion..." (p. 53).

However, Equal Partners is of the opinion that the document confuses inclusion with integration. For inclusion to take place it is the educational system itself that needs to change to welcome every child in the class and school. With integration one is pre-supposing that it is the child who has to fit into the system and if the child does not fit he/she is sent to learning centres, resource centres or special schools which are agents of segregation, and which reflect the medical model of disability. In fact the language used throughout this document reflects this model.

Implications to the medical model of disability

The foundation's major concern is the underlying medical approach, whose elements seem to pervade most of the document.

The report discusses at length the restructuring of special schools to develop them into resource centres with a multiplicity of roles. According to the Working Group this "would optimise utilisation of valuable human and capital resources to provide support to inclusive mainstream schools..." (p. 75) and training to the personnel in these schools.

This suggestion had already been forwarded to the Government way back in 1988 but nothing had been done. The foundation fully endorses that professionals in this area would outreach with their experiential knowledge in ordinary schools and offer training to teachers and facilitators. However, it is very concerned about using resource centres for programmed visits by students with disability attending ordinary schools, if these are done during normal school hours.

Although the Salamanca Statement (1994) mentions the efficacy of the changing role of special schools, it strongly maintains: "Regular schools with this inclusive orientation are the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education for all; moreover, they provide an effective education to the majority of children and improve the efficiency and ultimately the cost-effectiveness of the entire education system."

One must be very careful that resource centres do not become instruments of segregation. Equal Partners believes that "just being there - showing up regularly - as an ongoing part of a particular community of people, is vitally important in building the basis for friendships. People who "come and go" have great difficulty in being seen as real members of a classroom or community" (Amos, 2004).

It is extremely important that one does not fall in the trap of sending children with disability and/or learning difficulties to special schools with the intention to fix them and "with the aim of re-integration into mainstream education" (p. 76) when they are ready, as was referred for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. In fact, the document refers to integration and not inclusion.

From experience the foundation knows it is very difficult to pull out a child from a special school and then include him/her back into a mainstream school. Inclusion should never be a by-product; otherwise one would never get to it. Needless to say, this approach contradicts the definition of inclusion cited above and follows the medical model of disability, by which a child has to be fixed to fit in the system and not the system adapted to accommodate his/her needs.

Another concern is the setting up of "zones" (p. 71) in mainstream primary and secondary schools. Equal Partners believes that such zones promote segregation rather than inclusion and are a quick-fix measure to the more effective provision of adequate support and differentiated teaching. The underpinning philosophy behind such areas links to the concept of "least restrictive environment", which has been heavily criticised by advocates of inclusive education.

The foundation would also like to stress that one has to be very careful which yardstick to use when evaluating the success of an inclusive policy. Success should not be based on traditionally perceived goals or outcomes. The output in these circumstances cannot be quantified in a straightforward manner.

One cannot simplistically assess "the extent to which inclusive and special education enables meaningful improvement in the life and prospects of students with IENs" (p. 65), as one would be pushing these students to fit a norm, which is an integral aspect of the medical model of disability and defeats the whole purpose of inclusion. On the other hand, one needs to look long-term and evaluate the quality of life of these individuals, including their circle of friendships and their self-actualisation.

Expenditure on provision

Throughout the whole report there is recurring reference to the increase in IEN-related expenditure vis-à-vis the total outlay absorbed by state education and this is tied to the quality of provision, which according to the Working Group "is not truly adequate to meet the key demands and goals of education and inclusion" (p. 53). In fact, the Working Group concluded that "the system of support provision to meet educational needs in the state sector is based on a fundamentally flawed allocation and utilisation of resources: human as well as financial" (p. 54) and that "statemented students are not receiving all the support that should be available within the existing inclusive set-up" (p. 59), implying that resources directed to students with individual educational needs are not being utilised effectively for inclusion.

While Equal Partners agrees that both human and financial resources are not being allocated and employed to their maximum effect to the detriment of students, it does not support the comparison made later on between the cost of inclusive and special education and the cost of educating other students - which is "more than twice as much" (p. 60).

The foundation believes one cannot expect inclusive education to be cheap in the short term. Indeed, the norm for an equitable expenditure is purely an economic notion, which cannot and should not be defined in crude "value for money terms".

State funding

Equal Partners has welcomed the recommendation of the Working Group to the Government to review its allocation of financial resources, thus restoring equity among the various NGOs and giving the right to parents to choose the educational provision they deem most benefiting for their child.

The foundation believes in the concept of self-determination even when it comes to the choice of services. Individualised funding is a fundamental requirement for the meaningful exercise of personal choice because it enables people to purchase, and therefore gain control over, the support services needed to enjoy meaningful lives in the community.

Therefore, the foundation believes any funds granted by the government should go to the agencies/foundations of the parents' choice. The foundation has relentlessly tried to put forward this suggestion to the Government, including the Education Division.

Who will be deciding who should attend a special school?

On several occasions the Working Group sustains that "special provision should continue to be made available to those who would gain more in a selective set-up and environment" (p. 75). Equal Partners is particularly sceptic about the wording used here, since it is unclear who will be deciding which school is best for any child with disability/learning difficulties, that is, who will go to a special school. Rightly so, until now this decision has always been at the parents' discretion. Indeed, Equal Partners believes that the choice of school should remain up to the parents and that parents should be empowered as much as possible to take decisions for the best of their children.

Reproducing frameworks used abroad

The foundation has also strong reservations on our educational system adopting wholesale frameworks that are being used by other countries. Our educational system needs to be very judicious when selecting from structures that are being used abroad and needs to be very careful of not "incorporating similar weaknesses" (p. 57).

Our country seems to have always followed trends in the UK. Our educational system is a case in point, although we have taken elitism to its extremes with the constant emphasis on exams, streaming and more highly competitive exams.

Once again we are following what happens in England and adopting the figure of the SENCO calling them INCOs. Equal Partners believes that it is the role of the assistant head to ensure each child in the school has access to the curriculum, whether this child has a disability or not.

This person needs to make sure that all resources are available for all students and that there is regular liaison between the teacher-facilitator team, the parents and anybody else supporting any particular child.

The foundation is extremely concerned as its experience locally and abroad has shown that the figure of a SENGO/INGO acts as a barrier between the support outside school and the child's teacher. The teacher-facilitator team will tend to abdicate responsibilities for this child if they have not been included in the whole decision-making process.

Differentiated teaching and IEPs

Equal Partners has met with interest various recommendations passed by the Working Group with regard to both the Repositioning Plan and the Parallel Programme. The foundation is very pleased with the emphasis made on differentiated teaching, the drawing up, implementation and monitoring of IEPs and peer preparation support. It believes this is the way forward towards a truly inclusive education. It also upholds the roots of the Repositioning Plan that "providing all disabled students with the same learning support service is not effective" (p. 63).

Training of staff

The foundation also appreciates the prominence given in the Repositioning Plan to the essential need for systematic training of teachers, all learning support assistants and specialist teachers, as well as to determine standard qualifications that these professionals must possess.

Other suggestions

Equal Partners also values some of the Working Group's suggestions noted down in the Parallel Programme, targeted to address immediately the critical problems found in the existing inclusive and special education set-up, including:

i) offering "clearly time-framed in-service training" (p. ix) to heads of school and teachers who do not have any formal exposure to providing learning support to students with individual and educational needs;

ii) putting in place training programmes for facilitators to eventually upgrade their skills to Diploma level;

iii) extending the post-school hours professional development services for teaching staff to learning support assistants;

iv) drawing up clearer job descriptions;

v) raising the minimum qualifications for new support recruits;

vi) ensuring that prior to placement, an induction course as well as a job-shadowing experience are compulsory to all learning support assistants; and

vii) putting in place a transition plan for students with individual educational needs; from home to school, from year to year, from primary to secondary, and eventually towards adulthood.

Children with disability/ learning difficulties belonging to the school

The report also comes out strongly on the issue of excluding children with disability from school/class when the learning support assistant is not present. Although the foundation agrees that this unfortunate situation needs to be addressed urgently, it believes this can only be effectively tackled by having the child belong to the school and not simply sending him/her away to the resource centre.

MATSEC Board

In line with what has been suggested in the report, Equal Partners believes the MATSEC Board should review and upgrade the special arrangements/modifications for both MATSEC and SEC examinations to make them more relevant, thereby ensuring that the mode of assessment is of the "highest standard" (p. 72) and "recognises the capabilities of all students with IENs" (p. 72).

Involvement of parents

Although the report acknowledges parents' choice on services outside school, it does not give enough attention to more effective ways to maximise the involvement of parents in the education of their children. Equal Partners encourages self-advocacy among parents, as well as children. It believes parents should be involved as much as possible in the designing of their child's programme.

Furthermore, children should be present when they are being discussed. The foundation feels it is crucial to promote a sense of control and self-reliance even in these situations, and in all situations of decision-making.

State provision to independent schools

The foundation backs up the Working Group's recommendation to extend the state provision of learning support assistants and transport to students with individual educational needs attending an independent school, which is more "justifiable in terms of social justice" (p. 73).

MCAST

The situation at MCAST needs to be reviewed without delay. Our youngsters have to compete for a limited number of places and have to sit for aptitude tests without getting any support. Equal Partners believes that MCAST should reserve a certain amount of places for youngsters with disability/learning difficulties on Foundation courses. It acknowledges that some of these students might not succeed to obtain their full certificate, however it is convinced that at the end of the course they would have obtained a certain number of skills which would help them in their transition towards adulthood.

Looking towards adulthood

The foundation has also appreciated the interest of the Working Group to go beyond its remit and offer its recommendations with regard to Adult Training Centres and public-parent partnerships. Unfortunately, the "desert" (p. 85) described in the document reveals a poverty of vision and belies the stated faith in the potential and contribution of all as adult citizens to society.

The inference is that persons with individual educational needs are perpetual liabilities. The foundation hopes that further initiatives are created to bridge the existing lacuna for school leavers with a disability. We have a lot of potential contributors for our workforce who are unable to find employment due to the limitations found in the environment.

Standing committee in Parliament

The report also makes a valid suggestion to have a Standing Committee on Disability Issues in Parliament. The foundation believe that since "inclusive education is a human rights issue" (p. 15), it would be more appropriate to have a Standing Committee on Human Rights as inclusion is not a matter for students with disability/learning difficulties, but a fundamental affirmation of the democratic right to be different: Principle 8 - National Minimum Curriculum:

"The implications of a commitment towards diversity extend beyond the educational domain. Society has a moral responsibility to affirm diversity, if it believes in the broadening of democratic boundaries, in the fostering of a participatory culture, in the defence of the basic rights of children, in the constant struggle against all those factors that prevent the students' different abilities from being brought to fruition and in the safeguarding and strengthening of our country's achievements in the social and cultural fields" (p. 17).

The foundation would like to extend its appreciation to the Working Group for its effort to conduct this appraisal exercise. Equal Partners sincerely hopes that a time would come when we realise that children who learn together live together and all those concerned in education would work in synergy toward creating classrooms that really and truly celebrate diversity and are supportive of all students, irrespective of talent, disability, socio-economic background, or cultural origin.

Mr Galea is president, Equal Partners Foundation.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.