Turning a blind constitutional eye

The Constitution of Malta is not amended every other day. There were major amendments to it, including those to make Malta a Republic, and to ensure that a party that won an absolute majority of valid votes in a general election also had a majority of seats.

Recently two further amendments were being discussed in the House of Representatives. One would make the office of the Ombudsman a constitutional office. The other would remove the age anomaly regarding magistrates to allow them to retire at age 65, like judges do. There may be other amendments in the offing. So far, I have not been able to detect any sign that disabled persons will be referred to and governed more sensibly in the Constitution than at present.

That was one of the proposals made by the Working Group on Inclusive and Special Education, which I chaired. Some of the group's many recommendations are being implemented. Others, like that to extend free support by learning assistants to disabled students attending non-Church private schools, have so far been ignored. That measure could have become cost neutral, since parents of disabled persons who cannot afford private schools' fees for learning support end up sending their children to government or Church schools, where learning support is funded by the public exchequer.

Parents, private school operators and the Opposition did not take up the proposal with vigour. The government found it easy not to put its money where it says its heart is. One would have thought that the government would at least implement the recommendations that do not entail any cost, and that the Opposition would press it to do so if it dragged its feet.

Think again. Foot dragging is blatant, yet no one as much as queries why. Which is where the Constitution and the disabled come in. The working group said that, whereas action to make inclusive and special education more effective and efficient has to be prioritised, some changes in the legal framework, including the Constitution, were called for.

It observed that the Constitution refers to education under three articles, all included within the Declaration of Principles. The only reference to disabled persons is included in the Social and Insurance section, under article 17(3). It says that disabled persons and persons incapable of work are entitled to education and vocational training. The working group felt that the Constitution should be more specific about provision - and not just entitlement - of education to persons with a disability. The Constitution of Slovakia, to take one example, guarantees "special care for handicapped citizens in preparation for their career".

Precise legal amendments were recommended by the working group to incorporate more suitable language, and specify the principle of inclusion. That is all the more necessary since, unlike for instance Cyprus, Malta does not have a specific law regarding students with individual educational needs. The references in Malta's Education Act include two provisions that actually exclude children with special educational needs from mainstream education.

The working group felt that such provisions went against a policy of inclusion and had become anachronistic. The terms providing for exclusion should be deleted and replaced by terms specifically providing that children with individual educational needs should, as far as possible, be provided with education in primary and secondary schools, suitably enabled to provide for these needs.

The group made specific proposals to redraft the offending provisions in the Education Act. It also opined that the Constitution should be made more assertive regarding inclusive and special education. There is no sign that these simple recommendations have tickled the fancy of the House of Representatives. The discussion of the amendments to the Constitution continues, but not with regard to the disabled...