Inclusive education in Malta is restricted to being a philanthropic gesture. This is the verdict expressed in a recent audit prepared for the Ministry for Education and Employment by the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education.
While acknowledging some areas of strength, the report is generally critical of our collective attitude towards inclusion and of our policies, curricula and scholastic provision in the field.
The core message contained in the document is that although the segregated placement rate in this country is one of the lowest within the European Union (0.1 per cent of the learners of compulsory school age), the education system is stubborn in its refusal to embrace a human-rights perspective on inclusion and persistent in shortchanging students by providing services that are inconsistent in quality and fragmented in delivery.
The authors of the report concluded that the charity-based model that informs our inclusive education provision calls for improvement in most of the ‘standards’ or ‘statements of aspiration’ adopted for review purposes.
The document throws light on some of the urgent actions that need to be taken by the education community in its seemingly illusive quest to provide quality education for all.
The audit report is based on the conviction that authentic inclusion in a context marked by the mainstreaming of one of the highest proportions of learners with disabilities and/or special educational needs in the EU (5.5 per cent of identified learners as opposed to the European average of 4.2 per cent) is a real possibility if quality of provision is high in seven critical areas. These include: robust legislation and policies; schools’ capacity to provide genuine access to quality inclusive education; quality specialist provision within the mianstream sector; ongoing, needs-oriented, quality training and development of school leaders, teachers and support staff; teaching, curricula and assessment procedures that enable differentiated learning; early identification of needs and quality support; and monitoring and evaluation as constant features of the education system.
Enabling schools to transform themselves into inclusive communities is a must
Adopting a standards-based approach, the audit identified 137 ‘standards’ against which the auditors evaluated the critical areas. The auditors concluded that 37 ‘standards’ had to be initiated while 100 ‘standards’ were identified as requiring development. None of the ‘standards’ were seen as “being fully embedded in policy and practice in the majority of schools”.
The final conclusion of the report is that the road to quality inclusion is still in the stage of excavation in many areas.
Varying degrees of improvement are expected in all crucial sectors of the education process. This is in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution, the UN Conventions that Malta has signed and ratified as well as the plethora of documents produced by education ministries over the years.
Among the latter, one finds the recent ‘Framework for the education strategy for Malta 2014-2024’. Reducing the gaps in educational outcomes is one of the main goals that are listed.
There is also the ‘National curriculum framework for all’, which document sets out to target more flexible and diverse pathways for all learners.
Zooming in on some of the standards in relation to the critical areas, the document provides ample evidence of what l have been harping on for years. At best, our education system is offering partial integration on schools’ terms rather than full inclusion on children’s terms.
My own critique, that is mirrored in the European agency’s report, includes: a superficial understanding of real inclusion; poor ownership of inclusion by the education community; dissonance between rhetoric and practice; ‘inclusive responsibilites’ delegated to support personnel who, in a number of cases, are untrained or poorly trained and badly paid; limited, fragmented and incoherent opportunities for in-service training in inclusive practices; inequitable access to resources; minimal school-level policy development on inclusion; inclusion treated as an appendix to the one-size-fits-all culture that dominates the compulsory education scene.
Furthermore, I have highlighted other shortcomings, such as: assessment policies and practices that are dictated centrally, contradicting the rhetoric of differentiation; overly-pathologised students that often become self-fulfilling prophecies; support systems that are generally fragmented and, at times, inconsistent; poor retention of well trained specialised personnel, mostly lost through promotions or migration to other institutions; underutilisation of highly-qualified staff; research around inclusion that lacks general purpose, often conducted individually and independently of a strategic plan for evidence-based policy and pedagogical development.
In my opinion, there are a number of redeeming features. Investment in inclusion is not lacking. There is growing awareness that exclusion is morally, ethically, socially, economically and politically unacceptable. There is also willingness to address the contradictions and inconsistencies of the system.
The local education process has a memory bank of succesful narratives in the field. Parents are generally willing to cooperate. National commissions, associations, agencies, voluntary organisations and support groups have a wealth of knowledge and experiences, which is vital to the system. Furthermore, expertise is growing and international contacts are increasing.
Knowing, recognising, naming and utilising such wealth is the ethical way forward. Enabling schools to transform themselves and become inclusive communities is a must.
Education for all is a tall order that calls for collective responsibiltiy, practices that transcend the statementing approach to inclusion, massive training and retraining for comprehensive inclusion at all levels, reengineering of assessment procedures to recognise difference, and research that evaluates provision and provides evidence for further action.
Given the gaps in local expertise and the overload experienced by key stakeholders, I welcome collaboration with international insitutions of high calibre.
Students and parents expect a different audit report next time around. Delivering on the report’s recommendations is a moral imperative.
Carmel Borg is associate professor at the Faculty of Education’s Department of Education Studies.