Government needs a lesson in special needs

By JOHN MINTO

The greatest frustration for parents and teachers involved in special education in the past few years has been that both the National and Labour-led Governments have seen special education issues as political problems to be avoided rather than as problems to be solved.

So it is with the Government's reaction to the landmark High Court judgment earlier this month that found its special education policies had failed children legally as well as educationally.

The judgment related to the case brought by 14 parents of children with special education needs. These parents, with thousands of others, found that the new Special Education 2000 policy left their children with less support than they had under the old policy, despite a big increase in Government funding.

They saw opportunities for their children to have a meaningful education stripped away as the new policy began to bite.

It would be refreshing for the Government to see the judgment as a golden opportunity to finally get its fraught special education policies on the right track.

Instead, it seems to have pushed the panic button, claiming that the judgment could mean having to spend millions of dollars on bureaucracy, diverting funds from delivery of services, and ending the world of education as we know it. This is political scaremongering.

So what does the court decision actually mean for parents?

In essence the High Court said:

* Every child with special education needs has the right to receive an appropriate education that enables them to have access to the curriculum to meet their special needs.

* Some parts of the Government's policy, Special Education 2000, are not in line with these rights.

* The education of many children has suffered as a result of present policy.

* For the consideration of the court, parents may submit proposals that would bring Government policy into line with the law.

There is nothing radical in this outcome. It should not have come as a surprise to anyone - least of all the Government.

At one stage in the implementation of the policy, for example, an internal Ministry of Education document admitted baldly that "there is now a disjunction between the legislative framework and most assistance provided through the Special Education 2000 policy".

This is a frank admission that officials were aware the policy was outside the law.

Parents, of course, were kept in the dark. Many lived through the heartbreaking experience of seeing the education of their children go backwards.

Setting aside for a moment how the Government got into this mess, the most sensible approach would be for it to accept the decision with grace and dignity.

It should also make changes to the funding delivery mechanisms to bring them in line with the law, and apologise to the thousands of parents and children who have suffered harm and distress as a result of their legal rights not being met.

Governments are not renowned for making apologies or for accepting adverse decisions with grace and dignity, but the most important point - amending the policy to match the law - is relatively easy.

The policy could be brought into line with children's rights, with changes such as increasing the number of children with Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme funding to its originally proposed 2 per cent of the school-age population.

Further, the Special Education Grant should be targeted at schools based on the number of children enrolled who have moderate special education needs.

This can be done in a simple, non-bureaucratic fashion. An hour on a calculator for a Ministry of Education official would be all that is needed.

Responsibility for special needs units should also be returned to the Government. And where there is sufficient parent demand, units which were closed by schools after the Government withdrew its support should be reopened.

Additionally, local parent advocacy and support in dealing with schools should be strengthened.

These are common-sense solutions. They would not result in greater bureaucracy or even greater calls on Government finances.

At present, tens of millions of special needs dollars are distributed in a kind of bulk-funded spray across schools and school clusters. Once this money is allocated in a more targeted fashion so that it reaches children with special education needs, we will be able to see what extra funding, if any, is needed.

Most of us are not used to reading court decisions but it is crucial that parents make an exception in this case. The full judgment can be read at www.qpec.org.nz, but unless you are a lawyer, start reading the 52-page document from page 45.

The Government, for its part, needs to pause, take some deep breaths and address the legal issues in a way that will solve the educational problems for children.

* John Minto is the national chairman of the Quality Public Education Coalition.