When I was in high school, I was part of a science-and-math-oriented class that provided a lot of advantages to top students. We had advanced lessons, more rigorous exams, and science field trips. We joined inter-school competitions. My classmates and I were also the top picks to be officers in student clubs, as well as in the Citizens’ Army Training.
I felt sad for my schoolmates who didn’t have our privileges. I found many of them to be smart but not motivated enough to excel academically. As an adolescent, I thought that they could’ve gotten better grades if they had more hands-on activities and opportunities to learn at their own pace.
At that time, I didn’t realize that I was thinking along the principles of inclusion. More than a decade later, the Philippine government passed RA 11650, the country’s Inclusive Education Act.
What I Like About It
I appreciate RA 11650’s provision to create inclusive learning resource centers (ILRCs) that will identify students with disabilities who need individualized education programs (IEPs). It’s also good that the law recognizes alternative learning systems for children who don’t thrive in mainstream schools. It's great that education graduates will be allowed to work as teacher aides even before they get their professional licenses.
Finally, I'm glad that RA 11650 acknowledges the importance of having multidisciplinary IEP teams, which include therapists like me.
Do Students Really Need to Be in the Same Learning Environment?
My chief complaint about the Inclusive Education Act is that it promises far more than what the state can deliver to people who might not even need what the government offers.
RA 11650 promotes school inclusion, which it defines as “a process where all learners, regardless of their background and abilities, are given an equal chance to play, learn, and interact together in the same learning environment and the community”.
That’s impossible! For one, academic institutions are quite different from each other although they all need to comply with the Department of Education’s (DepEd) requirements.
Every school adheres to its own philosophical approach that leads teachers to use certain types of assessments and teaching strategies. For example, traditional schools use lots of lectures and pen-and-paper tasks. On the other hand, progressive schools use play and group projects. Schools can therefore only provide accommodations and modifications that are aligned with their philosophical frameworks. Some kids with disabilities will thrive in a traditional school’s inclusive program while others will do better in a progressive one.
Unfortunately, there are many children with special needs (CSN) who will thrive in neither due to their conditions’ severity. In these cases, it will most likely be better for them to avail of individualized therapies that focus on life skills training.
Facing the Grim Realities
Philippine public schools adhere to the traditional approach. That alone limits the types of CSN that they can accommodate. On top of that, our public schools lack competent teachers, learning materials, and functional facilities. So I can’t imagine how ILRCs will provide all CSN with the “materials, tools, devices, gadgets, and equipment to facilitate and enhance learning.” Plus, how will the state pay the ILRC personnel when its current teachers are underpaid?
RA 11650 is detached from reality despite its good points. If the government wants to promote school inclusion, it should focus instead on being an arbiter of justice. To fulfill such a role in the educational context, the state must first concentrate its limited funds on fighting corruption that’s draining the resources that public schools need.
In the meantime, the ILRC should be used ONLY as an avenue for surveillance that will: a) identify CSN who are not receiving basic education and b) ensure that DepEd-accredited schools accept CSN only if they have the capacity to meet the latter's academic needs. Going beyond these two duties will take away state funds for fighting corruption. It will also spread the ILRCs’ resources so thinly that they will become ineffective.
Making the ILRC focus on surveillance will enable the state to prevent parents from neglecting their kids’ right to education. Moreover, it will identify CSN who are not meeting the DepEd’s requirements due to their conditions’ severity. Doing so will compel families to find alternative learning paths for their kids.
Finally, a strong surveillance system will keep private schools accountable. The government must ensure that private DepEd-accredited schools are not faking documents and assessment results to justify the CSN’s enrollment. Private schools that admit CSN even if they lack the capacity to educate them are scamming families. Worst of all, they’re abusing children.
I’ve been for inclusive education since I was a teenager. That’s why I’m an occupational therapist! There are times though when it’s necessary for adults to let kids pursue alternatives to mainstream schooling for them to successfully integrate into society. And it is the state’s duty to make it safe for CSN to have their unique journeys. But that doesn’t mean that the government should, or will be able to, provide all the resources that youth with disabilities need.
(Photo by Jason Sung)
This should be published in School Journals for Educators!