Directorate of Ontario
Download 1.92 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Current Situation
- Recommendations
66SingaporeGovernment Policies and ProgramsEnabling Master plan 2012–2016325People with disabilities are integral members of an inclusive society. They have full opportunities to receive effective education and support services, lead fulfilling and productive lives to the best of their ability and participate in a healthy and active lifestyle. Current SituationIn response to the increasing number of children identified with special needs in Singapore, several key initiatives were launched by Ministry of Education (MOE) and National Council of Social Service (NCSS) in the last five years. More resources have been committed to meet the needs of students with special needs. Over the last five years, six purpose-built schools were completed, namely Rainbow Centre – Yishun Park School, Fernvale Gardens School, Woodlands Garden School, St Andrew‘s Autism School, Eden School and Pathlight School. To enhance the quality of special education, MOE has seconded principals and teachers from the mainstream schools to the special education (SPED) schools. To raise the quality of education for students with special needs, MOE also announced in March 2007 the extension of special education (SPED) graduation age to 21 years for children taking mainstream secondary curriculum or pursuing vocational education programs. SPED students, with the potential and ability to do so, are now able to obtain industry-recognised or nationally certified skills or academic qualifications. Prior to 2009, there were no SPED students graduating with vocational or academic certification. This initiative has enhanced the potential of SPED students to secure open employment or higher education. Another significant achievement was the development of a streamlined and standardised framework of assessment (the Quality Assurance Framework) by MOE and NCSS for SPED Schools to self-evaluate key processes that influence student outcomes. MOE and NCSS have been piloting the framework with the schools over the last two years. The SPED Curriculum Framework jointly developed by MOE, NCSS, and SPED schools to promote educational excellence was introduced to guide all SPED schools in their curriculum design in November 2011. The draft framework sets out the vision for special education, the desired outcomes that SPED students should achieve when they graduate, and a common set of curriculum standards to guide teaching and learning to achieve the outcomes. The broad categories such as living, learning and working will also provide a common language and direction for educators in the SPED sector in service delivery that is student-outcome-oriented. To increase the mainstream schools‘ capacity to support students with special needs in mainstream schools, MOE has implemented a tiered approach that includes basic awareness, deeper understanding and specialised knowledge and skills. At the basic level, all teachers in all schools are provided with an awareness of special educational needs. Since 2005, the National Institute of Education has introduced a compulsory 12-hour module on special needs in the pre-service training for all beginning teachers. Beyond awareness, some teachers in all schools are equipped with a deeper understanding of special needs. MOE has since 2005 offered certificate level training (108 hrs.) in special needs. The target was for 2,300 teachers (10 percent of teaching staff in all schools) to be trained between 2005 and 2010 with a further 10 percent (i.e. about 1,120) of secondary school teachers to be trained by 2012. At a more specialised level, some schools have additional labour and specialist expertise in supporting pupils with special needs. These schools have been provided with Allied Educators (Learning and Behavioural Support) (AED [LBS]). MOE decided to recruit an additional 200 AEDs (LBS) by 2015 to meet longer-term needs. The Enabling Master plan 2007–2011 has made significant progress in putting in place the necessary infrastructure for students with special needs to access quality education through the joint efforts of MOE, NCSS and the SPED schools. Moreover, the Enabling Master plan 2012–2016 will continue to build upon this good foundation and address current gaps and emerging issues. RecommendationsTo better understand the needs of students with special needs and identify gaps in the existing services, focus group discussions involving 20 SPED leaders, 16 parents with children of pre-schooling age and 22 parents with children of school-going age were conducted. Five key findings have been identified from the information gathered from these multi-level ground consultation sessions. In response to these issues, the Committee has made eight recommendations with four strategic thrusts to achieve the desired vision of Every Special School in Singapore an Excellent School and to promote greater integration for students with special needs. The four strategic thrusts are: SPED Governance; Capability Building and Human Resource; Quality Curriculum; and Planned and Purposeful Integration. Strategic Thrust 1: SPED Governance To reform the current SPED governance model to effectively address strategic and operational gaps Due to the complex nature and diverse needs of students, the Committee opines that the education of students with special needs requires stronger partnership among the stakeholders. The Committee is of the view that Singapore must undergo a paradigm shift regarding the governance model of special education with MOE taking greater ownership over special education. The Committee acknowledges that the current relationship should be revised to ensure better outcomes for students with special needs and increase the accountability for the significant resources invested annually. This can be best achieved by instituting a governance structure led by MOE and supported by NCSS, comprising representatives with proven record of accomplishments from special and mainstream education, disability groups and families. The structure is to provide leadership in policy and programs, including but not limited to, the selection and appointment of special education leaders and school management committee members, human resource matters, quality assurance, admission and placement of students, and curriculum. The representatives of the proposed governance structure should be respected individuals to ensure quality, value-add and greater buy-in from the sector. The Committee also notes that it is essential to install a more stringent due diligence process in the appointment and re-appointment of SPED leaders namely, members of the proposed governance body, SPED school board members, and principals. Greater clarity of roles and responsibilities between the VWO boards and the school management committees is also needed to improve governance and ensure better accountability. The Committee recognises that parents and caregivers of students with special needs should be actively involved in decision-making processes concerning their children. In the mainstream school setting, Community and Parents in Support of Schools (COMPASS) was established in December 1998 to advise MOE on ways to strengthen and promote home-school-community collaborations. It draws its members from the various stakeholders representing parents, self-help groups, alumni and the business community. Since its inception, COMPASS has been actively advocating for the greater collaboration of the family, alumni and community to work together with schools to help children learn better. No such formalised platforms are available for caregivers of students with special needs to feedback to policy makers. The Committee therefore recommends that a voice for families with special needs students in SPED and mainstream schools be given by formally setting up an appropriate platform similar to the MOE COMPASS initiative. The Committee supports the principle of extending compulsory education to include children with special needs. It is of the view that compulsory education will promote inclusiveness and ensure that resources are adequately available for children with special needs. However, the Committee acknowledges the challenges of enforcing the Act and the anxiety that parents and service providers may face in view of the diverse conditions of each child and their varying needs. It recognises that time is needed to study the implications of extending the Compulsory Education Act and to prepare schools operationally. The Committee therefore recommends that the implications of including children with special needs within the Compulsory Education Act be studied and addressed with the aim of including them under the Act by 2016. Strategic Thrust 2: Capability Building and Human Resource To better attract, develop and retain professionals who educate, train, and support students with special needs. To enhance capability, more resources have been provided to build expertise and to provide sufficient training places. Study awards, scholarships, and regular salary reviews were also initiated to increase the supply of skilled manpower. However, there was strong feedback from the ground that the SPED professionals wanted to be treated equitably with their mainstream competitors in terms of recognition, training and remuneration. The perception is that other things being equal, the status of SPED teachers and recognition are lower than that of their mainstream competitors and that compensation and benefits packages of their mainstream competitors are more attractive. SPED schools shared the difficulties in attracting and retaining good staff, including skilled therapists. Schools with experienced and mature staff expressed their difficulty in giving increments to senior staff as part of their staff retention planning. The SPED schools offering mainstream syllabi also found it challenging to match compensation packages to that of mainstream teachers. The Committee notes that the entry level and qualifications of SPED teachers are also less stringent than their mainstream competitors and educators, unlike those in other developed education systems such as the US, where educators are required to be licensed and obtain their general education degree before specialising in special education. The current Diploma in Special Education (DISE) should also be reviewed to better equip SPED teachers. The Committee would like to see suitable degree courses and pathways being set up for SPED teachers. The Committee also recognises that for students to have access to quality education and achieve their learning outcomes, strategic efforts must be made to recruit, train, reward, retain and develop professionals in the SPED schools. Furthermore, if SPED schools in Singapore were to benchmark themselves against mainstream schools, the job size and expectation on SPED teachers must also be on par with those of mainstream schoolteachers. SPED teachers should also acquire the necessary expertise to be equivalent. This will then provide the justification and accountability to match the remuneration of their mainstream competitors. The Committee recommends the setting up of an HR Steering Committee under the proposed governance structure. The HR Steering Committee will establish a framework and policies to promote the attraction, development and retention of professional staff. These will include policies covering core areas such as staffing, compensation and benefits, and training and career development. It will address specific concerns raised by leaders and teachers in special education. Strategic Thrust 3: Quality Curriculum To ensure that all SPED schools have a quality SPED curriculum with core components. The curriculum should also incorporate therapy, IT, AT, healthy lifestyle, caregiver involvement and transition planning. To maximise the potential of students with special needs and to enhance their learning experiences, the special education system should develop and adopt quality curricula that are of similar, if not better quality, than the mainstream schools in Singapore and overseas special education school models. While the SPED Curriculum Framework has been drafted, it is up to individual schools to develop their own curriculum and to adhere to the Framework. There is therefore a need for individual schools and VWOs to be consistent and coordinated in curriculum development efforts for better outcomes. The schools are of the view that the curriculum grants currently extended to them were useful but insufficient to create impact. The schools will still need to collaborate and tap on the leadership, expertise and resources of MOE, VWOs and NCSS to ensure that a quality curriculum will be rolled out. The Committee thus recommends the funding and staffing of a SPED curriculum unit comprising MOE, special education and disability experts to: Develop a core curriculum framework and platform to share expertise and resources; and Assist and provide resources and expertise for SPED schools to customize curriculum and pedagogy for school-specific teaching and learning initiatives. The current MOE vocational education and resources are limited to certain schools and do not cater to students who do not qualify for certification. VWOs, SPED schools and parents have given strong feedback that there are groups of students in other SPED schools who can also benefit from vocational training (with modification). As earlier highlighted, the two groups of students eligible to stay on to the age of 21 years in SPED schools are those studying the mainstream curriculum in Pathlight School and those pursuing vocational certification at Metta School and Delta Senior School. VWOs, SPED schools and parents have given strong feedback that there are groups of students in other SPED schools that could also benefit from the additional years in SPED in spite of not being able to meet the criteria for certification. Environmental scans of more developed countries show that most SPED students have an exit age of 21 years from formal special education with intensive transition planning and support in the final year(s) before discharge. The Committee noted that while more time in SPED school may be useful for some students, better clarity and careful analysis regarding their strengths and functioning levels were needed. This will include the identification of the best available options for these students and the support systems necessary to help them thrive. As not all graduates will eventually go into open employment, careful consideration should be given in customising programs and modalities of delivery that best cater to their needs and aid their transition to their next stage of life. The Committee recognises that there is still room to extend the vocational training, as there are other groups of students who will benefit from structured vocational training. The Committee recommends replicating the success of vocational education by extending vocational training and resources by MOE to all SPED schools, in a way that best serves the needs of the students. Accordingly, to extend the SPED school exit age to 21 years for SPED students who can benefit from additional formal training in work preparation and readiness and such extension should not be limited to only those who can be work-certified. The Committee notes that there is insufficient caregiver engagement in the education of students with special needs. Caregiver involvement is an important element in ensuring that students with special needs meet their desired outcomes, as their learning should also be reinforced at home. The Committee recommends developing and funding a structured caregiver engagement program to equip family caregivers to better support the learning of students with special needs. Proper transition planning and management are also important and as such, there is need to ensure that there are transition management best practices at critical points. Parents must be allowed to participate in the transition planning and management of their children. These issues will be addressed in Chapter 6 on Cross-Cutting Issues: Caregiver Support and Transition Management. The structured and purposeful promotion of healthy lifestyle, sexuality, nutrition, and sports was also lacking in SPED curriculum. These areas are important to the overall development of students with special needs. This will be addressed in Chapter 10 on Cross-Cutting Issues V: Sports and Healthy Lifestyle. AT and IT remain important tools for students with special needs to access education and enhance their learning outcomes. There could be more guidance, planning and purposeful use of IT and AT in the SPED curriculum. This will be addressed in Chapter 7 on Cross-Cutting Issues II: Capability Building and Technology. The Committee firmly believes in the need to provide continuous learning and training to students with special needs. This will improve their opportunities to become contributing members of society and reinforce the notion of inclusion, as lifelong learning should be encouraged for persons with disabilities as much as continuous learning is promoted for able-bodied Singaporeans. Strategic Thrust 4: Planned and Purposeful Integration To ensure more structured and effective placement and support of students with special needs in the most appropriate setting. The Committee notes that while initiatives to facilitate integration over the last five years have been rolled out in schools; feedback from stakeholders reveals that students with special needs in institutes of higher learning such as the institute of technical education (ITE), polytechnics and universities are having difficulties accessing integration support services. The current allied educators’ provision is not supporting students with special needs in mainstream schools adequately as there are not enough allied educators. In the spirit of inclusion, the Committee believes that there is a need to step out of the traditional ‘either-or’ mindset where students with special needs are educated either in a special school or mainstream school. There is also a need to constantly push the envelope and look at other integration models overseas and study the feasibility of adopting and localising the models for implementation in Singapore. The Committee strongly believes that regular interaction between students with special needs and their typically developing competitors will benefit both groups of students. This will also encourage and instil in children the mindset of inclusion from young and educate children to appreciate and respect others for their differences. Experiences from countries more progressive in SPED show that integration can exist at three different levels and should continue to be encouraged in Singapore i.e., Physical, Social and Academic integration: Physical Integration – where provisions for SPED student needs are co-located on the same physical site as their mainstream competitors. SPED students can share physical facilities such as canteens and sports facilities with their mainstream competitors. Social Integration – where SPED students and their mainstream competitors share social and living spaces in the playground or engage in non-academic subjects such as music and movement and co-curriculum activities together. Academic integration – where students with special needs attend academic classes together with their mainstream competitors and pursue the same set of academic goals and activities. The Committee recommends the enhancement of the integration of students with special needs through a multi-pronged approach involving the following: To fund and put in place a structured education support system for students with special needs in all Institutes of Higher Learning such as ITE, polytechnics and universities. To model and localise an appropriate system; To study and address the limitations of the Allied Educators Scheme in supporting students with special needs in mainstream schools; To increase the number of SPED students in the existing satellite school model practised by Pathlight School and Canossian School; To amend the MOE school recognition awards master plan to reward mainstream schools which include students with special needs; and To study in depth integrated school models such as the international schools and overseas integrated school models in countries such as US, UK, Finland, Australia and Japan and thereafter pilot recommended model(s) as appropriate. Directory: strong-effective-aoda strong-effective-aoda -> Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Download 1.92 Mb. Share with your friends:
|