THE prime minister has defended his decision about his children’s education: that he declines to enroll them full-time in the local prep school system, instead electing to homeschool them in the hard subjects and having them participate in the soft subjects — physical education and the like — with other students in a formal school setting.

It must have been a tough decision, especially in light of recognition that there are not enough schools — as far as I am aware — that cater exclusively to the needs of slow learners, which I understand one of the prime minister’s children to be. The education ministry website points to a Special Education Unit, but does not identify specific schools.

I know of other parents of children who don’t learn at the same rate as the average class member — be they slow, reluctant or accelerated learners, and therefore have had to make other choices to accommodate the needs of their children. The irony is remarkable, that the minister of education, with access to every school on the island, cannot find one that suits the needs of his children. Nevertheless, he is fortunate to have the wherewithal — the time, talent or treasure — to accommodate an option whereby his children can have private tutors, as we understand an ‘individualised learning solution’ to mean.

But there are many parents who do not have this option — not the time or patience — to teach their children at home, nor the money to afford private tutelage. In addition to which, there are few options for those parents whose children require a situation that lies somewhere between homeschooling and public schooling. Some immediately come to mind: one school that was known for its special needs curriculum has become so popular because of its small class sizes that it hardly differs from the mainstream schools these days.

Another school has tried to blend the challenged and brilliant students with the average students but has no successful track record in doing so. The third is an online school for older children, which appears to be a stop-gap situation until better comes, or the child’s learning ability picks up. A few years ago, a local church ran an educational programme for special needs children, but perhaps this too has been abandoned. Clearly there are not enough schools.

While we find no fault in the prime minister and his wife making the best and most desirable decision for their children’s education, this is one instance where we wish that the minister of education/prime minister would have subverted the political system for his own personal needs (as the worst politicians are wont to do) and created a proper school for children with learning disabilities. That way many more children could benefit.

By opting out of the traditional, mainstream educational system, the Holnesses have less information than they need to really effect changes in the school system. When mom and dad go to school to drop off and pick up their children and meet with teachers and other parents, they experience first-hand the conditions under which the children are taught.

Are the classrooms too large? Are they well equipped? Are there enough teachers, assistants, resources, safety codes, books and desks? Is there water in the pipes and paper in the bathrooms? Are the teachers happy? Your motivation to change something is greater when you experience it directly rather than vicariously through an official document. A report can’t give you the experience of a child’s learning environment.

Certainly, lobbying for the formal education of children with less than severe learning disabilities would have made a significant platform for the prime minister’s wife, Juliet Holness, who we understand “manages the process” of her sons’ homeschooling. Yes, she has taken on the very broad challenge of truant street children, but we would applaud her still for championing a cause that is smaller and more manageable in scope but no less significant.

With the resources at his command, Prime Minister Holness could have created a state-of-the-art learning centre — if only one — that met the challenges of a very specific and important group of children. If other ministries allow hundred-million-dollar vanity renovations for offices and private homes, why not a vanity school? Yes, for nine days we would have cried foul over the expense of educating hundreds when thousands go without, but we would soon be distracted by fury over some other scandal and, in the meantime, a small step would have been taken in the right direction: the education of our under-served children.

And perhaps that is the point. We need to start small. While we’re expecting miracles from the vast sums of money being spent on grand but ill-conceived road projects, the more vulnerable amongst us are ignored. We say, make a success of a small but significant project rather than making a mess of a large and useless one.

Go build your special needs school, prime minister.

scowicomm@gmail.com