Ruthlyn James | Why special-education system must evolve beyond exceptionality

Jamaica has invested decades in building formal pathways for training teachers to support children with special-educational needs. These pathways matter. They have produced committed educators, created professional legitimacy for special education, and laid an essential foundation for inclusion within a resource-constrained system. That foundation, however, now requires evolution.

The challenge facing the education system is not the absence of training. It is that the nature of children’s needs has changed faster than the structure of teacher preparation.

Across classrooms today, children present not with singular, neatly defined exceptionalities, but with layered neurodevelopmental profiles. Autism frequently co-occurs with ADHD. Learning disabilities overlap with anxiety. Speech and language delays intersect with behavioural regulation and trauma exposure. International research consistently shows that the majority of neurodivergent children present with co-occurring needs, requiring integrated rather than categorical responses.

Yet teacher preparation, both academic and vocational, continues to reflect an older model of exceptionality, one that treats developmental domains as parallel rather than interdependent.

At the vocational level, nationally accredited early childhood special-needs qualifications reflect thoughtful intent. Core competencies include child development, language and cognitive support, social and emotional development, behaviour management, sensory and motor development, mental health awareness, family engagement, safeguarding, and programme facilitation. On paper, these areas align with global early intervention frameworks that emphasise whole-child and family-centred practice.

INTEGRATED

The limitation lies not in what is included but in how it is integrated. Competencies are delivered sequentially, yet children do not develop sequentially. They develop systemically. Awareness is built, but fluency across overlapping needs is harder to achieve without deeper grounding in neurodevelopmental science, real-time data use, and interdisciplinary practice.

Degree-level teacher education provides greater theoretical depth, extended practicum, and exposure to assessment and curriculum adaptation. However, similar structural gaps persist. Speech, behaviour, cognition, and emotional development are often taught as discrete subjects rather than as interacting systems. Graduates may understand components but struggle to integrate them under classroom pressure.

There is a structural lag between what science now tells us about neurodevelopment and how educators are trained to respond.

Contemporary neuroscience and educational research are clear on several points. Learning is inseparable from emotional regulation. Behaviour is a form of communication. Language development shapes executive function. Sensory processing affects attention and memory. Family stress directly influences child outcomes. Educational responses that isolate these domains risk misinterpreting need and delaying support.

In practice, this means that a teacher trained in behaviour management but not language processing may misread dysregulation as defiance. A teacher skilled in literacy instruction but not anxiety may see avoidance where fear is the driver. A classroom without sensory-informed strategies may escalate distress while attempting to enforce compliance.

Teachers are often heard saying, “We are not therapists.” That is true, and it must remain so. They should not diagnose or replace clinical services. But in a system where access to therapists is limited, delayed, or uneven, teachers become the first responders in neurodevelopmental care. Every child passes through a classroom before reaching a therapist’s clinic, if they ever reach one at all.

Internationally, inclusive systems respond to this reality by training teachers as integrators. Educators are equipped to translate therapeutic principles into classroom practice, collaborate with clinicians, use functional data, and adapt instruction dynamically based on regulation and engagement. This professionalises teaching.

Elements of this integrated approach are already visible. This approach reflects principles long articulated in OECD and UNESCO guidance on inclusive education: early identification, cross-disciplinary collaboration, family partnership, and continuity between assessment and intervention. Its value lies less in claims of exceptionalism than in its demonstration that even within local constraints, it is possible to align classroom practice with international standards that recognise learning, regulation, and well-being as interdependent.

NOT OPTIONAL

From a developmental psychology perspective, this integration is not optional. Children rarely struggle in only one domain. When emotional regulation, communication, and learning are addressed separately, progress is fragile and often short-lived. When they are addressed together, within consistent environments and with caregiver involvement, children show greater stability, engagement, and capacity to generalise skills across settings. This mirrors global evidence that fragmented intervention increases burnout for both teachers and families while integrated models improve sustainability.

The broader system, however, remains fragmented. Assessment is often disconnected from intervention. Family engagement is acknowledged but not consistently operationalised. Behaviour is addressed without sufficient attention to communication, trauma, or mental health overlays. These gaps reappear downstream in overwhelmed classrooms, delayed referrals, and parents left to coordinate complex pathways alone.

What is needed now is not replacement but evolution supported by policy, resourcing, and professional development.

Teacher education must move from an exceptionality framework to a neurodiversity framework. This shift reframes difference not as deficit to be managed but as variation to be designed for. It calls for curricula that integrate neuroscience, pedagogy, behaviour science, communication strategies, and family systems into a coherent whole.

Such an evolution would include curriculum audits aligned with current neurodevelopmental research, practicum experiences embedded in multidisciplinary environments, clearer national pathways linking assessment to accommodation and intervention, and training that equips teachers to work confidently alongside families.

This is not a radical but a necessary demand.

Jamaica has the institutional history, professional talent, and legislative backing to lead the region in inclusive education. What is required now is the willingness to update how teachers are prepared for the children already in their classrooms.

Not to dismantle what exists but to complete it.

Because inclusion is not measured by the number of programmes offered but by whether every child, regardless of complexity, is met by a system designed to help them learn, regulate, and belong.

Ruthlyn James is the founding director of Adonijah Group of Schools Therapy and Assessment Centre. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.