“Our hope today is that this statement will finally put an end to emergency measures, and seriously think about inclusive education for pupils and students with disabilities.This is how Vincenzo Falabella, President of FISH, the Italian Federation for Overcoming Disability, commented The sentence came from the seventh section of the Council of State, which gave the Ministry of Education grounds in the appeal it saw against the Lazio TARlast September he had rejected the new paythe individual pedagogical plans and the related guidelines introduced by Interministerial Decree 182/2020.
“The sentence of the Council of State represents a real lesson in the law on the regulatory nature of administrative actsWeider Falabella. “We were always convinced of the goodness of the new pay that involved teachers, families, healthcare professionals, for the first time in the school world, to have introduced the bio-psycho-social perspective into a new concept of a changing learning environment. and approach to school inclusion itself“. And then he adds:”I am sorry, however, that a year was lost on the road to inclusion in school and that our boys and girls, students with disabilities once again paid the price. I would also like to remind the associations that supported the appeal and that, when asked in the process of drafting the decree, never had anything to complain about.“.
As you may recall, in fact, FISH Onlus and its member organizations immediately welcomed the publication of the new PEI models as a positive signto find some confirmation of the requests that were made in the context of the constant discussions with the Ministry of Education.
Now, therefore, do not waste any more valuable time, repeat the experts of the scholastic world within the Italian Federation for overcoming the handicap: “for our part, we will continue on the path of constructive dialogue, without compromise and without ever negotiating rights. A comparison, which in addition has already led to the elimination of various aspects of the decree and guidelines, (such as the tax liability of GLO members and the ban on participating in more than one expert who reported the family) objects of the appeal to the TAR and to which the Council of State has not in fact ruled“.