Summary:
- The article reports that Flanders has the highest share in Europe of pupils in special education and that the number has risen sharply in recent years (over 56,000 pupils last school year, up ~14% versus five years earlier).
- That growth has created long waiting lists, long bus rides, regional shortages (projected shortages by 2030–31 of ~7% in special primary and >15% in special secondary) and heavy pressure on ordinary schools and pupil guidance centres.
- The Matadi school in Leuven combines regular and special education on one campus (since 2022), merging staff and resources to teach many lessons together while sometimes grouping pupils by need for targeted support (e.g., extra help or challenge). The school uses strong, consistent structure and a multidisciplinary team (teachers, care staff, speech therapists, physiotherapists, etc.).
- Matadi’s director argues this model keeps more children in regular education, lowers pressure on special education and lets children attend school in their own neighbourhood, while genuinely special-needs pupils still have access to dedicated places.
- Flemish education minister Zuhal Demir supports a shift toward “schools for everyone” that blur the boundary between regular and special education; 20 pioneer schools will start next September to test the approach.
- Experts say the present system is unsustainable: merely adding places or schools won’t solve underlying problems caused by inconsistent policy over 15+ years (including the failed M-decree), broader diagnostic criteria, rising referrals, and schools’ uncertainty in handling behavioural/language issues.
- A committee including education psychologist Wim Van den Broeck notes about one-third of pupils in regular schools have some learning problem and urges more general, classroom-level solutions so only pupils with heavier needs follow specialised trajectories.
- Stakeholders are cautiously optimistic: the Matadi example suggests the model could substantially reduce special-education numbers (advocates aim to halve the current share), but implementing it widely will be practically challenging.
Hmm, I doubt that, as pollutants have been going down - like a lot - since. At least locally, we outsourced the problem.
For example, the PFAS soil pollutants that make news today were deposited around some industry because they were air pollutants and a small fraction of it reached the soil. People used to just breath the stuff in way larger quantities all of the time.
Lead in fuels have been outlawed only end of 80s.
So I’d expect the reverse trend if pollutants were the cause.
Um, idk if you’ve been paying attention to the news, but this was just in 2023: https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/2023/01/ewg-study-eating-one-freshwater-fish-equals-month-drinking
And then there are thousands of articles about increasing studies on the prevalence of microplastics: Microplastics found in every human placenta in study
Less than a month ago: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/28/microplastics-in-hair-study
Where did you read that pollution is reducing? Where are the links to back up your claims?