 |
A Critical Analysis of Newfoundland and Labrador's
Model of Special Education Management
by David Philpott
Abstract
This paper will discuss the current model of inclusive education
planning in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador in a context
of emergent global trends. Particular attention will be paid to
issues of interagency collaboration and parental involvement in
the decision-making process. Vachou (1997), in a study exploring
attitudes towards inclusion, outlines the belief that a historical
exploration of social, political and cultural values is crucial
in examining current paradigms. She writes, "Such an analysis
is particularly urgent during an era of radical transformation,
when industrial and economic preoccupations occupy the centre
ground of educational politics" (p.4). Subsequently, an analysis
of the Newfoundland model of special education management requires
a brief overview of its origins. The author will illustrate how
the current model was shaped significantly by British, American
and Canadian influences, and has evolved into a contemporary system
which, in many ways, reflects global struggles as much as global
trends. While several specific trends will be discussed, the author
will argue that these follow a central theme that calls for greater
empowerment of the client. In presenting this discussion, concern
will be expressed for whether or not Newfoundland's current model
results in empowerment of children and their parents or rests
on the political language of inclusion.
A brief history
Education in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador has a
rich and colourful history, shaped and influenced by its ties
with Britain, America and its eventual union with Canada. As a
colony of England, much of its early educational system was reflective
of British standards and religious pedagogy. Rowe (1952), in a
history of education in Newfoundland, identifies the establishment
of the first school in 1722. He writes, "Right from the start
there was a tendency for people to segregate themselves geographically
by communities, or even within a community itself on racial and
religious lines" (p.22). This isolation was fuelled by the rural
culture, where lifestyles were based on the primary industries
of fishing and forestry which valued kinesthetic skills over formal
education, as reflected in low literacy rates (Encyclopedia of
NF, V.5). Poor health care services led to high infant mortality
rates and the term "disability" was a construct reserved for those
who could not work for their living.
The beginning of World War II saw increased American and Canadian
interest in the colony, due to its trading potential and strategic
geographic position. New American and Canadian air force and naval
bases made such a significant financial investment that Newfoundland
became financially self-sufficient by the early 1940's. The small
island quickly felt the effects of the global community, which
broadened its predominantly British cultural and social identity
to reflect that of North America. In fact, when the question of
confederation with Canada moved to the forefront in the late 1940s,
one of the options was economic union with the United States.
When a referendum was held in 1949, only 51% of Newfoundlanders
voted to join Canada.
Confederation assigned educational jurisdiction to the provinces
but the Terms of Union established a concessionally based school
system in Newfoundland under the aegis of seven Christian denominations
(Encyclopaedia of NF, V.5). In spite of this entrenchment in religious
segregation, in many ways educational reform started the following
day. Confederation brought an influx of federal money into Newfoundland
which quickly transformed the educational and health care systems
in the new province. School construction, a Canadian curriculum,
post-secondary programmes, and the establishment of a provincial
university greatly improved educational standards. The school
system was opened to a population of students who had not been
given the opportunity for an education previous to this. Rowe
(1973) references this as "... an economic and psychological revolution
that would create the cultural flowering which has transformed
the face of Newfoundland since 1949" (p.12).
Disability services
Confederation with Canada was clearly affecting educational reform
in the province but the British influence did not end there. While
some students with exceptionalities were afforded educational
opportunities, "nothing of any consequence had been done in Newfoundland
to cope with the educational problems presented by the mentally
handicapped" (Rowe, 1976, p.168). In 1954 a Newfoundland philanthropist,
Vera Perlin, visited England to study programs and services for
"handicapped children". On returning, she established the first
class for students with cognitive impairments under the direction
of a church orphanage. In 1956 she organized the parents of these
children to form "The Association for the Help of the Retarded
Child", two years before the formation of the Canadian Association
for Community Living. Her programs grew quickly and by mid-1960
the provincial government, under growing pressure from parents,
gave school boards the option to accept some of these children,
if they so wished (Encyclopaedia of NF V.5).
With this increased expansion of education in Newfoundland came
a broader spectrum of student abilities in the school population
and a call to support students with differing needs (Rowe, 1973).
Blind and deaf students were the first to receive government funding
and were educated at residential schools in Nova Scotia, which
had been established for some time. Federal monies also helped
to improve the health care systems that, in turn, established
some educational services within long-term care facilities. In
addition to benefiting from federal monies, Newfoundland felt
the impact of the shifting Canadian paradigm of disability service.
One Million Children, the final report of The Commission of Emotional
and Learning Disorders in Children (Author, 1970) called for a
radical improvement of educational services for children with
disabilities. Following release of the report, the Newfoundland
churches agreed to deliver sermons on the importance of its recommendations
(Sheppard, 2002). In 1973 a review of services for disabled children
in the Atlantic provinces was conducted and the resulting Kendall
Report made a number of far-reaching recommendations. The report
called for "the consolidation and co-ordination of educational
services for handicapped children in the four Atlantic provinces
and increasing emphasis on education and training for such children
within the framework of the family and the local school environment"
(cited in Rowe, 1976, p.172).
Global influences
Immediately following confederation, one of the first legislative
acts of the new province established Memorial University of Newfoundland.
This university, the only in the province, would have a significant
impact not only on education in the province but also on its social
and cultural identity (Rowe, 1976). The university continued the
channelling of international influences to the establishment of
local pedagogy in special education. In 1973, following the Kendall
Report, the university began a diploma program in special education,
extending it to full degree status in 1979. Newfoundland teachers
were afforded opportunities to complete internships in British
schools by attending a campus at Harlow, England, which the university
had opened in 1968 to maintain ties with its British heritage.
Many teachers, and in particular many special education teachers
who later moved into positions of leadership in education, availed
of the opportunity to study and practise in England (G. Sheppard,
personal communication, January 15, 2002).
In addition to solidifying ties with Britain, the university
also exposed Newfoundland education to significant American influences.
Confederation brought advancements in media and communication,
which opened rural Newfoundland to the influence of its American
neighbour (Rowe, 1976). When the university first started offering
teacher training in special education, the majority of available
professors were either Americans or Canadians who had studied
in American universities. Professors were also recruited from
as far away as Australia, which added a global perspective to
local teacher training. American textbooks and practices dominated
the university's courses and Newfoundland teachers studied the
growing literature and learning theories, such as behaviorism,
that were emerging from the United States (G. Sheppard, personal
communication, January 15, 2002). When America first solidified
educational thought and services for children with disabilities
into law by the passing of United States Public Law 94-142 in
1975, Newfoundland parents and educators quickly began to expect
similar provisions (Rowe, 1976; Weber, 1994). This parental lobbying,
which was more reflective of American law and Canadian social
standards, was having more of an influence than the province's
British heritage and eventually resulted in a subtle amendment
to the province's Schools Act. Parental pressure in the late 1960s
resulted in the Schools Act stating that school boards "may" accept
students with disabilities, giving boards the right to refuse
a child with special needs. In 1979 this word was changed to "shall",
which effectively introduced the process of integration of students
by mandating the right of all students, regardless of ability,
to attend the regular school system (T. Cleal, personal communication.
September 13, 2002). The system that had been founded on principles
of segregation was keeping pace with the shifting paradigm of
integration.
Current model of special education
In discussing how Newfoundland's current model of special education
compares to these global influences from which it emerged, it
is important to examine some of its core principles, including
a stated commitment to inclusion, an interagency model of management,
collaborative approaches, and a focus on curriculum outcomes.
The school system in Newfoundland is relatively small compared
to that of other provinces. Currently, 11 school boards operate
337 schools for approximately 90 000 students, 13.9% of whom access
special education services (Department of Education, 2000). Section
One of the province's current Schools Act stipulates attendance
of all students to their neighbourhood school, and several other
pieces of legislation outlines aspects of support within a philosophy
of acceptance for individuals with disabilities. The Schools Act
defers the details of educational planning and program delivery
for children with exceptionalities to the Special Education Policy
Manual (1999). Pervasive in the draft policy are the core assumptions
of shared responsibility among all educators, full acceptance
of student diversity, collaboration and a shared vision among
stakeholders, and equal access to educational opportunity (Department
of Education, 1999, p.3). These principles are supposed to guide
both the development and the delivery of programs for students
in the province and constitute the guidelines by which programs
are evaluated, decisions are made and legislation is interpreted.
However, the province's model of special education has been seldom
studied and questions remain about whether practice is reflective
of policy.
The 1990s brought about a significant revamping of the province's
educational system that saw both the removal of the denominational
system as well as a radical restructuring of curriculum and management
systems (Philpott & Nesbit, 2002). With a shrinking student enrollment
and shifting demographics, the need for a streamlined, more accountable
and cost-efficient system was understandable. Other provincial
government departments such as Social Services, Health, and Justice
would experience a similar restructuring process throughout the
1990s. One initiative that was central to this was the Model
for Coordination of Services to Children and Youth with Special
Needs in Newfoundland and Labrador (Government of Newfoundland
& Labrador, 1996). The model arose from an interdepartmental review
process on service delivery to children and families and called
for a shared decision-making and planning process in which all
service providers would jointly plan for and deliver supports
to youth. The goal was to reduce duplication of service and to
increase communication so as to maximize efficiency of interventions
for youth with special needs. This process, titled Individual
Support Services Plan (ISSP), has become central to the current
model of service provision for special education and is now anchored
in several pieces of legislation that guide all government departments.
This interagency model of case management presents a series of
objectives which attempt to ensure that relevant contributions
of each service provider to the plan reflect a holistic child-centered
approach: the child and family are full partners in the planning
process; service planning reflects the sharing of knowledge and
expertise among the service providers; there is a continuity of
service provision; fragmentation and duplication of resources
are reduced; there is a common format to service planning, which
does not preclude the unique contributions that each provider
may bring to the plan (Government of Newfoundland & Labrador,
1996, p.6).
A child can be introduced to the ISSP process at any point between
birth and high school graduation, once referred to any of the
servicing agencies. Team membership grows as other service providers
become involved with the child. An interesting feature of the
model is the appointment of a team manager who can be any member,
including the child or the parent, as agreed to by the team. Parental
involvement is central to the process, with written informed consent
being required before a child is referred. Consent is also obtained
on all key decisions that are made after placement. Section 20
of the Schools Act legislates a parent's right to be informed,
while Section 22 outlines an appeal process. These provisions
result in parents having what is considered as the final say concerning
placement (Statutes of Newfoundland, 1997).
Despite the language of the province's special education policy,
a categorical system of special education is central to its delivery.
This model proposes that classes be made educationally diverse,
with emphasis on providing specialized instruction in all classroom
settings. Most students should begin their formal education
in grade level classroom settings with support services. As
strengths and needs become more clearly defined, other options
from the cascade of services may need to be explored and accessed
(Department of Education, 1999. Section 2.A.4).
Children must be identified, through formal assessment, as having
an exceptionality before services can begin and the Department
of Education has outlined a series of categories of exceptionality,
with diagnostic criteria for each. Again, signed and informed
parental consent must be given for this assessment process to
begin, which will help the team design a program of support to
meet a student's identified needs.
The Global Context
Just as Newfoundland's current model of inclusive education planning
had been shaped by external forces, so also has the field of special
education, which has undergone a global evolution amidst growing
criticism and the maelstrom of school reform (Hockenbury et al.,
2000). Emerging from this reform process and the criticism of
special education that accompanies it are trends which can frame
a discussion of Newfoundland's model of management. These include,
but are not limited to, legislative provisions for equal opportunities,
a paradigm shift from segregation to a philosophy of inclusion,
and a move towards collaborative decision-making. In fact, not
only does the Newfoundland model reflect each of these themes
but it also reflects the struggle to implement them. What surfaces
in this discussion is that these themes are not separate entities
but weave in and out of each other and are inextricably linked
by a call for stronger collaboration and parental involvement
at all levels of decision-making. Walther-Thomas et al. (2000)
use the metaphor of a jazz ensemble to illustrate this tapestry
of themes, which results in "...the commitment to orchestrate
inclusive programs that are in harmony with all students' needs"
(p. 287).
Equal opportunities legislation
With the changing of one word in the province's Schools Act in
1979, Newfoundland moved closer to providing equal educational
opportunity for children with disabilities. Globally, society
was becoming increasingly concerned with human rights in the years
following World War II, and by the 1950s and 1960s educational
placement based upon minority and/or disability rights was hotly
debated (Smith et al., 1998). The 1954 landmark American court
case Brown vs. Board of Education "contributed to the development,
in Canada and the United States, of the perspective that fighting
for the rights of the minority with disabilities parallels fighting
for the rights of racial minorities" (Friend, Bursuck, & Hutchinson
1989, p.9). Driedger (1989) refers to this as "the last civil
rights movement" where parents and citizens effectively lobbied
for stronger supports and legislative protection for the rights
of their disabled children.
While the right of these children to attend school was becoming
anchored in legislation, effectiveness of programs to meet their
needs was another debate. Again, the United States was among the
first to address quality of educational programming with Public
Law 94-142, The Education for All Children Act, which called
for a free and appropriate education for all children, providing
equal opportunities in the least restrictive environment by using
a cascade of delivery models with written individual plans to
meet identified needs (Salend, 2001; Rothestein, 2000). Following
its inception in 1975, the law was revised four times before reaching
its current version known as Individuals with Disabilities
Act, 1997 (IDEA). In Canada, parents were also pushing for
quality programs that ensure educational opportunities, not just
integrated placement. The province of Ontario led Canada by amending
its legislation in 1980 to help ensure quality of service (Weber,
1994). Ontario's legislation, like that of Newfoundland, defers
policies and procedures for special education to separate manuals
(Bennett, Dworet & Daigle, 2002). Nova Scotia followed suit with
Bill 39 - An Act Respecting Education and has a model of special
education that, in many ways, parallels that of Newfoundland (Government
of Nova Scotia, 1993). The 1982 passing of the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms in the Canadian Constitution solidified human rights
for all Canadians by ensuring "that all citizens receive equal
treatment under the law and that discrimination based on handicapping
condition is not permitted" (Dworet & Bennett, 2002, p.22).
This trend of anchoring special education in legislation has
continued on a global scale. The 1978 Warnock Report in
Britain resulted in a new Education Act of 1981 that enshrined
"special educational needs" in British legislation and introduced
the concept of equal opportunities for all students (Armstrong,
Armstrong & Barton, 2000). Sweden legislated protection for special
education in 1969 and has since updated its laws to reflect emergent
trends (Persson, 2000). As early as 1951 Greek legislation specified
services for the blind, but did not reflect equal opportunity
for all until the mid-1980s (Vlachou-Balafouti & Zoniou-Sideris,
2000). In Africa, where attitudes towards disabilities are heavily
influenced by cultural and spiritual beliefs, many countries have
embraced legislative provisions despite limited ability to implement
them (Abosi, 2001). Cooper (1999) attributes global trends to
the influencing of Australian disability services and parental
activism that eventually led to The Disability Services Act
of 1986 and The Disability Discrimination Act of 1992.
Global initiatives were supported by the United Nations declaration
of the Rights of Disabled Persons in 1975, the International Year
of the Disabled (1981), and UNESCO's 1994 world conference
on special education with its call for greater inclusive practices
(Abosi, 2001).
Despite this trend of promoting "equal opportunity" with legislation,
have educational services for students with special needs promoted
equality? Armstrong, Armstrong and Barton (2000) question the
effectiveness of such legislation. They write: "historically,
equal opportunities legislation in relation to differing groups
and the organizations which exist to protect their rights has
developed along separate pathways" (p.6). They posit that this
fragmentation shatters protection against discrimination and promotes
a paradigm of dependency by focusing on required professional
services. Fulcher (1989) shares this concern, viewing policies
as politicizing individuals by legitimizing power differentials.
She views bureaucratic policy development as a "discursive social
practice: we act on the basis of our discourse about an aspect
of the social world, such as whether we divide school children
into those with disabilities and those without, or whether we
see all school children, firstly, as pupils" (p.16). She cites
MacDonald (1981) in defining three types of policy: written, stated,
and enacted and cautions that when problems arise, an examination
of each form becomes essential.
Ware (2000) discusses the effect of legislation in America and
says that "...practice may align with the original intent of the
law, but it can be argued that the spirit of the law remains elusive
and unrealized" (p.45). She suggests that current policies and
procedures for a unified, inclusive curriculum should be seen
"...as the stepping stone to understanding the larger project
of inclusion in society" (p.43). Armstrong, Belmont and Verillon
(2000) note that France made education for all children a legal
requirement in 1975 but promoted integration of disabled children
as an ideal to which we must aspire rather than as a core principle.
This apparent contradiction is also noted by McDonnell (2000)
who, in reviewing Ireland's model of planning, identifies "serious
contradictions between [legislated] assumptions and practices
and the concern for equality expressed in recent reports" (p.25).
This break between legislated intent and pragmatic service appears
to be surfacing in Newfoundland. Legislation ensures the right
of all children to attend Newfoundland schools but defers policies
and practices to a policy manual that does not carry legislative
power. At the same time, the manual mandates comprehensive assessments
that result in the labeling of children in order to qualify them
for supports that are designed to treat them as equal. These paradoxes
in Newfoundland's model reflect a question that surfaces globally:
Can legislated policy ensure equality of educational opportunity
for children with disabilities?
Inclusive education
This struggle to legislate equal opportunities, despite well-worded
policies that are protected by legislative power, gave rise to
the growth of a broader philosophical view of inclusion. Defined
globally as a philosophy of tolerance and acceptance of diversity
(O'Brien & O'Brien, 1996) inclusive education has dominated the
agenda of special education in recent years. Uditsky (1993) builds
upon this concept of acceptance by defining inclusion as the "valued
presence and participation of a student with significant disabilities
in the regular classroom" (p.86). Clark et al. (1999) advocate
for still a broader view of inclusion that is linked with diversity
education in our global community. Bloom et al. (1999) define
it as " a philosophy that brings students, families, educators,
and community members together to create schools and other social
institutions based on acceptance, belonging, and community" (cited
in Salend, 2001, p.5).
Surprisingly, the school reform movement has done much to support
this move towards inclusive education. The release of A Nation
at Risk (National Commission on Educational Excellence, 1983)
initiated a reform process that has dominated the educational
agenda of North America in recent years (Lipsky & Gartner, 1997).
This process resulted in an inclusive curriculum that blended
regular and special education by focusing on quality instruction
and curriculum outcomes, a shift towards site-based management
and significant criticisms of special education (Kaufman, 2000;
Hockenbury et al., 2000; Zigmond & Baker, 1995; Kaufman, 1994).
In Newfoundland, the reform era was ushered in with the 1992
release of Our Children Ç Our Future, a Royal Commission
on Education report that brought about the end of denominational
education, a shift to site-based management, and the unification
of what they perceived to be parallel systems of regular and special
education.
The Commission feels it would be more productive to view all
education as special and find ways to provide the type
of learning supports needed by students with many diverse needs.
Special education concepts and categories will not be helpful
unless they are imbedded in the context of the educational goals
for the student individually, and the educational goals for
all students, collectively. (Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador, 1992. p.361)
To this end, in 1995 Newfoundland joined the Atlantic provinces
in developing a shared curriculum titled the Atlantic Provinces
Educational Foundation. A set of Essential Graduation Learnings
now guides the work of all educators and reflects a focus on inclusion,
where supports and services are mandated to assist students in
achieving the goals of the regional curriculum in accordance with
their individual ability. The goal is to identify and acknowledge
the individual needs of the learner by ensuring "that each student's
needs are met and that each student has access to the prescribed
curriculum" (Department of Education, 1998. Section 2.A.4.2.I).
This focus on core curriculum outcomes and a preference for regular
classroom placement is shared by other provinces, including Nova
Scotia (Government of Nova Scotia, 1996), Saskatchewan (Government
of Saskatchewan, 2000) and Ontario (Bennett, Dworet & Daigle,
In press).
This blending of curriculum has also occurred globally. In Britain,
a 1988 Education Reform Act introduced a national curriculum
that standardized instruction for all pupils across the country
(Armstrong, Armstrong & Barton, 2000). Mittler (2001) refers to
this as a "major watershed" for inclusion and goes on to say "a
school curriculum that is accessible and that provides all pupils
without exception with opportunities to participate fully and
to experience success is an essential foundation for inclusion"
(p.111). He documents this trend as being increasingly popular
in countries as diverse as Italy, Lesotho, Denmark and Bangladesh
and references international organizations such as UNESCO
and the newly formed European Agency for Special Needs Education
as being instrumental in promoting this reform.
Zigmond and Baker (1995) offer a different view of inclusion
that more closely resembles Newfoundland's practice. They define
Inclusion Plus as a blending of inclusive practices with a focus
on additional services that include some segregated instructional
sites. The International Council for Exceptional Children
supported this view in a 1993 policy statement. "Access to programs
and experiences should be based on individual educational need
and desired outcomes. Furthermore, students and their families
or guardians, as members of the planning team, may recommend the
placement, curriculum option, and the exit document to be pursued"
(cited in Smith et al., 1998. p.26). This preference for the cascade
model has received federal judicial support. "In 1997 the Supreme
Court of Canada ruled, in the highly controversial case, Eaton
vs. Brandt County Board of Education, that placement of a
student with special needs must be based on the best interests
of the child and that there is no inherent basis for a belief
that the regular class is a more appropriate placement than special
class placement" (Dworet & Bennett, 2002. p.26).
Hutchinson (2002), in a review of Canadian policies on inclusion,
identifies that Newfoundland's interpretation of inclusion is,
in fact, reflective of Canadian practice. She states that the
following quote from the Newfoundland policy manual "summarizes
the current policies on inclusion across Canada: "...most students
can have their needs met in regular diverse classroom environments
and...whenever possible, supports and services should be provided
in these settings. Students may, however, access special learning
environments and/or community based environments, when it will
facilitate their programs, for specific reasons' " (p.12). Most
Canadian provinces have ambiguous policies that hold inclusion
as a goal to which program planning teams must aspire (Dworet
& Bennett, 2002). An example is Nova Scotia's model which names
"Inclusive Schooling" as one of its core principles yet allows
schools options in placement: "The support services that are designed
to meet students' diverse educational needs should be coordinated
within the neighbourhood school and, to the extent possible, within
the grade level/subject area classrooms" (Government of Nova Scotia,
1996, p.11) In fact only two provinces, Prince Edward Island and
New Brunswick, promote a policy where inclusion is the only option
available. In contrast, Sweden's policies allow for less ambiguity
with regard to inclusive practices. New legislation addressing
teacher training, a revised and blended curriculum, and procedures
for stronger collaboration have resulted in "inclusive education
[as] the foundation upon which the Swedish compulsory school is
built" (Persson, 2000, p.123).
Despite this debate for the interpretation of an inclusive philosophy,
concern has been raised for both the quality of individualized
help in inclusive classes and teacher readiness to implement inclusive
practices (Salend, 2001; Scrubbs & Mastropieri, 1996; Zigmond
& Baker, 1995). Studies indicate that most teachers support the
philosophy but call for additional resources, extra preparatory
and collaboration time, and additional training (Salend, 1999,
Semmel et al., 1991; O'Shea & O'Shea, 1998; Lupart et al., 1996).
In Newfoundland, Edmunds (2000) identifies that teachers share
these concerns, while Maich (2002) documents teacher concern over
their own perceptions of collaboration and their readiness to
implement such an approach in their schools.
Newfoundland's model of categorizing students by diagnostic label
and their reliance on a strong categorical approach raises questions
for the province's commitment to inclusion. While the province
views special education as being "inextricably linked to regular
education" (Department of Education, 1999. p.1.5-1.6) the policy
creates structures that result in separation. The policy manual
espouses an ideal of inclusion but specifies a continuum of placement
models, among which segregated sites are only one. Despite the
rapid change that has occurred in the past 25 years, questions
surface for whether the current model reflects a philosophy of
inclusion or holds to the remnants of integration. In fact, in
looking at global definitions of inclusion, Zigmond and Baker's
concept of Inclusion Plus most closely resembles Newfoundland's
model, though in contrast to the language of its policy. Loxley
and Thomas (1997) discuss such contradictions by maintaining that
practitioners have become good at using the language of inclusion
but remain hesitant, which results in "tensions existing in the
field between the articulation of policy and its implementation"
(p. 288). They cite Fulcher (1989) in stating "... that language
is employed as a weapon to exclude - even while using the jargon
and rhetoric of inclusion" (p.289). Ironically, Newfoundland's
model is as much a reflection of the global move towards inclusion
(Smith et al, 1998) as it is of the rhetorical use of language
over practice.
Collaborative decision-making
Sweden's model exemplifies a trend towards collaboration that
emerges as the debate over inclusion continues. Sweden views collaboration
not as a separate issue but as a pedagogical process of decision-making
that will naturally result in more inclusive classrooms. Stronger
collaborative approaches are also rationalized by the identification
of concern for the equality of parents in the planning process
(Yanok & Derubertis, 1989; Tiegerman-Farber & Radziewicz, 1998;
Turnbull & Turnbull, 2001; Quiroz et al., 1999; Rock, 2000). Heward
(2000) identifies the expertise that parents have for the needs
of their child and their "...vested interest in seeing their child
learn" (p.119). David (1992) refers to the growth of parental
input into educational decision-making for their children as a
"parentocracy" and credits it with fuelling much of the reform
movement and, in large part, the thrust towards inclusion. This
activism has had "... a powerful effect on the provincial governments...[which
led to] involving parents far more extensively in day by day educational
decision-making" (Weber, 1994, p.10). Parental involvement is
listed as one of the six core principles of the American Individuals
with Disabilities Act (1997) and is a common thread among
the provincial Schools Acts in Canada (Weber, 1994; Dworet & Bennett,
2002).
Walther-Thomas et al. (2000) outline a view on collaboration
that is inextricably linked with inclusion and education. They
state, "Collaboration to support inclusive education is most likely
to be successful when it is one facet of an overall school culture
that encompasses and supports collaboration among all members
Ç students, families, teachers, specialists, administrators and
members of the surrounding community" (p.28). Tiegerman-Farber
and Radziewicz (1998) define collaboration as "...a creative partnership
that can be used by teachers, parents and administrators to achieve..."
(p.66) mutually identified objectives in meeting the needs of
special education students. Idol, Paolucci-Whitcomb and Nevin
(1986) define it as "an interactive process which enables people
with diverse expertise to generate creative solutions to mutually
defined problems" (cited in Turnbull et al., 2002, p.94).
Collaborative decision-making and parental involvement has been
core to the process of individualized education for some time
(Winzer, 2002; Heward, 2000; Smith et al., 1998). Newfoundland,
however, attempts to solidifify this through the promotion of
an interagency approach to case management that joins parents
and all service providers in the development and implementation
of one child-centred plan.
Newfoundland's promotion of an interagency approach to decision-making
paralleled the call in community rehabilitation for service providers
to streamline management approaches towards a site-based model
and work towards stronger empowerment of the client. The growth
of this larger societal trend towards empowerment of the client
(Maclean & Marlett, 1995) has underscored the inherent risks in
large macro system approaches to client care and favors the establishment
of a more client-centered approach with greater sensitivity to
the individual's wishes by giving them great input into decision-making
(Perlmutter & Trist, 1986). This paradigm shift from the traditional
clinical approach of client management to one of more social concern
(Welch, 1973) was reflected in what Greenleaf (1977) called a
"bottom-up model of servant leadership". Greenleaf advocated for
a new paradigm to replace the traditional tyranny of the "top-down
bureaucratic" process. Neufeldt (1999) framed this concern within
a principle of stronger empowerment of individuals and their families
in both the design and delivery of services.
This gradual shift in thinking and approach to service provision
reflects an evolving social awareness of the roles that clients
play in their own care as well as in their communities (Wolfensberger,
1999). Despite the call for more client-centered approaches to
care provision The Individualized Education Plan (IEP) remains
the management model for educational services to disability services
(Dworet & Bennett, 2002; Heward, 2000). In the broader context
of disability studies, the term "case management" is used as the
framework to define service coordination and management. This
concept arose from shifting institutionalized provision of care
for citizens with handicapping conditions to community-based approaches
(Mueser, et al. 1998). While no single model or definition is
available for case management, Moxley (1989) offers one widely
accepted interpretation of the service. He defines it as, "A designated
person or team who organizes, coordinates, and sustains a network
of formal and informal supports and activities designed to optimize
the functioning and well-being of people with multiple needs"
(p.17).
Central to this management model, either for adults or children,
is participatory involvement, which Dunst (1997) presents as the
foundation of empowerment. He states, "Participatory involvement
items have been described as practices that meaningfully involve
people in help-giver/help-receiver exchanges and are most likely
to result in positive control appraisals about one's existing
and emerging capabilities" (p. 81). In conjunction with this participatory
involvement is a call to coordinate service delivery. Stroul (1995)
calls for the increased use of multi-agency teams in this planning
process. She states:
In order to best meet the needs of children and their families,
integrated, multi-agency networks are needed to blend the services
provided by mental health, education, child welfare, health,
juvenile justice, substance abuse, and other agencies. These
components must be interwoven into a coherent system with provisions
for joint planning, service development, problem solving, funding,
and evaluation of services (p.8).
It is this participatory and collaborative involvement, within
a family-centered model, that blends with management approaches
used with school-aged children. It is also a philosophical underpinning
of Newfoundland's ISSP process that replaces the traditional IEP
and mandates that parents and the child be central members of
the team, and encouraged to assume the role of case manager (Government
of Newfoundland & Labrador, 1996). Again, Newfoundland's model
is becoming increasingly reflective of Canadian trends. Section
3.4 of Nova Scotia's policy manual calls for "...interdepartmental
and interagency collaborative efforts in the design and implementation
of appropriate programs and services for students with special
needs" (Government of Nova Scotia, 1996, p.54). Directions
for Diversity, a report recently tabled in Saskatchewan, calls
for the adoption of an interagency approach to case management
through "... jointly developed policy and shared funding procedures"
(Government of Saskatchewan, 2000, p.66). The report recommends
that provincial Departments of "...Health, Education, Social Services
and other human service agencies take a lead role in enhancing
awareness and promotion of the integrated services approach" (p.67).
Britain's experience with promoting site-based autonomy over
decision-making and financial management has led Mittler (2001)
to question the effectiveness of management systems. She identifies
growing global pressure that "suggests that the time has come
to rethink the whole basis of IEP and in particular to question
their contribution to inclusion" (p.93). She voices concern that
cost effectiveness may take priority over the best interests of
the child, despite all stakeholders collaborating on decisions.
Winzer (2002) cautions that collaboration is not an automatic
occurrence in the planning process. She identifies numerous factors
that can contribute to limiting a family's involvement in the
collaborative process, including lack of self-confidence, skill
deficits, impaired objectivity, and economic considerations. Nobbit
and Cobb (1997) state a more pessimistic view of interagency collaboration
as doing little to benefit the lives of the child/family and being
more about streamlining the agencie's needs. They state: "There
is all too little research and thought concerning definitions,
the necessary organizational processes, appropriate evaluation
strategies, or even the objectives actually being pursued" (p.193).
Danforth (1999) suggests that in promoting empowerment in the
planning process of special education, a first step might be the
naming of power as an obstacle. Harry (1992) states, "The current
state of discourse in special education reflects an imbalance
of power: The difficulties that seem to 'belong' to parents, as
well as attitudes and behaviours of professionals, contribute
to produce a form of discourse in which power is loaded on the
side of professionals" (p.127).
This questioning of case management's ability to empower parents
is already surfacing in Newfoundland's new interagency model.
Supporting Learning: The Ministerial Panel on Educational Delivery
in the Classroom identifies concern for both the deployment
of special education services and the involvement of parents in
the planning process for their children (Government of Newfoundland
& Labrador, 2000b).
Fulcher (1989) in a study of inclusion in Australia, America
and Britain, identifies that a breakdown between inclusive policy
and practice is not unique to Newfoundland. She attributes this
to many factors including an attempt to promote a bottom-up model
of collaboration with policies developed via top-down approaches.
In attempting to do so, the needs of children with disabilities
get lost between overt politics, covert professionalism and an
antiquated view of disability and management. More recently, Armstrong,
Armstrong & Barton (2000) state: "At the heart of the idea of
inclusive education lie serious issues concerning human rights,
equal opportunities and social justice. How societies construct
and respond to disabilities, gender, race and cultural differences
is of fundamental importance" (p.1).
Summary
In a province of relative isolation and limited means, today's
model of special education planning reflects the global influences
from which it emerged. The move towards legislated protection
of services, the use of inclusive language and an interagency
approach to collaborative decision-making mirror world trends,
as well as the global struggle to realize such philosophies in
practice.
Nonetheless, the provincial government recognizes the importance
of this paradigm shift towards collaborative decision-making,
not only for education but for all departments in an effort to
ensure economic and social well being. In a 1998 document People,
Partners and Prosperity: A Strategic Social Plan for Newfoundland
and Labrador, the government committed itself to enhancing
social cohesion that will better position the province to compete
in the emergent global community. "The challenging nature of the
issues facing this province demands an approach which can achieve
an integration of social and economic objectives, focus attention
on prevention and early intervention and promote coordination
in the delivery of client-centred services" (Government of Newfoundland
& Labrador, 1998, p. 39). In a more recent indicator of future
direction and commitment, the Government issued Words to Live
By: A Strategic Literacy Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador (2000)
in which it stated that the province "envisions a society committed
to supportive communities, employment and economic security and
the general well-being of our citizens" (Government of Newfoundland
& Labrador, 2000a, p. 11).
This community context of collaboration reflects what Sergiovanni
(1994) describes as community building, based on an acceptance
that diversity is core to our social fabric. Noddings (1992) outlines
that schools not only have an opportunity to accomplish this but
a responsibility to promote an appreciation of diversity through
the establishment of an "ethic of caring". Gale (2000) and Slee
(2001) argue for this as a social justice issue that recognizes
both the inherent worth of all citizens as well as their right
to access the required goods and services needed to realize their
potential.
Given that Newfoundland's model of education was founded in a
system of religious autocracy and segregation, the shift to a
model that promotes a philosophy of inclusion has been nothing
less than revolutionary. This history, both its philosophical
underpinnings and its practical struggles, parallels the global
movement towards what Smith et al, (1998) refer to as the fourth
stage in special education: empowerment. In preparing for this,
the province has developed contemporary written policy. However
what is the reality of enacted policy for these children and their
families?
While the province's current model of special education uses
the language of inclusion, its reliance on labels and comprehensive
assessments reflects what Foucault (1977) refers to as a medical
model of disability, which rationalizes stigmatization and discrimination
by focusing on deficits. Allan (1996), reflecting on Foucault's
work, argues that the individualized nature of special education
supports this deficit model and thereby promotes a paradigm of
difference. This prompts the question: Does a medical view of
disability fit in a model that is designed to promote empowerment?
Solutions lie in arenas much larger than our classrooms but touch
on the very fabric of our communities. Perhaps the concerns do
not negate the changes that have been made but call for stronger
shifts, especially with enacted policy. In light of this,
Newfoundland should view its current model of inclusive education
planning as being in a process of development towards a model
that will be truly client-centred and empowering. A shift of this
magnitude "may seem a Herculean task, but it is politically more
optimistic than the pessimism of structural approaches which in
education have not offered policy makers...a viable agenda. The
politics of negotiations, discourse and their associated strategies
derive from the view that policy is made at all levels and responsibility
for the decisions made in one arena should be located with the
social actors who make them" (Fulcher, 1989, p.16).
References
Abosi, C.O. (2001). Thoughts on an action plan for the development
of inclusive education in Africa. Retrieved from the World Wide
Web, January 9, 2002: http://www.cec.sped.org/intl/natlover.html
Allan, J. (1966). Foucault and special educational needs: a 'box
of tools' for analysing children's experiences of mainstreaming.
Disability and Society. 11(2), 219-233.
Armstrong, F., Armstrong D. & Barton, L. (2000). Inclusive
Education; Policy, Contexts and Comparative Perspectives.
London, UK: David Fulton.
Armstrong, F., Belmont, B. & Verillon, A. (2000). Vive la Difference?
Exploring context, policy and change in special education in France:
developing cross-cultural collaboration. In F. Armstrong, D. Armstrong
& L. Barton, (Eds.), Inclusive Education; Policy, Contexts
and Comparative Perspectives. London, UK: David Fulton.
Barton, L. & Oliver, M. (1992). Special needs: Personal trouble
or public issue? In M. Arnot & L. Barton (Eds.), Voicing Concerns:
Sociological Perspectives on contemporary education reforms.
Wallingford, UK: Triangle Books.
Bennett, S. Dworet, D. & Daigle, R. (In Press). Educational provisions
for exceptional students in the province of Ontario. Exceptional
Education Canada.
Bloom, L., Perlmutter, J. & Burrell, L. (1999). The general educator:
Applying constructivism to inclusive classrooms. Intervention
in School and Clinic. 34(3). 132-137.
Clark, C., Dyson, A., Millward, A., & Robson, S. (1999). Inclusive
education and schools as organizations. International Journal
of Inclusive Education. 3(1), 37-51.
Colarusso, R.P. & Kana, T.G. (1993). Implementing services for
infants and toddlers with developmental delays. In E. L. Meyen,
G.A. Vergason, & R.J. Whelan (Eds.), Challenges facing special
education. Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Cooper, M. (1999). The Australian disability rights movement
lives. Disability & Society. 14(2), 21-226.
Danforth, S. (1999) Pragmatism and the scientific validation
of professional practices in American special education. Disability
& Society, 14(6). 733-751.
David, M. (1992). Parents and the state: how has social research
informed education reforms? In M. Arnot & L. Barton (Eds.), Voicing
Concerns: Sociological perspectives on contemporary education
reforms. Wallingford, UK: Triangle Books.
Department of Education (1998). Pathways to Programming and
Graduation: A Handbook For All Teachers and Administrators.
St. John's, NF: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Department of Education (1999). Special Education Policy Manual
(Draft). St. John's, NF: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Department of Education. (2000). Profile 2000: Educational
Indicators, Primary, Elementary, Secondary. St. John's, NF:
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Driedger, D. (1989). The Last Civil Right's Movement: Disabled
Peoples' International. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Dunst, C. J. (1997). Conceptual and empirical foundations of
family-centered practice. In. R.J. Illback, C.T. Cobb & H. Joseph
(Eds.), Integrated Services for Children and Families: Opportunities
for Psychological Practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Dworet, D. & Bennett, S. (2002). A view from the north: Canadian
policies and issues in special education. Teaching Exceptional
Children. 34(5). 22-27.
Edmunds, A. (2000). Substantive changes in teachers' roles and
developing inclusive practices in Nova Scotia schools Ç A Newfoundland
comparison. Paper presented at International Special Education
Congress 2000. Manchester, UK.
Encyclopedia of Newfoundland, Volume 5 (1997). St. John's, NF:
Harry Cuff.
Foucault, M. (1977). Intellectuals and power: a conversation
between Michael Foucault & Giles Deleuze. In D. Bouchard (Ed.),
Language, Counter-memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews
by Michael Foucault. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell Press.
Fulcher, G. (1989) Disabling Policies? A comparative approach
to education policy and disability. London, UK: The Farmer
Press
Friend, M., Bursuck, W., & Hutchinson, N. (1998). Including
Exceptional Students. Allyn and Bacon. Scarborough, ON.
Gale, T. (2000). Rethinking social justice in schools: how will
we recognize it when we see it? International Journal of Inclusive
Education. 4(3), 253-269.
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. (1992). Our Children,
Our Future. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Delivery
of Programs and Services in Primary, Elementary, Secondary Education
St. John's, NF.
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. (1996). Coordination
of Services to Children and Youth With Special Needs in Newfoundland
and Labrador. St. John's, NF.
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. (1998). People, Partners
and Prosperity: A Strategic Social Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador.
St. John's, NF.
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. (2000a). Words to
Live By: A Strategic Literacy Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador
St. John's, NF.
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. (2000b). Supporting
Learning: Ministerial Panel on Educational Delivery in the Classroom.
St. John's, NF.
Government of Nova Scotia, (1996). Special Education Policy
Manual. Halifax, NS.
Government of Saskatchewan (2000). Directions for Diversity:
Enhancing supports to children and youth with diverse needs.
Regina, SK.
Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant Leadership. Ramsey, NJ:
Paulist Press.
Harry, B. (1992). Restructuring the participation of African-American
parents in special education. Exceptional Children, 59,
123-131.
Heward, W.L. (2000). Exceptional Children. An Introduction
to Special Education. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Hockenbury, J.C., Kauffman, J.M, & Hallahan, D.P. (2000). What
is right about special education. Exceptionality, 8(1).
3-11.
Hutchinson, N.L. (2002). Inclusion of Exceptional Learners
in Canadian Schools. Toronto, ON: Prentice Hall.
Idol, L., Paolucci-Whitcomb, P., & Nevin, A. (1986). Collaborative
Consultation. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Johnson, L.J. & Carr, V.W. (1996). Curriculum in early childhood
education: moving toward an inclusive specialization. In M.C.
Pugach & C.L. Warger (Eds.), Curriculum Trends, Special Education
and Reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Kauffman, J.M. (1994). Places of change: Special education's
power and identity in an era of educational reform. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 27(10), 610-618.
Kauffman, J. M. (2000). The special education story: obituary,
accident report, conversion experience, reincarnation, or none
of the above? Exceptionality, 8(1), 61-71.
Lipsky, D.K. & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and School reform:
Transforming America's Classroom's. New York, NY: Paul H.
Brookes.
Loxley, A., & Thomas, G. (1997). From inclusive policy to the
exclusive real world: an international review. Disability &
Society. 12(2), 273-291.
Lupart, J., McKeough, A. & Yewchuk, C. (1996). Schools in
Transition: Rethinking regular and special education. Scarborough,
ON: Nelson.
Maclean, H.R. & Marlett, N.J. (1995). Subsidarity and empowerment:
challenges for community care. In International Perspectives
in Community Care for Older People. London: Alberry Press,
159-169.
Maich, K. (2002). When Pathways Cross: Special education teacher
collaboration under "Pathways to Programming and Graduation".
Unpublished masters thesis: Memorial University of Newfoundland.
McDonnell, P. (2000). Inclusive education in Ireland: Rhetoric
and reality. In F. Armstrong, D. Armstrong & L. Barton, (Eds.),
Inclusive Education; Policy, Contexts and Comparative Perspectives.
London, UK: David Fulton.
Mittler, P. (2000). Working Towards Inclusive Education: Social
Contexts. London, UK: David Fulton.
Moxley, D.P. (1989). The Practice of Case Management.
Newbury Park: Sage.
Mueser, K.T., Bond, G.R., Drake, R.E., & Resnick, S.G. (1998).
Models of community care for severe mental illness: A review of
research on case management. Schizophrenia Bulletin. 24(1),
37-74.
National Commission on Educational Excellence (1983). A Nation
At Risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Neufeldt, A.H. (1999). Appearances of disability, discrimination
and transformation of the rehabilitation services practices. In
R.L. Leavit (Ed.), Cross-cultural Rehabilitation, An International
Perspective. London: Harcourt Brace.
Noddings, N. (1992). The Challenge to Care in Schools: An
Alternative to Care in Schools. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Nobbitt, G.W. & Cobb, C.T. (1997). Organizing for effective integrated
services. In. R.J. Illback, C.T. Cobb & H. Joseph (Eds) Integrated
Services for Children and Families: Opportunities for Psychological
Practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
O'Brien, J. & O'Brien, C.L. (1996). Inclusion as a force for
school renewal. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Inclusion:
A Guide for Educators. Toronto, ON. Brookes Publishing.
O'Shea, D. J., & O'Shea, L.J., (1998). Learning to include: Lessons
for a high school without special education services. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 31(1). 40-48.
Perlmutter, H. & Trist, E. (1986). Paradigms for Social Trends.
Human Relations, 39(1), 1-28.
Persson, B. (2000). Special Education in today's Sweden Ç a struggle
between the Swedish model and the market. In F. Armstrong, D.
Armstrong & L. Barton, (Eds.), Inclusive Education; Policy,
Contexts and Comparative Perspectives. London, UK: David Fulton.
Philpott, D. F. & Nesbit, W. C. (2002). Legislative provisions
for special education in Newfoundland and Labrador. Exceptional
Education Canada. 11(2-3).
Quiroz, B., Greenfiled, P.M. & Altchech, M. (1999). Bridging
cultures with a parent-teacher conference. Educational Leadership,
56(1), 68-70.
Rock, M.L. (2000). Parents as equal partners: Balancing the scales
in IEP development. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(6),
30-37
Rothstein, L.F (2000). Special Education Law (3rd ed).
California: Addison Wesley-Longman.
Rowe, F.W. (1952) The History of Education in Newfoundland.
Toronto, ON: The Ryerson Press
Rowe, F.W. (1976). Education and Culture in Newfoundland.
Scarborough, ON: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
Salend, S. J. (1999). So what's with our inclusion program? Teaching
Exceptional Children, 32(2). 46-54.
Salend, S.J. (2001). Creating Inclusive Classrooms. (4th ed.).
New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Scruggs, T. E. and Mastropieri, M.A. (1996). Teacher perceptions
of mainstreaming /inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis.
Exceptional Children, 63(1). 59-74.
Semmel, M. I., Abernathy, T.V., Butera, G., & Lesar, S. (1991).
Teacher perceptions of the regular education initiative. Exceptional
Children, 58(1). 9-23.
Sergiovanni, T. (1994). Building Community in Schools.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Slee, R. (2001). Social justice and the changing directions in
educational research: The case of inclusive education. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 5(2/3), 167-177.
Smith, T.E., Polloway, E.A., Patton, J.R., & Dowdy, C.A. (1998).
Teaching Students With Special Needs in Inclusive Settings.
Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Statutes of Newfoundland (1997) c.S-12. An Act to Revise the
Law Respecting the Operation of Schools in the Province. St.
John's, NF: Queen's Printer.
Stroul, B.A. (1995). Case management in a system of care. In.
B.J. Friesen & J. Poertner (Eds.), From Case Management to
Service Coordination for Children with Emotional, Behavioural,
or Mental Disorders: Building on Family Strengths. Maryland:
Brookes Publishing.
Tiegerman-Farber, E. & Radziewicz, C. (1998). Collaborative
Decision-making: The Pathway to Inclusion. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Turnbull, A.P. & Turnbull, H.R. (2001). Families, Professionals,
and Exceptionality: A Special Partnership. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Turnbull, R., Turnbull, A., Shank, M., Smith, S., & Leal, D.
(2002). Exceptional Lives: Special Education in Today's School.
(3rd ed.). New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Uditsky, B. (1993). From integration to inclusion: The Canadian
experience. In R. Slee (Ed.), Is There A Desk With My Name
On It? The Politics of Integration. Washington, DC: The Falmer
Press.
Vlachou, A.D. (1997). Struggles for Inclusive Education.
Buckingham, PA: Open University Press
Vlachou-Balafouti & Zoniou-Sideris (2000). Greek policy practices
in the area of special/inclusive education. In F. Armstrong, D.
Armstrong & L. Barton, (Eds.), Inclusive Education; Policy,
Contexts and Comparative Perspectives. London, UK: David Fulton.
Walter-Thomas, C., Korinek, L., McLaughlin, V.L. & Williams,
B.T. (2000). Collaboration for Inclusive Education. Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Ware , L. (2000) Sunflowers, enchantment and empires: reflections
on inclusive education in the United States. In F. Armstrong,
D. Armstrong & L. Barton, (Eds.), Inclusive Education; Policy,
Contexts and Comparative Perspectives. London, UK: David Fulton.
Weber, K. (1994). Special Education in Canadian Schools.
Thornhill, ON: Highland Press.
Welch , R. (1973). Community Living for the Mentally Retarded
in Ontario. Toronto, ON: Queen's Printer.
Winzer, M. (2002). Children with Exceptionalities in Canadian
Classrooms. (6th ed.). Scarborough, ON: Prentice Hall, Allyn
& Bacon.
Wolfensberger, W. (1999). An overview of social role valorization.
In R.J. Flynn & R.A. Lemay. A Quarter Century of Normalization
and Social Role Valorization and Evolution and Impact. Ottawa,
ON: University of Ottawa Press.
Yanok, J., & Derubertis, D. (1989). Comparative study of parental
participation in regular and special education programs. Exceptional
Children, 56, 195-199.
Zigmond, N. & Baker, J.M. (1995). Concluding comments: current
and future practices in inclusive schooling. The Journal of
Special Education. 29(2). 245-250.
Submitted by
David Philpott
University of Calgary
Email: philpott@mun.ca
Author Biography
David Philpott is a Doctoral candidate in Community Rehabilitation
and Disability Studies, University of Calgary. In 2000 he joined
the Faculty of Education at Memorial University, (http://www.mun.ca/educ/)
following an eighteen year career in special education. He has
extensive experience in program development and individualized
planning and has taught at all levels of the K-12 system. Additionally
he has served in numerous leadership positions at the district,
provincial and national level and has served on the Board of Directors
for The Canadian Council for Exceptional Children and the Canadian
Counseling Association. His interests are program development,
inclusive education, collaboration and learning disabilities.
Search Words
Inclusive education; interagency case management; special education;
collaboration; policy; global trends.
|
