Larry's Gulch Inclusive Education Review June 21, 22, 2012

Meeting of Senior Department of Education Officials With Gordon Porter And Other Advocates of Extreme Everyone In the Mainstream Classroom Inclusion June 20, 21, 2012
Information from CANADALAND web site.

L: Yude  M. Henteleff, C.M., Q.C., L.L.D. (Hon.)     R: Harold L. Doherty 
at the Atlantic Human Rights Centre Inclusion Conference Crowne Plaza Fredericton-Lord Beaverbrook, June 14, 15, 2012 Mr. Henteleff presented, a paper advocating for a range of learning placement optionsin order to ensure meaningful inclusion:  MEANINGFUL ACCESS, INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF A WIDE RANGE OF PLACEMENTS, AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF INCLUSIVITY IN EDUCATION

It was a privilege, on June 14, 15, 2012  to attend the Atlantic Human Rights Centre Inclusion Conference at the Crown Plaza in Fredericton and to meet the very distinguished lawyer and disability advocate Yude Henteleff above. I personally have tried for many years to advocate for a rational evidence based inclusive education policy that provides a range of learning environments to accommodate the diverse challenges and needs of persons with disabilities particularly students with autism spectrum disorders.  Unfortunately anything that was discussed at that conference was not likely to have been considered by the NB government and department of Education officials when they met with Gordon Porter, and other "all students in the mainstream classroom inclusion philosophy " one week later at Larry's Gulch.

Autism Spectrum Disorder has been increasingly recognized for its heterogeneity particularly with respect to cognitive deficits, sensory challenges, self injurious behaviors,  and learning disabilities.  In NB the fight for an education policy that allows for alternative learning environments to accommodate those students, like my son, who do not function well in the regular classroom, and can even be harmed by that location,  has largely been undone by Gordon Porter and the NBACL including various members of the influential Carr family and their NBACL associate Danny Soucy.  At the June 14 2012 conference above Mr Henteleff and I were  voices advocating for evidence based accommodation of the needs of students with disabilities.  Gordon Porter was there presenting individuals with anecdotal horror stories about segregation. 

The conference appeared to have been a waste of time and money.  One week later,  at Larry's Gulch,  senior education officials and government officials met with Gordon Porter, Canada's most  obsessive advocate for reducing learning options for all students to the mainstream classroom.  Neither I, a former ASNB president and long time critic of NB's extreme mainstream only inclusion policy, nor the distinguished lawyer and disability advocate Yude Henteleff were present.

I  met Mr Porter,  NBACL/CACL icon,  on several occasions during the MacKay and Ministerial Committee inclusive education reviews. During a breakout session in a room at the MacKay review Gordon Porter grew visibly annoyed with me and another ASNB parent advocate when we advocated a range of learning settings to accommodate some students with autism disorders who would have difficulty functioning in the mainstream classroom.  He dismissed our comments by telling us that "you people should be thankful" for what we had.  I  have no doubt that when he attended Larry's Gulch with fellow NBACL official,  and co-author of the last of several inclusive education reviews, Angela Aucoin, Krista Carr of the NBACL and her husband Jody Carr, then the Minister of Education, and Danny Soucy MLA and NBACL official at various times,  that he pushed his obsessive,  extreme inclusion philosophy and made no positive mention of the need for a range of learning environments to accommodate those with severe autism and other disorders.

I wasn't present at the Larry's Gulch inclusive education review but I am sure that it likely topped the  Wayne MacKay and Ministerial Committee reviews and any views that did not support the Gordon Porter extreme, all students in the mainstream classroom, inclusion philosophy.

Dear Honourable Ministers: Conor Has Voted Again for Flexible, Meaningful Inclusion, Alternative Learning Arrangements

Conor, anxious to get to Leo Hayes High School, to the resource center with other challenged kids for socialization, and to his individual learning area for his ABA based instruction, watches the clock this morning. Conor votes YES for flexible inclusion with meaningful access to learning.

Minutes before departure Conor, on his own initiative, brings Dad his sneakers to make sure I don't forget to drive him to school on time. 

Honourable Jody Carr Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development
Honourable Dorothy Shephard Minister of Healthy and Inclusive Communities

Dear Honourable Ministers:

I am forwarding the above composite picture of my son Conor, seated in the kitchen watching the clock at 7:30 am this morning.  Conor, now 16 years old, has severe Autistic Disorder and is assessed with profound developmental delays.  He was not placed on a "time out" chair for having behaved badly.  He was sitting there of his own choice because he was, as he is every day, anxious to get to school at Leo Hayes High School, an experience he truly loves and one which he misses during the summer months.  

I encouraged Conor to engage in other activities instead of just sitting on the chair and he did so. At precisely 7:55 though Conor, again on his own initiative, brought me a pair of my sneakers and handed them to me,  as a polite reminder to Dad to get ready to take him to school. To the far left of the picture is a red object. It is his school back pack including his lunch pack which he packs the night before and placed in the fridge.  In the morning, on his own initiative, he places the lunch pack inside the back pack and places them near the exit door to ensure that it is with him when Dad drives him to school in the morning.  

With these actions Conor indicates clearly what a positive experience his flexible inclusive education at Leo Hayes HS is for him.  Conor does not, at our request receive his instruction in a regular classroom. Some autistic children can prosper in a regular classroom and some, like Conor, require instruction outside the regular classroom in a quieter space where he is not overwhelmed by noise and other distractions. 

Conor started his schooling in a regular classroom and came home every day with self inflicted bite marks  on his hands and wrists. (self injurious behavior is a recognized condition commonly associated with autism disorders). Once removed the biting ceased and Conor received his instruction in an individualized area in grade school, middle school and high school.  His instruction has been provided by education assistants/teacher aides trained at the excellent UNB-CEL Autism Intervention Training program.  

Conor's socialization has NOT been impaired by these arrangements.  Throughout school he has, in consultation with us, his parents, been involved in various outings and activities within his abilities including some specified gym activities, swimming (his favorite), outings like apple picking (another favorite) and last year he even attended a play put on at Fredericton's playhouse. Other students have ALWAYS greeted Conor warmly at every level of school. Some have even sought him out at our home in order to say hello to him outside of school. At Tim Horton restaurants Conor has been greeted by staff who are were students at school and knew him through Best Buddies. I underline these facts because it is important to realize that full regular mainstream inclusion is NOT necessary to ensure a full social learning experience for children with severe challenges like my son.  

One of the greatest socialization assets for Conor has been the Resource Center at the Leo Hayes High School. The RC is well staffed with trained experienced personnel that know how to manage children with extra needs in as stress free a manner as possible.  It also provides a variety of tools and sharing of information directly by people who are actually working directly with challenged children.  Stigmatization does not occur by placing challenged children in a resource center for parts of the day.  Stigmatization and outright harm occurs by pretending that all children regardless of cognitive level and regardless of disability based sensory and behavioral challenges,  must receive instruction in the same area as their chronological "peers". 

I have made these statements again on Conor's behalf, as I have made them throughout his education because of the constant threat posed to the flexible mode of inclusion that has benefited him in his education. The ideologically based every child in the regular classroom model to which this current administration and its most trusted advisers subscribe would be detrimental and harmful to my son if inflicted upon him, if his ABA based learning in an alternative area or if his socialization, security and happiness in the Leo Hayes High School are targeted for elimination.

Conor demonstrates the success of the current flexible model of inclusion, of the ABA instruction he has received outside the regular classroom, of the security and opportunity for socialization that the Leo Hayes High School Resource Center provides.  Please do not ignore Conor's story while making decisions affecting his future and the future of other children who need accommodation outside the regular classroom.

Although I am a lawyer by profession I try to avoid making legal arguments in education discussion since they can unfortunately lead to confrontation when cooperation and understanding are so badly needed to ensure proper education and development of children.  Having said that I will provide you, with respect, to two links to documents summarizing leading precedents in Canadian jurisdiction concerning the need meaningful access to education of children with disabilities written by Yude Henteleff QC a distinguished lawyer and Order of Canada member who has represented many disability organizations in Canada. Without getting too detailed I believe these documents can be summarized by saying that case law has established that an ideological insistence on regular classroom placement of all children regardless of disability considerations, and without providing alternative arrangements to accommodate their disability based challenges can constitute unlawful discrimination:

1. The Fully Inclusive Classroom Is Only One of the Right Ways to Meet the Best Interests of the Special Needs Child.  (2004) Yude M. Henteleff 

2. MEANINGFUL ACCESS, INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF A WIDE RANGE OF PLACEMENTS, AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF INCLUSIVITY IN EDUCATION by Yude M. Henteleff C.M., Q.C., LL.D. (Hon.) (2012)

I would ask you foremost though to simply look at these pictures of Conor and take my word as his parent, as a long time autism advocate and representative of the Autism Society New Brunswick during the MacKay and Ministerial Committee inclusive education reviews (and current acting ASNB President). Not all children, and certainly not ALL autistic children function well in the regular classroom.   The ASNB position that children should be educated in a manner consistent with an evidence based determination of their best interests is consisted with the policies of the Canadian Learning Disabilities Association. It is also consistent with the first section of the PNB definition of Inclusive Education that resulted from the Ministerial Committee review of inclusive education:

"Inclusive Education

I. Vision

An evolving and systemic model of inclusive education where all children reach their full learning potential and decisions are based on the individual needs of the student and  founded on evidence." (underlining added - HLD)

I ask both of you Honourable Ministers to be faithful to the above definition of inclusive education fashioned after years of consultation conducted by Ministers of the Lord and Graham governments and examined the evidence of my son and other children with needs that require education outside the regular classroom.  Please continue the option for individualized education outside the regular classroom for those like my son who require that arrangement.  And please do not eliminate valuable, proven resources like the Leo Hayes High School Resource Center that have contributed so much in the way of socialization, security and friendship for my son and others with similar needs.

Respectfully,

Harold L Doherty

Fredericton NB

Meaningful Access: Yude Henteleff (2012) Critiques Full Inclusive Education as a Non Evidence Based, Discriminatory Philosophy and Recommends A New Paradigm

The image above is the cover page of the paper MEANINGFUL ACCESS, INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF A WIDE RANGE OF PLACEMENTS, AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF INCLUSIVITY IN EDUCATION by Yude M. Henteleff C.M., Q.C., LL.D. (Hon.). The paper is available in PDF format on the Atlantic Human Rights Centre web site by clicking on the title. 

I had the privilege of meeting Mr. Henteleff at the recent Atlantic Human Rights Centre inclusive education conference in Fredericton at which he presented this paper.  His earlier work on this subject provided a thorough analysis of Canadian jurisprudence, including Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, concerning the accommodation of students with special needs in inclusive education.  His earlier work was the road map I followed in trying to chart a path for my severely autistic, developmentally delayed son toward achieving a meaningful  education in the extreme inclusion Province of New Brunswick.  

Mr. Henteleff's latest work updates that road map and should be mandatory reading for anyone involved in the education of students in New Brunswick schools. I absolutely recommend it for parents and their legal counsel should legal proceedings be necessary to ensure the protection of their children's best interests in New Brunswick school. 

I was able to thank Mr. Henteleff face to face for his contribution to my son's positive education experience during the AHRC inclusive education conference in Fredericton. I would like to acknowledge that contribution again publicly in this commentary and say Thank You Mr. Henteleff.

I will not summarize Mr. Henteleff's entire paper in this comment.  Following though are some statements which he stated in his paper he strongly supports and principles derived from high legal authority in Canada and the United States. 


I humbly agree with the statements Mr Henteleff supports and with his interpretation of relevant legal authorities and the principles derived from them.  I have, in my own way, articulated these principles during my participation in the Mackay, Ministerial Committee and Porter Aucoin inclusive education reviews in New Brunswick and in more recent media appearances. 

These comments reflect the fact that full inclusion is a philosophy that requires regular classroom placement for all students regardless of their individual situations. As such full inclusion philosophical education practice discriminates by failing to provide an evidence based an evidence based determination of each student's best interests with respect to the place of learning.  It is a simplistic philosophy with an egalitarian feel good tone that makes "true believers" of otherwise learned educators.  

Following are some of the brief introductory comments by Yude Henteleff which highlight the problems with full inclusion, philosophy based education practices:

R. v. The Board of Education for the Region of York

This is a decision of the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal File #10. It was appealed to the High Court of Justice 63 O.R. (2d) 767 and to the Ontario Court of Appeal 69 O.R. (2d) 543 on issues unrelated to the issue of best interests. Accordingly, the decision by the Ontario Special Education Tribunal as to placement remains. 

The Tribunal in respect to segregation v. integration and the child's best interests found as follows: It is the firm opinion of this Tribunal that the wholesale integration of exceptional pupils into regular classes, solely on the basis of philosophical principle, untempered by due and informed consideration of each individual situation, is directly counter to the best interests of all pupils. [My emphasis] 

In The Journal Focus on Exceptional Children2, the authors, James A Kaufman and Patricia Pullan, explored a number of widely held myths about children with disabilities and special education. One of the myths they explored is the devotion to the ideology of full inclusion. They stated that the myth is appealing because of the simplicity (that is one placement for all students) and egalitarianism (students are not physically separated from the mainstream) so they are assumed to be integrated and treated equally. They stated that the consequences of this myth include the placement of students with disabilities in general education classrooms in which neither they nor their classmates can be well-served, and the abandonment of pull-out programs such as special classes in schools that were in fact the least restrictive environment most appropriate for such students.

Henteleff provides a thorough analysis of the relevant jurisprudence to support the critique of full inclusion practices.  He also goes beyond criticism and sets out the principles, all supported by the case law, and supported by education authorities and proposes a new paradigm for inclusive education, a paradigm which supports the legal requirements of meaningful access for all students including special needs students:

In order to assure that the best interests of SSN are met in its school system, provincial governments must establish a legal framework within its School Act for the application of the concept of meaningful access to educational services that incorporates the strands of Canadian jurisprudence to date including the international considerations which are relevant in the Canadian context. 

Meaningful access to educational services is the compilation of principles enunciated in the legal decisions, namely the paramountcy of education, the best interest of the child principle, and the right to necessary resources (to enable access) to the point of undue hardship. Such a context specific and substantive legal framework would be in line with the evolving Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence of Berg, Eaton, Eldridge, Grismer, and Via Rail, and in light of US case law previously referred to, which has interpreted the concept of "meaningful access" in the education context. Accordingly, it is critical that provincial governments establish a clear framework for the application of the legal concept of meaningful access to educational services and that the objective to achieve inclusivity in the school system must incorporate the right to meaningful access. 

Meaningful access to educational services is achieved when SSN receive an education in a most enabling environment. A most enabling environment is one that: is based on correctly identified needs; is implemented by appropriately trained persons in a timely fashion, with input from caregivers and where appropriate the student; is carried out in an environment best suited to that student's needs, socially, physically, emotionally, mentally, behaviourally and cognitively;  provides those resources that reasonably enhances the student's ability to make the fullest use of the programs provided by the school system to all students;  and provides a range of placement options, each being particularly suited to meet the child's identified best interests.

Each strand as noted has the force of law. The foregoing strands collectively comprise meaningful access incorporating the fundamental principles emerging from the court decisions noted. Meaningful access, as above defined, is a legal paradigm that is context specific and which provides substantive remedy in accordance with the Charter and therefore positive outcome for all SSN.

It is critical that the School Act incorporates the right to meaningful access as above noted as an integral part of inclusion, so as to assure that all students with special needs receive the services they are entitled to in the most enabling environment and in a timely fashion. This will in turn assure that the social contract with every SSN, namely the receipt of all those resources that facilitate the fullest access possible to education services is fulfilled.

In the best interests of students with special needs, nothing less will do.

Building a Bigger Tent Is A Badly Needed Critical Analysis of New Brunswick Inclusive Education Policies and the Porter Aucoin Report

New Brunswick Legislature Fredericton 

Photo By Harold L Doherty June 17, 2012

The New Brunswick government needs to do a critical analysis of the Porter Aucoin inclusive education report. Porter Aucoin is not an arms length objective review of NB inclusion practice and policy. Too many ties between Alward-Carr government and Porter-Auocoin-NBACL-CACL. Paul Bennett and Yude Henteleff are two excellent external critics whose views should be considered carefully by NB government in setting inclusion policies if the 2009 NB government policy defining inclusion as evidence based on the best interests of the individual child is to mean anything. Yude Henteleff's 2004 paper on flexible, evidence based inclusion recommendations consistent with Canadian jurisprudence is already posted and his presentation to Atlantic Human Rights Centre inclusive education review June 14-16-2012 at the Crowne Plaza in Fredericton will be posted on this site when it is made available to participants.

Building a Bigger Tent Serving all special needs students better in New Brunswick’s inclusive education system  by Dr. Paul W. Bennett, June 2012  is an arms length analysis that has been made available free of charge to New Brunswick. From the Building a Bigger Tent summary on the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS) Facebook page:

"Many research findings in New Brunswick’s 2012 report Strengthening Inclusion, Strengthening Schools raise serious questions about whether the existing ‘full inclusion’ model can ever serve the diverse and complex needs of today’s students. There is a place – and perhaps a need – for specialized learning programs where provincial education authorities build a bigger tent. 

....

It’s time for New Brunswick to embrace 21st century education. Bennett recommends a provincial review of New Brunswick’s current model of special education delivery, and ultimately the development of a new continuum of service, including self-contained classes and special education alternative schools."

New Brunswick education policy is important to all New Brunswickers.  It is of particular importance to students with special needs who require accommodation within our education system, including those students for whom the mainstream classroom is not an appropriate or even a safe learning environment. The contributions of serious analysts like Yude Henteleff and Paul Bennett should not be ignored in  designing policies to address the complex and demanding challenges facing special needs students in our education system.

Rational, Flexible Inclusion: The Fully Inclusive Classroom Is Only One Of The Right Ways To Meet The Best Interests Of The Special Needs Child (Henteleff, 2004)

Attached hereto is a PNG copy as well as a PDF copy link to "The Fully Inclusive Classroom Is Only One Of The Right Ways To Meet The Best Interests Of The Special Needs Child"(2004) by Yude M. Henteleff, C.M. Q.C., L.L.D. (Hon).  Mr. Henteleff outlines succinctly and compellingly the legal basis for a rational, flexible model of inclusive education, one which will permit children with special needs, including severely autistic and developmentally delayed children like my son to participate in a safe, meaningful and rewarding education.  Here in New Brunswick the Porter-Aucoin report is pushing us Back To The Future, back to the simplistic and fundamentally flawed mid 1980's approach of forcing all children, regardless of their needs and challenges, to receive their education in the mainstream classroom.  The CACL and NBACL are now imposing their simplistic "vision" on schools in New Brunswick contrary to the 2009 NB policy defining inclusive education as being evidenced based and based on the best interests of each individual child. 

Dr. Henteleff's 2004 paper represents an articulate, sophisticated analysis by one of Canada's most distinguished lawyers who has represented many disability groups including autism groups and learning disability association groups over a long and distinguished career. Unfortunately, our current NB Premier David Alward and Education Minister Jody Carr are faithful followers of Gordon Porter's   simplistic inclusion "vision".  Hopefully future NB governments will just walk away from that "vision".  The Henteleff critique, first presented to the CACL in 2004 and maintained on their web site until recently provides a rational, flexible alternative for future NB administrations.  Mr. Henteleff also presented a new submission at the Atlantic Human Rights Centre inclusive education conference.  It will be made available to participants after the conference and I will post it on this site.  

Many thanks to Mr. Henteleff.  And thanks to my friend Claire who was kind enough to provide me with access to a copy of the attached paper.

Autism and Education: The Full Inclusion Mainstream Classroom For All Standard Discriminates Against Some Autistic Children

 

Extreme Full Inclusion Model of Education in Canada

 and New Brunswick has Discriminated Against

 Some Children With Autism Disorders

Imposing a standard, namely that the inclusive classroom meets all needs, is a perception not based on reality and is stereotypical. In other words, the standard takes the position that one environment meets the needs of all special needs children. By its very nature, such a standard is discriminatory, as was made clear by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Meiorin, Grismer, Law and Mercier decisions.

THE FULLY INCLUSIVE CLASSROOM IS ONLY ONE OF THE RIGHT WAYS TO MEET THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE SPECIAL NEEDS CHILD

Presented by Yude M. Henteleff, C.M., Q.C.
to the
C.A.C.L. NATIONAL SUMMIT ON INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
NOVEMBER 24, 2004

The above document by Yude Hentelleff  QC should be mandatory reading for Educators and Human Rights Commission and Tribunal  members across Canada.  Unfortunately that does not appear to be the case particularly in New Brunswick where the extreme full mainstream classroom inclusion model has been pushed relentlessly by Gordon Porter, the New Brunswick Association for Community Living and senior officials in the Department of Education.  

Meanwhile some children, including some autistic children, for whom the mainstream classroom is not the right learning environment are forced into situations where they injure themselves, or others, in order to get out of an environment which is not the right option for them; an environment that overwhelms and harms therm.  My son, fortunately, has been accommodated in a separate learning environment for his primary ABA based instruction in our neighborhood schools with time spent in common areas of the school for other activities where he does get to interact with other students.  Conor was removed from the mainstream classroom, at our request, after he came home every day with bite marks on his hands and wrists.  He has been well accommodated by our schools and our school district. Other students for whom the mainstream classroom is not the right option have not always been so fortunate. 

New Brunswick Human Rights Commission Guidelines Discriminate Against Autistic Students

The New Brunswick Human Rights Commision has adopted new guidelines to accommodating students with a disability in New Brunswick schools - New Brunswick Human Rights Commission, Guideline on Accommodating Students with a Disability. Unfortunately for some New Brunswick students with Autism Disorder the guidelines themselves fail to accommodate their disability and in doing so discriminate against some students with profound Autism Disorder. The guidelines fail to accommodate by creating a "norm" or presumption in favor of mainstream classroom placement even though, for some autistic students, the mainstream classroom in not an appropriate place of learning, can be overwhelming to environmentally sensitive autistic children and can be result in dangerous, self injurious behavior.

When the NB Human Rights Commission says that mainstream classroom placement is the norm education officials will quite understandably feel that it is necessary to place all children in the classroom. Essentially this "norm" will push students into the classroom who should be in a different, quieter, less busy location within the school in order for them to learn, and to not be overwhelmed. For those school districts who do not want to spend the money from their budget to accommodate more individualized instruction necessary for some autistic students placing them in the classroom without individualized instruction by autism specific trained Teacher Aides will be a cheap solution, as it has been in the past. And the presumption or norm created by the HRC will assist them in justifying their decision.

New Brunswick schools have, over the past 30 years, been dominated by an extreme inclusion model which saw all children dumped in the mainstream classroom without proper support and without regard for the individual conditions of some children with disabilities such as some severely autistic children. The result has been disruption in the classroom, failure to learn by some children, and in some cases, including my profoundly autistic son, dangerously self injurious behavior. Fortunately, over the past several years, the rigid ideological approach of the classroom inclusion for all philosophy has given way in some instances to an evidence based approach which requires examination of what actually works for each child. Educate the child in the way he or she learns best, in the environment in which he or she learns best. An evidence based approach is consistent with human rights policies by requiring an examination of the disability issues presented by the individual student. This evidence based approach was promised by the Province of New Brunswick Inter-Departmental Committee that examined autism services in New Brunswick between 1999 and 2001.

The IDC Report issued in November 2001, disclosed the already known fact that there were at that time very few autism specific services available in New Brunswick. The most significant accomplishment of the IDC Report was that it recommended an evidence based approach to provision of autism services. The three departments that sat on the IDC were Health, Family Services and .... Education. In fact, since that time there have been some to an evidence based approach being adopted in some New Brunswick schools.

My own son, profoundly autistic, was removed from the mainstream classroom, at our request, after he repeatedly came home from school with self inflicted bite marks on his hands and wrists. He was overwhelmed by the classroom. To the full credit of school, district, and Department officials they looked at the evidence and agreed to place Conor in a separate room for his instruction for most of the day. The education officials accommodated my son's disability by looking at his actual condition and educating him in an environment suitable for him in light of the realities of his autism disorder.

During the MacKay Review of Inclusive Education Autism Society NB presented a position paper for educating autistic students which called for an evidence based approach. Teaching children how and where they learn best in light of their actual condition. As one of the autism representatives I spoke on numerous occasions about the need for an evidence based approach for autistic students. For some autistic students the mainstream classroom is the appropriate learning environment. For others, including my son, it is not. This evidence based approach is supported by research including Mesibov and Shea (1996):

The concept of full inclusion is that students with special needs can and should be educated in the same settings as their normally developing peers with appropriate support services, rather than being placed in special education classrooms or schools. According to advocates the benefits of full inclusion are increased expectations by teachers, behavioral modeling of normally developing peers, more learning, and greater selfesteem. Although the notion of full inclusion has appeal, especially for parents concerned about their children's rights, there is very little empirical evidence for this approach, especially as it relates to children with autism. This manuscript addresses the literature on full inclusion and its applicability for students with autism. Although the goals and values underlying full inclusion are laudable, neither the research literature nor thoughtful analysis of the nature of autism supports elimination of smaller, highly structured learning environments for some students with autism.

This information was present throughout the Mackay Inclusion review process. In one session I attempted, along with ASNB Education Rep Dawn Bowie, to speak specifically about autism issues and the need for an evidence based approach by which autistic students are educated in a location, whether it be in the mainstream classroom or elsewhere, according to the realities of their individual conditions. My comments were met dismissively by a New Maryland school official who asserted that we were not there to talk about autism. They were also met with angry opposition by New Brunswick Human Rights Commission Chair Gordon Porter who was present and who told me and Mrs. Bowie that "you people should be thankful for what you have ". Mr. Porter then proceeded to talk about how bad it was in the Special Education system in New Brunswick many years ago and how the inclusion model was a very substantial improvement.

Given Mr. Porter's prominent role in putting the inclusion model in place in New Brunswick, and given his strong personal views, it is not surprising that the Human Rights Commission which he chairs has issued Guidelines which create a presumption in favor of classroom inclusion for all students. It is also not surprising in that the New Brunswick Association for Community Living was tasked by the Department of Education with holding professional development days for New Brunswick teachers to explain the recommendations of the MacKay Inclusion Review. The NBACL is a fierce advocate for the total inclusion model. The NBACL has paid staff who persistently lobby for the full inclusion model. An example are the awards they hand out to teachers in New Brunswick who best demonstrate inclusion practices in New Brunswick schools. The NBACL, in hosting the inclusion professional development days for teachers asked Gordon Porter to be the keynote speaker at the event. A request by ASNB to speak at the event, to speak with the teachers about autism, and the need for an evidence based approach, was rejected by the NBACL.

Mr. Porter and NBACL are both strongly committed to the full inclusion model and that commitment to a philosophy of classroom inclusion for all is reflected in the norm espoused by the new Human Rights Commission guidelines. The promotion of that norm by the Human Rights Commission will put even more pressure on teachers and school officials to put all students in the classroom. The promotion of that norm is contrary to the evidence based approach promised for autistic persons in the IDC Report and it is contrary to the duty to accommodate the individual differences of students with disabilities, particularly some students with profound autism disorder.

It was precisely that failure to accommodate individuals with disabilities that led Yude Henteleff QC to describe the full inclusion model as discriminatory in a paper he presented to the Canadian Assocation for Community Living in 2004. Mr. Henteleff has represented individuals with a variety of different disabilities including autism, deaf and hard of hearing,
aspergers, Tourette's syndrome, attention deficit hyperactivity disorders, developmental
disability, physical disability and the learning disabled. He has been the legal counsel for the Association of Parents of Children with Autism in Manitoba and has been associated with the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada. In The Fully Inclusive Classroom Is Only One Of The Right Ways To Meet The Best Interests Of The Special Needs Child Mr. Henteleff argued that the full inclusion approach is in itself discriminatory by failing to accommodate individual disability based differences. At page 2 he states:

It should be abundantly clear, having in mind the foregoing statistics, that for children
who suffer from emotional, mental, behavioural, cognitive, sensory, physical, expressive
language, visual and auditory difficulties (and often a combination of some of the foregoing), it is simply not possible to meet their diverse needs in one environment. One shoe simply cannot fit all.

Indeed, total inclusion is a discriminatory concept because it limits the environmental
choices, which groups of children and youth with differing difficulties have the right to make in their best interests.

I am completely dedicated to the public school system. I believe it is an integral part of
whom and what we are as Canadians living in a democratic society. That means a place where all children are welcomed - regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, colour, religion, physical or mental condition. In other words, the public school system is a place where the social contract guaranteed by the Charter and Human Rights Codes is fulfilled. That social contract is that every individual is entitled to equality and to be free from discrimination.

However, schools being a welcoming place regardless of gender, ethnicity, colour,
religion, physical or mental condition, namely inclusivity, is far different from what is described as "full inclusion" in the general classroom. Full inclusion falls far short of guaranteeing equality.

Mr. Porter, the Commission, and the NBACL which all advocate for full inclusion will argue that establishing a norm does not mean that all children must be kept in the classroom at all times and that their disabilities are accommodated. Their argument fails to take into account the pressure this will put on parents and educators to place children in the classroom first and to ask questions later, contrary to an evidence based approach and contrary to an accommodation of the child's real needs. Some parents, will not have a professional background to rely upon when dealing with the education system. Many are talked down to by educators. When told that the classroom is the right option for their child they not be inclined, or able, to challenge that position. With the Human Rights Commission creating a presumptive norm in favor of the classroom inclusion option there will be no realistic choice for the parents to consider in deciding how, and where, their child, severely autistic or otherwise should be educated.

The full inclusion model limits choice as Mr. Henteleff points out. The persistent efforts by the NBACL and its inclusion lobbyists to promote the full inclusion model has in practice limited choice for some parents and their autistic children who might be better served in a quieter environment outside the mainstream classroom. Mr. Porter, who has been a significant part of that push for full inclusion, and who is now the Chair of the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission, has presided over Commission guidelines which will reinforce the presumption of full classroom inclusion - to the detriment of some autistic children.