Facing Autism Flexible Inclusion Versus NBACL Extreme Inclusion on CBC Maritime Noon Thursday September 20

This Thursday, September 20, 2012 at 12 pm AT (1 ET) I will be a guest on the CBC Radio show Maritime Noon.  I will be discussing and advocating for a flexible model of inclusive education. Marlene Munn will also be interviewed on behalf of the NBACL which promotes a full, and in my opinion, extreme model of regular classroom inclusion for all students.  I am not sure if persons outside Canada can access the show on the CBC web site but this is the link for Maritime Noon if you want to try and listen to the discussion at the  CBC Maritime stations listed on the right side bar under "Air Times".

I have commented previously on the NBACL's inflexible, extreme model of inclusive education which requires all students, regardless of their abilities or disabilities, regardless of the challenges they face, regardless of the evidence and regardless of whether it is in a specific child's best interests to receive instruction in the regular classroom. I have written and spoken often of the fact that we had to ask for our 16 year old son with severe autistic disorder to be removed from the regular classroom which overwhelmed him and resulted in serious self injurious behavior. 

Autism, as the cliche goes, is a spectrum disorder and some autistic children thrive in the regular classroom. Some do not. For some, like my son, the regular classroom causes harm. Yet, the philosophically obsessed NBACL which acts as an unofficial division of the New Brunswick Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, as I described in Autism Education in the Era of the NBACL Inclusion Government, opposes a flexible model of education which would provide alternative learning environments for those children, like my son, whose challenges, based on the evidence, require learning in a quieter environment using different instruction methods suitable for them. 

Some people find it difficult to believe that the NBACL, in this day and age, contrary to evidence, contrary to common sense, and contrary to the experience and wishes of parents, who best know their own children, would still insist that every child should be educated in the regular classroom.  But that is exactly what the NBACL insists upon.  As the NBACL likes to say  its philosophy based full Inclusive Education policy "is that simple".

NBACL Web Site: Inclusive Education

What is inclusive education? It is simple: children go to their community or neighbourhood school and receive instruction in a regular class setting with non-disabled peers who are the same age.


NBACL Icon Gordon Porter in  the Western Star (Newfoundland) article "Inclusion in the classroom simple, says educator"  

CORNER BROOK — Gordon Porter believes inclusion is the most natural thing in the world. The educator and director of Inclusive Education Initiatives presented a session on inclusive education at the Greenwood Inn and Suites on Thursday. Porter, who is also the editor of the Inclusive Education Canada website inclusiveeducation.ca, spoke to parents, educators and agency professionals who deal with children with special needs at the pre-conference for the Newfoundland and Labrador Association for Community Living Conference taking place in the city today and Saturday. The session was sponsored by the Community Inclusion Initiative. 

Porter’s session revolved around the theme of parents and teachers working together to make inclusion work.“It means kids go to their neighbourhood schools with kids their own age in regular classes,” said Porter.“If you’re seven years, old you go to the school just down the street. You go in a class with other seven-year-olds, and you’re supported if you have extra needs. “It’s so simple, it’s that simple,” said Porter."

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.

Severe Autism and Education: Conor Doherty Votes Yes! to FLEXIBLE Inclusion

Conor receives what full inclusion advocates call a "segregated" education because he receives his ABA based instruction, for his autistic disorder, in a quiet location outside the regular classroom. (Although he does have many activities with other children for outings and other events, such as swimming, apple picking, visits to the Playhouse in Fredericton). 

As his father, I consider the combination of individualized learning environment combined with group outings and activities to be an evidence based approach to accommodating Conor's severe autism challenges that is done in his best interests. In the yellow board picture Conor votes YES! to this evidence based, flexible inclusion approach that has worked so well for him.

Conor loves his schooling as it now is and loves attending school.  Summer vacation is difficult for Conor and he gets very frustrated at times.  One of the tools we came up with for managing his frustration is to have him write on a board the number of days until school with Conor changing it each day.  At 6 am every day Conor jumps up, unprompted, and changes the number.  It helps him understand that school, and the so called "segregated" education he loves, will return. 

Conor has been well accommodated with his individualized learning environment combined with ample opportunities to mix with other kids at school outings.  He loves school and he knows a lot more about his own needs then the full inclusion ideologues who dominate education policy in the current New Brunswick government and who would take the schooling Conor loves away from him.

Conor Misses His So-Called "Segregated" Autism Schooling BUT Summer Helps A Lot

Conor Doherty, enjoying a summer outing with Dad 

in Fredericton, the green city.

In New Brunswick advocates of extreme, everyone in the classroom, inclusion like to describe my son's accommodations as "segration" as though it could be equated with the racially segregated schools of the old American south.  Conor in fact attends a neighborhood school and has ample opportunity to mix with other students, both challenged students in his High School Resource Centre and throughout Leo Hayes High School.  He is well liked and has friends in both the Resource Centre and in the rest of the school. I have often, and I am mean often, seen kids approach Conor with big smiles and greet him.  His instruction, his ABA based instruction, is received in a separate quieter area and he absolutely loves going to school.  Anyone who has worked with Conor in his high school or previously in middle or grade school can confirm these facts.  

Conor does not receive a "segregated" schooling to use the pejorative terminology of NB's very influential full inclusion activists in the CACL and NBACL.  He receives an evidence based, flexible, inclusive education that accommodates his serious autistic disorder and developmental delay hallenges. Conor loves school. When school ends each year it is a difficult time for him. 

Summer heat and humidity can cause problems too but we do get outdoors, a lot,  in Fredericton, the green city, which we both love and it helps a lot.  The last couple of days we have done some bridge walking to Fredericton's south side for fresh air, exercise and of course ... treats.  (Conor has a new "walking" shirt, one of Dad's old loose fitting shirts to go over his T-shirts).

Conor would like to see September arrive quickly, and resume the "segregated" education that Conor loves and some misguided adults demean,  but he and his ol' Dad will enjoy the summer in Fredericton,  this very habitable green city.

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.

Simple Solutions Will Not Help New Brunswick Students with Autistic Disorder and Other Complex Challenges

New Brunswick's Gordon Porter and his associates with the NB Association for Community Living are now in charge of New Brunswick's inclusive education system.  The Gordon Porter Inclusive Education Review taking place in New Brunswick will impose their beliefs on NB students with disabilities including those with severe, complex disorders like my younger son who has severe autistic disorder with profound developmental delays.  The review itself  is unlikely to do anything except reiterate the Porter/NBACL inclusion beliefs which have not changed in 30 years.  Although present for one of the Porter/NBACL review sessions in Fredericton it was made clear that the review did not want to hear from me; a known critic of those beliefs.  

Any doubts about what Mr Porter means by inclusion are put to rest by his own admission, in a recent presentation in Newfoundland,  that inclusion in Porter World is simple, very simple .... everybody, regardless of the complexity or severity of their condition,  regardless of their level of understanding or learning ability, regardless of their behavioral or sensory challenges belongs  in the regular classroom.  For Gordon Porter, in his own words, inclusion is that simple.   As the father of a severely autistic, profoundly developmentally challenged son I wish my son's realities were as simple as Gordon Porter's beliefs. But they aren't.  What follows is  Gordon Porter/NBACL inclusion in Mr Porter's own words:

CORNER BROOK — Gordon Porter believes inclusion is the most natural thing in the world. The educator and director of Inclusive Education Initiatives presented a session on inclusive education at the Greenwood Inn and Suites on Thursday. Porter, who is also the editor of the Inclusive Education Canada website inclusiveeducation.ca, spoke to parents, educators and agency professionals who deal with children with special needs at the pre-conference for the Newfoundland and Labrador Association for Community Living Conference taking place in the city today and Saturday. The session was sponsored by the Community Inclusion Initiative. 

 Porter’s session revolved around the theme of parents and teachers working together to make inclusion work.“It means kids go to their neighbourhood schools with kids their own age in regular classes,” said Porter.“If you’re seven years, old you go to the school just down the street. You go in a class with other seven-year-olds, and you’re supported if you have extra needs. “It’s so simple, it’s that simple,” said Porter."

My son's autistic disorder challenges are not simple.  The extreme, everybody in the regular classroom inclusion model, is simple because evidence to the contrary is ignored by those who have pushed it.  That is a simple fact. 

Learning Disabilities Associations (Canada, Ontario) Do Not Support the Porter/NBACL Full Inclusion Model

During the MacKay Inclusion Review the Autism Society of New Brunswick opposed the full or extreme inclusion model which Gordon Porter and the NBACL is now in the process of again imposing on New Brunswick students.  I have commented many times expressing my personal opposition to the inflexible full inclusion beliefs which have caused harm to my severely autistic son and others for whom the mainstream classroom is not an appropriate educational environment.  This is not just an issue though between some parents of autistic children and the NBACL/Porter Full Inclusion true believers. The Learning Disabilities Associations of Canada and Ontario have also opposed the full inclusion model which limits placement options, causes physical harm to some, and deprives some of a real education: 

LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO 

POLICY STATEMENT ON EDUCATIONAL INCLUSION FOR

STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES 

The following policy statement of the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada (LDAC) was adopted by the Board of Directors of the Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario (LDAO), as recommended by the LDAO Legislation and Policy Committee, on November 17, 2008. 

Learning Disabilities Association of Canada (LDAC) Policy Statement on 

Educational Inclusion for Students with Learning Disabilities (presented to the 

LDAC Executive Committee in February 2005, the LDAC Board of Directors in June 2005 and ratified on November 26, 2005). 

STATEMENT

The Learning Disabilities Association of Canada (LDAC) does not support full 

educational inclusion or any policies that mandate the same placement, instruction, or treatment of all students with learning disabilities or the idea that all students with learning disabilities must be served only in regular education classrooms at the exclusion of all other special education placement options. 

LDAC believes that full inclusion, when defined this way, violates the rights of parents and students with disabilities guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedom and Human Rights Codes which guarantee education equality and freedom from discrimination and rejects the arbitrary placement of all students in any one setting.  

LDAC supports the availability of a continuum of education services as prescribed in an individual educational plan for each student with learning disabilities to ensure success and must be flexible enough to meet the changing needs of students with learning disabilities by:  

1) Providing a range of options and services and diverse learning environments 

(placements) to meet the specific needs of each student;  

2) Providing the most enabling environment for that student that will effectively meet the student’s best interests socially, emotionally, behaviourally, physically and educationally; and, 

3) Focus on what is in the best interest of the student and, in that context, consider all the needs of the student as expressed by the student and his/her parents and that of their consulting professionals.  

RATIONALE 

Because each student with learning disabilities has unique needs, an individualized education plan and placement must be tailored on individual strengths and needs. For one student, the plan may be provided in the regular classroom yet for another student, the regular classroom may be an inappropriate placement and may need alternative instructional environments, teaching strategies, and/or materials that cannot or will not be provided within the context of the regular classroom environment. The severity and nature of the individual needs should determine the alternative teaching strategies, accommodations, resources, supports and placement required.

The LDAO repeated their opposition to a mainstream classroom inclusion only policy in a February 10, 2009 letter to Ontario Education Minister Kathleen Wynne.  The letter stressed the need for a range of placement options based on the needs of the individual student:

Inclusion is good when it means something more than placement in a common mainstream classroom. Inclusion is good when it does not deprive individual students with a range of education placement options that suitable for their needs.  Inclusion is good when it is evidence based on the best interests of the individual student.  Flexible inclusion is good.  

Inflexible, dogmatic, everyone in the classroom philosophy is not good.  It harms some students and deprives them of a meaningful, happy education experience.   Autism advocates in New Brunswick fought the extreme everyone in the mainstream classroom model during the MacKay and Ministerial Committee inclusion reviews.   We were successful in ensuring the enactment of an inclusive education definition by our Department of Education which recognizes that real inclusion means an approach which assesses the individual needs, abilities and challenges of individual students on an evidence basis.  

Now Gordon Porter and the NBACL, both of which oppose the evidence based approach,  are now in charge. They are effectively writing and enforcing their extreme mainstream classroom inclusive education for all policy for the Alward government.  Autism parents must be vigilant in resisting their back to the future philosophy and insist on an evidence based approach guided by our children's best interest; as radical as those concepts may seem to Mr Porter and company.  

It is not clear where the Learning Disabilities Association of New Brunswick stands on these issues but their counterparts in the LDA of Canada and Ontario have spoken clearly and their positions are consistent with an evidence based student centered approach.  Their clear, strong positions will be of great help in our efforts. 

Autism, Inclusion and Community Living Philosophy in New Brunswick - Ignoring the Evidence Has Not Worked

I agree with the principles of  inclusive education and residential care when they actually accommodate the complex needs of many with autism and other disabilities. I do not agree with New Brunswick's extreme version of full inclusion and community living that pretends to, but does not actually, accommodate those needs. In making these statements I acknowledge that my son has been accommodated in NB schools. It has increasingly been brought to my attention that children of other less outspoken (for a variety of reasons) parents have not always been as fortunate in seeking accommodation for the challenges of their severely autistic children.

As I grow older, as I look ahead to the fate that awaits us all as human beings I look at what New Brunswick has to offer  for residential care and treatment for youth and adults with autism disorders and other complex needs and I am concerned, very concerned. I look at the review processes that have been conducted in education and in residential care including the current consultation process by the Office of the Ombudsman/Youth Advocate and I grow even more concerned that nothing will change, that the same philosophy pushed by the powerful advocates of extreme inclusion and community living policies that have provided cover for so long for our failures to address realistically the needs of youth and adults with autism and other complex needs will grow more entrenched in an era of global economic uncertainty and belt tightening. I  am fearful, outright fearful that my son will live in a psychiatric hospital or an inadequate, inappropriate group home environment.  I grow increasingly fearful that the happy, joyful life he has lived with his parents will not survive when we are gone.

These out rightly philosophical ideologies are not evidence based.  They do not accommodate the individual challenges faced by many that they supposedly help.  Those who are most in need of help are simply ignored by those who relentlessly push this model in NB education and residential care.  When children are sent home from school, including autistic children, because they suffered meltdowns in the mainstream classroom full inclusion models do not question their philosophy and how it might have contributed to the problem. When youth and adults, including some with Asperger's Disorder and Autistic Disorder, are sent to live in correctional centres, hotels, hospital wards and psychiatric hospitals and even exported out of the country, the community ideologues do not stop and ask whether the inadequate group homes, staffed with poorly trained personnel, and justified by their philosophy might be a big part of the problem.  

My disenchantment with this philosophical giant that has such a stranglehold on NB education, health and residential care for the disabled began when my son came home from the general classroom with bite marks on his hands and wrists.  Local school officials did respond and accommodate my son allowing him to work with an autism trained teacher aide in a quieter individualized learning environment. I have raised my son's example with full inclusion advocates at most of the major reviews in NB over the last several years including the Mackay inclusion review, the Ministerial Committee on Inclusive Education and the Dialogue on Education meetings that were canceled when Education officials tired of being challenged to provide evidence to justify the extreme full inclusion model.  My son's example was acknowledged but the implications ignored.

I have also attended meetings addressing adult residential care where the community living advocates paint horror pictures of institutional care while ignore the inadequacies and gaps in our youth and adult residential care system.  Worst of all the community living advocates simply ignore the failures of their own philosophy based ideology that rules this province.  They make no mention of the persons living in psychiatric hospitals except to pretend that somehow their philosophy is not to blame.  

The fact is that Autistic children with severe challenges are often simply sent home when they are unable to survive in the mainstream classroom panacea of the full inclusion philosophers.  Autistic youth and adults are sent wherever when the community living panacea of residential care fails, time and time again, to provide for their needs.  I am not alone in questioning the full inclusion, community living philosophies as inadequate, non evidence based failures to accommodate our most severely challenged. Throughout my participation in the various processes I mention above parents, professionals and teachers have come to me at different times to thank me for speaking up when many of them are unable to do so or are fearful of doing so.

There have been, and are, others who have questioned the full inclusion philosophy/panacea. I provide here some links to some others who have spoken up. It is not an exhaustive link but I encourage you to read these sources if you are sincere about addressing the education and residential care needs of the severely disabled amongst us.

1. THE FULLY INCLUSIVE CLASSROOM IS ONLY ONE OF THE RIGHT WAYS TO MEET THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE SPECIAL NEEDS CHILD - Yude M. Henteleff, C.M., Q.C.

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. p.2

2. Let's talk about inclusion, full-inclusion and community living - Claire, mother of a severely disabled daughter, teacher, B.A., M.A., blogger (LIFE WITH A SEVERELY DISABLED CHILD)

This is the reality that full-inclusion ideologues ignore. My daughter is not safe in a regular classroom. Others cannot handle the stimulation, others need one on one, pull-out programs to get ahead and fix a few glitches. Can I tell you, in all honesty, that I would not have wanted my Eldest to have had in her classroom as many challenged kids as most full-inclusion classrooms face today, because she would have been bored to tears and her education would have suffered. School is not only about socialization, it is about education. Kids learn in different ways, at different paces. I know this. I am a teacher. ... Children who are in separate classrooms can be included in outdoor activities, in gyms, in music programs, in assemblies. ... there are a million other creative ways of including without sacrificing safety, socialization and education....That's my position. It's not cheap. It's why full inclusion is favoured. It's cheaper...make no mistake about it.
...

The same thing is true about living situations for adults with disabilities. Some are very high functioning and can thrive with minimal assistance. Others need more. Some disabilties are SO severe, however, as to require people with specialized training, really big hearts and minds, and very specific environments. Community living, as in group homes with staffed with DSW's, is not always appropriate. For some, a residential environment is better.


What is a "residential environment"? Well, certainly not a cell block with cages, people chained to beds and toilets, living on straw, okay? Oh, and hosed down occasionally to keep the lice down, and mush that serves as food passed through little holes in the wall. For Chrissakes. Yet these are the images brought up by full-inclusion ideologues again and again. ... I followed carefully when Ontario blitz closed all it's institutions. I read far too many stories of the severely disabled dying soon after the move...after having lived for over 30 years in the institutions. I also read a number of stories of those with the most severe behaviours being kicked out and turned away from "community living" environments, leaving frantic families searching desperately for solutions. .... Some severely disabled, either physically, cognitively or behaviourally need really specialized services that cannot be realistically provided in a group home setting. It's just a fact. I would love to see a residence like that for my daughter when she is an adult. I think it's createable...I think there are such things around here and there...or parents get together and come up with creative ways of making something similar happen by combining their finances. In any case, it won't come cheap. And that is always the problem in the end. My kid's life is never worth what it takes to make her both happy and safe...unless she stays at home. But...if she lives longer than I can hold out, I will have to find her something. Who knows what will be out there when the time comes...but I would vote for a residence any day, if it were well run, beautiful and appropriate."

3. Full Inclusion: One Reason for Opposition - Donald B. Crawford, Ph.D., professor of special education at UW-Eau Claire

"The experiments prove that achievement is not helped if multi-age grouping is used to allow students to pursue their own ends or to let everyone work individually. Full inclusion advocates want precisely this kind of enviroment and wish to eliminate direct instruction of homogeneous groups of students, which they consider "lockstep" instruction. By supporting full inclusion all the time, advocates hope to make it impossible to do direct instruction anymore. This will have a negative effect on achievement of all students.

There are several reasons for opposing a policy of full inclusion even though that policy sounds like the "right thing to do" on first hearing. As has been stated earlier, one reason is because full inclusion of an extremely wide range of abilities into general education classrooms makes direct, systematic instruction nearly impossible. In addition, once full inclusion is implemented, teachers are forced to change their teaching methods to more child-directed, discovery-oriented, project-based learning activities in which every student works at his or her own pace. This has never produced high levels of achievement anywhere it has been tried."

4.a. The Costs of Inclusion - John MacBeath, Maurice Galton, Susan Steward, Andrea MacBeath and Charlotte Page, A study of inclusion policy and practice in English primary, secondary and special schools Commissioned and funded by the National Union of Teachers, Published by University of Cambridge, Faculty of Education.

4. b.School inclusion 'can be abuse'- BBC report on The Costs of Inclusion and Interview with Professor John MacBeath:


"Prof MacBeath told journalists: "Physically sitting in a classroom is not inclusion. Children can be excluded by sitting in a classroom that's not meeting their needs." ... "You might call it a form of abuse, in a sense, that those children are in a situation that's totally inappropriate for them." ... He and co-author Maurice Galton stressed their report was not "anti-inclusion ... What concerned teachers was whether schools could provide a suitable education for those with complex needs."

5. Re-open the Institutions? Advocates Reverse Stand as "Community" Tragedy Unfolds - Bernard Rimland, Ph. D., Founder of Autism Society of America

New Brunswick has a duty to take care of its most vulnerable citizens.  Today it must fulfill that duty in challenging times. The economic and fiscal challenges facing this province are huge. We can not ignore these realities even if we wanted to do so. From the beginning of the election process until today experts have continually reminded us of the world's and New Brunswick's dire financial pictures. Those realities will limit the options available as we make education and adult care decisions for our citizens with extreme disability challenges.  But even if that is so we owe them a duty we owe all citizens, a duty we owe ourselves ... to speak honestly and to look at the evidence, to look realistically about how those decisions actually impact on persons with complex needs.

We must abandon feel good philosophy and rhetoric. We must speak honestly about what we will do, or will not do,  for our youth and adults with complex needs ... with severe disabilities.