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.

 

International Journal of Disability, Community & Rehabilitation
Volume 1, No. 3 Canada
www.ijdcr.ca
ISSN 1703-3381
  

  
yes