The Special Committee on Social Policy Development of the New Brunswick Legislature issued its Report on the Review of School Integration on October 31, 1989. The report was issued following five weeks of public hearings into school integration, during which the twelve-member committee visited sixtythree schools and heard more than 250 briefs presented by parents, members, administrators, school boards, and other citizens. The report’s recommendations in summary include the following:

Continuing controversy over integration and intensive pressure from the province’s teachers’ union had prompted the minister of education in May 1989, to mandate this committee with the task of reviewing the integration process that has been under way in New Brunswick since the passage of Bill 85 in 1986. Union leaders had maintained that integration was putting New Brunswick’s already strained education system at risk of collapse. The president of the New Brunswick Teachers’ Association claimed that “integration is turning classrooms into zoos” and creating conditions in which “teachers can’t teach and students can’t learn” (Benteau, 1989). The union insisted that the “horror stories” of integration be made public and that the issue be included in their negotiation of a new collective agreement (Richardson, 1989). As a result, the committee’s strong support for the integration process came as a surprise to many and as a relief to advocates for students with disabilities.

While provincial legislation in Canada requires school boards to provide educational services to students with disabilities, how the service is delivered is generally left to the discretion of local school authorities. In Ontario, the passage of Bill 82 in 1980 raised parents’ hopes that integrated programs would be easier to achieve, but that has not been the result. Both British Columbia and Alberta have recently revised their legislation governing schools, but the right of a student with disabilities to placement in a regular class with his or her nondisabled peers is not assured.

With few exceptions, Canadian school boards have generally offered options that have become the standard both in this country (Csapo and Goguen, 1980) and in the United States under public Law 94-142 (Gartner and Lipsky, 1987):

However, while education is an area of provincial jurisdiction, the context in which provincial education legislation operates underwent a dramatic shift when the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was entrenched in the Canadian constitution 1982. Several sections of the Charter have implications for policy and practice relevant to the education of students with mental and/or physical disabilities (McKay, 1984; Vickers and Endicott, 1985). It has been suggested that the aspects of education legislation which are most subject to challenge under the Charter are procedures for: student assessment and categorisation; placement; the discretion to exclude students from regular classrooms; and the very concept of segregated education (Robertson, 1987).

The Charter created a new environment in which the overriding principles of liberty, freedom from discrimination, and freedom of association set broad parameters within which education systems must operate. Since the equality rights in the Charter did not come into force until 1985, the assurance of equality rights in many areas is still in the process of being established. However, it is the opinion of some that segregated educational programs are a natural target for litigation based on the Charter (Donahue, 1988; MacKay, 1987a). In any event, there has been an increased awareness of and sensitivity to the question of school integration for students with disabilities.

In 1986, a Nova Scotia couple, Rick and Maureen Elwood, obtained a court injunction to keep their son Luke, who had been labelled mentally handicapped since birth, in a regular class in their neighbourhood school. They concluded that their only chance of prevailing in their dispute over his placement with the Halifax County School Board was to go to trial. School officials firmly maintained Luke would he better served in a segregated program. Their position that a range of placement options was necessary depending on the student’s level of disability was consistent with the concept of least restrictive environment and the (Cascade model) , both typical of traditional special education practice (Little, 1985). The department of education did not intervene on their behalf.

The Elwoods did not take this action lightly. They knew they would face the tension and unease of challenging one of the most established vested authorities in their community, the educational system. As Jack Batten (1988) explains, they also knew that inactivity on their part would mean a life of isolation for their son:

The dispute went on throughout the 1986-87 school year as the school board refused to accept the principle of integration. However, just hours before the case was to open before the Queen’s Bench division of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, the board initiated discussions that led to a settlement of the dispute (Batten, 1988). The school board agreed to the parents’ demand and the result was a court-approved agreement that assured Luke Elwood an integrated school program with appropriate support (MacKay, 1987b).

The case has received considerable national attention from both parents and school officials (MacKay, 1987b; McCallum, 1987).

In addition to the impetus of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982), a number of parents, parent groups, and educators throughout Canada have been calling for more integrated and inclusive school programs for students with disabilities. In the province of New Brunswick, this led to political action, and, as indicated above, subsequent legislative reform. Bill 85, which addresses the equality and procedural issues for educational practise that flow from the Charter, was unanimously passed by the New Brunswick legislature in 1986. Section 45(2)1 of Bill 85 (1986) deals with placement considerations and is particularly significant:

This section provides clear direction that integrated school programs are assumed to be appropriate for exceptional students in New Brunswick schools. Alternatives are to be used only after every attempt has been made to make an integrated program work. A school board may decide that an integrated program is not practicable for a given student, for a given period of time, for specific reasons; however, withdrawal is to occur only for compelling reasons that are considered necessary to meet the child’s needs and on the condition that a plan to return the child to the regular class is made at the time of the withdrawal (Department of Education, Province of New Brunswick, 1988a).

While the law and policy just described for New Brunswick is clearly the most supportive of integration in Canada, it has not eliminated legal disputes over placement decisions. At the same time that teachers in New Brunswick were expressing grave concern about the effects of integration, one family was fighting the same battle for their daughter’s access to a regular class that the Elwoods had fought two years before in Nova Scotia. In this case, a legal challenge was made to seek compliance with a law the parents believed was consistent with the Charter. Joe and Anne Robichaud had been unhappy for some time with their daughter Nathalie’s placement in a special class. As they saw integration initiated in more and more schools in New Brunswick, they were increasingly anxious that things should change for her as well. In the fall off 1987, they arranged for her to attend a regular class but, when things did not go well, they concluded that school officials were not willing to do what was necessary to improve the situation, and they withdrew her from school. Nathalie spent very little time in school during the 1987-88 school year but the Robichauds declined repeated suggestions from school administrators that she return to a segregated class. As the 1988 fall term moved on with Nathalie still out of school, the Robichauds reluctantly pursued a legal remedy to their situation.

Developments in the Robichaud case followed closely the pattern of the Elwood case. In December 1988, Joe and Anne Robichaud filed suit against the school board. An injunction was obtained in January 1989 ordering that Nathalie be immediately placed in a regular class until the case could go to full trial. As a result, Nathalie Robichaud, like Luke Elwood, attended a regular class while the legal manoeuvring went on in the background. In June 1989, several weeks after the Special Committee of Legislators received its mandate to review progress toward integration, the Robichauds were scheduled to take their case to court.

However, counsel for the school board approached the Robichauds about agreement on a settlement, and, like the Elwoods, the Robichauds were able to reach agreement only days before their case was to be heard in court. The settlement provided that Nathalie Robichaud, like Luke Elwood, receive instruction in a regular classroom in a neighbourhood school with non-disabled peers. Unfortunately, the Robichauds, like the Elwoods, were left responsible for their legal expenses while taxpayeres covered the costs incurred by the school board and their administrators.

The Robichauds were forced to turn to the courts because New Brunswick’s francophone school boards and the francophone division of the department of education have been perceived as taking a more traditional approach to integration. The Enoncé de principe sur l’intégration scolaire, developed by department officials and issued to school boards, provides for a “continuum of service” based on the Cascade model mentioned above. It is most often interpreted to mean that a student may be integrated only when it is clear the student can “benefit” from the class. In other words, the burden of proof rests with the student who must show “readiness” for integration (Department of Education, 1988b).

Both the Robichauds and the Elwoods began their legal appeals after the equality rights provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect in 1985. The Charter provided them with a legal basis for their demands that had not existed previously (Bales vs. Board of School Trustees, 1984). Since both case were settled out of court, their resolutions do not have the weight of court decisions. However, the fact that two different school boards in two provinces capitulated completely to parent demand at the eleventh hour seems to indicate their expectation that, faced with the Charter, they would lose in the courtroom. Additional litigation by parents in the coming decade will be necessary to establish clear jurisprudence in this contentious area.

Although many of the segregated schools that existed across Canada in the early 1980s had been started by local chapters of the Canadian Association for Community Living (the national advocacy association for persons with mental handicaps) segregated schools and segregated classes no longer satisfy the aspirations of many families. Parent advocacy for integrated schooling has increased substantially in the years following adoption of the Charter, particularly by parents of children labelled mentally handicapped. CACL has advocated and promoted the right of every student to attend a regular class in a neighbourhood school. This policy has been formally supported by all off CACL’s provincial and territorial affiliates (CACL, 1987) .

While integation was not a matter of priority to most local or provincial associations in the early 1980s, at the national level, The Roeher Institute, sponsored by CACL, began to support parents as they struggled to articulate their concerns about their children’s education. At the community, provincial and national levels, parents found solidarity and strength by banding together. As parent demand grew, the (Roeher) Institute and CACL identified and promoted positive examples of integration and facilitated training for educators to work in integrated settings. These courses led to the establishment of university affiliated programs that are currently providing teachers and school administrators with the attitudes and skills they need to meet increasing parent demand for integration. Since the early 1980s, the (Roeher) Institute and CACL have actively promoted integration through conferences and seminars, publications, video productions, and financial and consulting support for selected litigation.

CACL actively supported the development of an autonomous parent organization, the Integration Action Group, which now has a substantial membership in southern Ontario and a number of chapters in other provinces.

By the mid 1980s, the Integration Action Group was providing sophisticated support to individual families struggling to achieve integration. Since 1987, the Centre for Integrated Education (now called the Centre for Integrated Education and Community) has been another source of training, consultation, and resource development for both parents and professionals. Such initiatives are unique to Canada and have helped give parents the courage and determination to seek integrated educational fittings for their children. Parents have insisted with considerable success that the traditional special education system change. The increasing demand from parents has been evident in every province and territory and the concerns that have created the demand have been consistent. Parents’ demand for integrated education stems from a vision for their children’s future which they only see realized in a regular class with non-disabled peers.

Parents have invariably had a deep feeling of malaise both about the prospect and the reality of special education. This has been true even when parents have had no clear conception of why this is so and how it might be changed. Goffman (1963) has provided a thorough description of the underlying factors that affect people’s perception of difference. As one parent explains,

(see Chapter 5)

The proliferation of early intervention programs in the last decade has raised the expectations of parents about the potential of their children to learn and develop. Participation in integrated day care, nurseries and kindergartens has created parental expectations that their children would continue to be educated in the regular stream.

Furthermore, parents who see their children with disabilities participating fully in other aspects of community life cannot accept that they should have to travel out of their neighbourhoods, often at great distance, to attend school. Maureen Elwood acknowledged that this separation from peers was one of the major concerns that led to the family’s militancy:

Parents have increasingly united and worked together to turn their visions from dreams into reality. “We have become a united voice, a resource to other parents and [the] community, and strength to one another. It is because we have stood together that we have seen many significant and exciting changes in our schools and our community,” says Alene Steinbach, a parent (see Chapter 6) . However, while advocacy by both associations and parent groups is important, it is individual parents who must carry on the real struggle. Each parent must decide whether or not to engage in the struggle for integration. The number of people making that choice is growing as parents tell their success stories:

(see Chapter 6)

In many parts of North America, the expansion of special education has resulted in the creation of parallel systems for regular and special education. Many jurisdictions with the most mature and comprehensive special education services have evolved to the point where the regular and special education systems exists separately and relate to each other only in the most theoretical way.

Many who promote special education have developed a mentality of compartmentalizing: rather than restructure a system that is inadequate, “gaps in service” are filled with new special education programs (Porter, 1990).

The goal, indeed the mission, of an effective school is to assure success in learning for all students. The development of a parallel special education system has been harmful, not only because it has excluded exceptional students and prevented their contact with non-disabled peers, but also because of the effect it has had on the regular education program (Gartner and Lipsky, 1987; Reynolds, Wang and Walburg, 1987; Stainback and Stainback, 1984; Will, 1986). A School that passes over all the students with learning problems to a separate special education system undermines its capacity to be a holistic unit that serves all students well. The Director of education of a Roman Catholic school board in western Canada describes his rationale for dismantling such a separate structure:

It is now recognized that learning problems are contextual. They exist within the context of the classroom where the curriculum design and the instructional strategies employed by the teacher influence the degree to which exceptional students can be effectively served. A commitment to integrated or inclusive education means teachers, schools, and the community commit themselves to resolving problems that arise in a way that respects the integrity of the school as an organization (Porter, 1986).

The traditional approach to special education encouraged the classroom teacher to refer any difficulties to experts who would diagnose, prescribe, and invariably provide alternate instruction for the student (Little, 1985). The message inherent was that regular class teachers were not qualified or competent to provide education to a student with a significant learning problem.

The past decade has seen an increasing number of school districts make a commitment to full integration for all students (Forest, 1984a; Forest, 1987). These range from several Catholic school districts in southern Ontario (Little, 1985), to French-language districts in Quebec (Frigon, 1988), to several public districts in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia (Porter, 1990). Many other school districts across Canada are moving toward more integrated approaches to special education.

One of the compelling features of the school districts that have moved toward an integrated approach on a systemic basis is what Sage (1989) has described as the relatively “primitive” level of development of their special services when they began to incorporate integration policy and practice. The term “primitive” is not used in a negative sense, but rather to draw attention to the districts’ relatively late development of special education programs.

This is true of many small and rural school districts in Canada as well as many of the separate or Roman Catholic school systems, where the neighbourhood school may be the only school available. Developing support for integration in such circumstances can be based on the natural sensitivity of a local school to the families that live in the community.

Administrators from a small school district in New Brunswick illustrated this point well in their presentation to the province’s legislative committee. District 21 is made up of several small towns and islands along the southwest coast of New Brunswick. It has 1,550 students in eight community schools. The superintendent describes his school board’s close relationsip with the public:

The separate or Roman Catholic school boards in several provinces also have features that have made them more receptive to integration. First, the traditional segregated special education programs have been linked to the public school system. Therefore, the segregated schools and segregated classes so characteristic of the last several decades passed them by (Forest, 1983; Forest, 1984a). A second and equally important factor is the stress Roman Catholic school systems have placed on the importance of values and the nurturing of family, church, and community through the school (Flynn and Kowalczyk-McPhee, 1989; Hanson, 1987):

A similar view is expressed by Dr. Albert Murray, district superintendent of school districts 28 and 29 in New Brunswick, which have been using an integration approach for students with disabilities since 1985 (Porter, 1986):

Other examples of innovation grew out of situations in which the traditional system was firmly entrenched and the only avenue leading to integration was to start an alternative program or school. The Saturday-Get-Together, Summer-Get-Together and Thousand Cranes School are among alternative examples of how integration could produce positive results for children (Bracewell and Milligan, 1984; Forest, 1981; Forest, 1982).

While such innovation has been difficult in large school systems, isolated examples have flourished in virtually every province and territory, and networking among like-minded educators has helped to promote and refine the models.

School districts that have been willing to take alternative challenge and develop innovative and supportive alternatives to the old models of segregated special education have been critical to the progress made in Canada. We believe this movement will continue to grow as more and more jurisdictions break through traditional barriers and forge an even stronger basis not only for integration, but for the education of all students. As one teacher involved in integrated school programs explains it:

(see Chapter 8)

In this chapter we have described the movement toward schools that accept and include all students in regular classrooms. We have identified factors related to law, advocacy, an educational innovation as being critical to this development. Yet it is also true that despite the positive changes made in Canada in the last decade most children with serious disabilities still spend most of their time in segregated classes with little opportunity to interact with their non-disabled peers.

Biklen (1985) has identified quality education as respectful of the individual needs of all students, creative, exciting, and welcomming of children regardless of their differences. Not only does integated education prepare children with handicapping conditions to become part of their communities, it also prepares the children without any identifiable handicap to do the same.

A parent who was impressed with the way the children in her daughter’s integrated Grade 1 class welcomed, cared for, and felt responsible for a student with Down Syndrome gives us a view of a very different future. She describes what her non-handicapped child has learned from being educated in an integrated setting:

In a sense the jury is still out, not on whether integration is a good idea, but on how the movement toward inclusionary education will proceed in Canada. The challenge to school systems is a major one as the experience in New Brunswick illustrates. This creates a situation where those involved in education need to decide whether the prevailing approach to special education should he defended and enhanced, or whether fundamental and innovative changes should be implemented.

In both the Elwood and Robichaud cases the school authorities and the professionals involved resisted the parents’ demands and hardened their positions. In both cases this was harmful to the parents and the child, as well as the school system.

In our view, a more positive and constructive approach is in the interest of concerned. The essential elements of this approach are the following:

The opportunity to enhance the natural capacity of our communities to support individuals with disabilities through integrated school programs is clear. We conclude with the words of a parent who articulated her support for a new approach to schooling to the New Brunswick legislative committee:

This chapter is a modified version of the original article “Changing Special Education Practice: Law, Advocacy and Innovation,” which appeared in the Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, Fall 1990, Vol. 9, No. 2.

Bales v. Board of School Trustees, School District 23 (Central Okanagan). (1984). (Supreme Court of British Columbia, unreported).

Batten, J. (1988). On Trial. Toronto: Macmillan.

Benteau, S. (1989, April 28). MacLeod: Wages not only issue. Saint John Telgraph Journal, p. 1.

Biklen, D. (1985). Achieving the Complete School: Strategies for Effective Mainstreaming. New York: Teachers College Press.

Bill 82: Education Amendment Act. (1980, December). Tomato: Legistature of Ontario.

Bill 85: An Act to Amend the Schools Act. (1986, June). 4th session, 50th legislature, Province of New Brunswick.

Bracewell, D. and Milligan, K. (1983). Thousand Cranes School: Building a dream. Mental Retardation, 33(4), pp. 26-30.

Canadian Association for Community Living. (1987). Community Living 2000: A Time of Change, a Time of Challenge. Toronto: Author.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B of the Canada Act, 1982 (U.K.).

Carson, L. (1987). My dream. In Integration Means All Our Children Belong. Fredericton, NB: Student Services Branch, Department of Education. p. 13.

Committee reports. (1989, November 1). New Brunswick Telgraph Journal, p. 3.

Crealock, P. ( 1989, September 27). Remarks. Transcript of the Ninth Meeting of the Special Committee on Social Policy Development. Fredericton, NB: Queen’s Printer. pp. 28-29.

Csapo, M. and L. Goguen. (Eds). (1980). Special Education Across Canada: Issues and concerns for the '80s. Vancouver, BC: Centre for Human Development and Research.

Department of Education, Province of New Brunswick. (1988a). Working Guidelines on Integration. Fredericton, NB: Department of Education.

Department of Education, Province of New Brunswick. (1988b). L’Enoncé de principe sur l’intégration scolaire. Fredericton, NB: Department of Education.

Donahue, T. (1988). Armed with the Charter. entourage, 3(1), pp. 42-47.

Flynn, G. and B. Kowalczyk-McPhee. (1989). A school system in transition. In S. Steinbeck, W. Stainbeck, & M. Forest (Eds), Educating All Students in the Mainstream of Regular Education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., pp. 29-41.

Forest, M. (1981). Reflections on a new kind of school: Mental Retardation, 31 (4), pp. 35-43.

Forest, M. (1982). Reflections on a new kind of school: Update. Mental Retardation, 32 (4). pp. 30-31.

Forest, M. (1983). Right in our own backyard. Mental Retardation, 33(1), pp. 24-27.

Forest, M. (Ed.). (1984a). Education Integration: A collection of readings on the integration of children with mental handicaps into regular school systems. Downsview, Ont.: National Institute on Mental Retardation.

Forest, M. (1984b). Education update: Wellington County Separate School Board at work. Mental Retardation, 34(3). pp. 35-39.

Forest, M. (Ed.). (1987). More Education Integration. Downsview, Ont.: The G. Allan Roeher Institute.

Frigon, O. (1988). Stopping segregation. entourage. 3(1), pp. 35-39.

Gartner, A. and D. Lipsky. (1987). Beyond special education: Toward a quality system for all students. Harvard Educational Review, 57(4). pp. 367-395.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hanson, J. (1987). Each belongs. In M. Forest (Ed.). More Education Integration. Downsview, Ont.: The G. Allan Roeher Institute. pp. 95-100.

Hayes. F. (1989, September 26). Remarks. Transcript of the Eighth Meeting of the Special Committee on Social Policy Development. Fredericton, NB: Queen’s Printer, p. 49.

Jory, D. (1989, September 26). Remarks. Transcript of the Eighth Meeting of the Special Committee on Social Policy Development. Fredericton, NB: Queen’s Printer, pp. 62-63.

Little, D.M.(1985). A crime against childhood -uniform curriculum at a uniform rate: Mainstreaming re-examined and redefined. Canadian Journal of Special Education, 2(1).pp. 91-107.

MacKay, A.W. (1984). Education Law in Canada. Toronto: Emond-Montgomery.

MacKay, A.W. (1987a). The Charter of Rights and special education: Blessing or curse? Canadian Journal for Exceptional Children, 3 (4). pp. 118-127.

MacKay, A.W. (1987b). The Elwood Case: Vindicating the educational rights of the disabled. Canadian Journal of Special Education, 3 (2), pp. 103-116.

McCallum, S.D. (1987). A giant step for all kids. entourage, 2 (3), pp. 38-39.

Murray, A. (1989, October 11). Remarks. Transcript of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Special Committee on Social Policy Development. Fredericton, NB: Queen’s Printer, p. 132.

Penner, P. (1989, September 14). Remarks. Transcript of the Third Meeting of the Special Committee on Social Policy Development. Fredericton, NB: Queen’s: Printer, p. 15.

Porter, G.L. (1986, November). School Integration: Districts 28 & 29. In Education New Brunswick. Fredericton, NB. New Brunswick Department of Education, pp. 6-7.

Porter, G.L. (1990). Integrated Education as a Paradigm Question: Policy Perspectives of Canadian School Superintendents. Unpublished doctoral research, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.

Reynolds, M.C., M.C. Wang and H.J. Walberg. (1987). The necessary restructuring of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53 (5). pp. 391-398.

Richardson, D. (1989, May 27). Integration truth must be told — MacKinnon. Saint John Telegraph Journal, p. 1.

Rioux, M.H. (1989). Last in the Queue. Downsview, Ont.: The G. Allan Roeher Institute.

Robertson, G.B. (1987). Mental Disability and the Law in Canada. Toronto: Carswen.

Sage, D. (1989, April). Obstacles to Implementing School Integration. Paper presented at the conference of the Council for Exceptional Children, San Francisco.

Secord, J. (1989, October). Letter to Peter Gzowski. Morningside, CBC Radio. Toronto: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Skrtic, T.M. (1987). An organizational analysis of special education reform. Counterpoint, 8(2), pp. 15-19.

Stainback, W. and S. Stainback. (1984). A rationale for the merger of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 51(2). pp. 102-111.

Thompson, S. (1989, October 11). Remarks. Transcript of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Special Committee on Special Policy Development. Fredericton, NB: Queen’s Printer. p. 88.

Vickers, D. and O. Endicott. (1985). Mental disability and equality rights. In Anne F. Bayefsky and Mary Eberts (Eds.). Equality Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Toronto: Carswell, pp. 381-409.

Will, M.C. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52(5). pp. 411-415.

Canada is by definition a nation of diversity. The aboriginal people of this vast country represent but a fraction of the mosaic of races, cultures, religions, languages and lifestyles that is increasingly evident in Canadian cities, towns and villages. Outdated views of Canadians as descendants of white Europeans who speak either English or French have been challenged. There is formal recognition that members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police need not be tall white men in the traditional wide-rimmed hat. They might also be men of colour in turbans, or even women. The legal protection of this new reality has been accompanied (often painfully slowly!) by a shift in attitude and public perception.

Yet, while Canada evolves into a country where diversity of cultural background is welcomed and celebrated, other distinctions, particularly disability, still set some people apart. These people continue to be met by insurmountable barriers, caused by other’s attitudes, and by legislation, and societal policies and programs. They ultimately face systematic discrimination and exclusion.

Of all disabilities, intellectual disability is the most negatively perceived, leaving persons who have a mental handicap to live with comprehensive discrimination and exclusion. Last in the Queue (Rioux, 1989) documents the layers of this exclusion. These layers must be systematically peeled back in order for persons who have an intellectual disability to take their place as citizens and participants in the full sense of community life.

For persons who have a mental handicap and their families, the barriers to the community are often extremely destructive. They deprive people of self-actualisation, economic independence, intimacy in relationship, mental and physical health, and the ability to chart the course of their own lives.

Recent studies indicate that there are at least 15,000 persons in Canada living in institutions because they have been identified as having a mental handicap (Richler, 1991).

The Canadian Association for Community Living estimates that there are at least an equal number of people living in nursing homes, chronic care hospitals and private institutions. In addition, a 1991 study conducted by CACL reports that there are over 114,000 children and youths in segregated education programs, the vast majority of whom have a mental handicap. Furthermore, tens of thousands of working-age adults who have a mental handicap are excluded from competitive employment. Instead, they attend sheltered workshops or job-readiness programs or are excluded from any activity day after day (CACL, 1991).

Just as other minority groups in Canada have struggled for inclusion in the mainstream of society, so people who have a mental handicap, their families and their friends have engaged in a long campaign for inclusion.

The first organized activities began simultaneously around the world immediately after the Second World War. Learning from the rehabilitation services which assisted disabled veterans, parents of sons and daughters who had a mental handicap came together to develop rehabilitation services in the community. These services were their alternative to placing their children in large, custodial institutions. The parent groups evolved into associations which took the lead in creating opportunities for their sons and daughters with mental handicaps.

Because their children were denied entry to public schools, the first priority of the associations was usually to begin a class, and then eventually a school in which to teach them. The teachers were often volunteers, or, if paid, were not professional educators because the teaching profession had not yet accepted that children who had been labelled “retarded” could learn.

Eventually, these classes and schools became a part of the public education system and a new profession of “special educators” emerged to operate them.

After the development of education programs in the 1950s and 1960s, most community service associations moved on to establish group homes and sheltered workshops. In the 1970s and 1980s, services prolierated at the local level across Canada. In addition to the establishment of education, residential and vocational programs, there were explosions in the areas of recreation, family support, and early intervention.

The goal of most services was to support individuals with a mental handicap to live in the community rather than in institutions. However, while the new services were physically “in” the community, they operated as independent entities with no links to the parallel generic services for the community at large.

Although the parents’ movement can be credited with the birth of special education for students with an intellectual disability, by the 1980s it appeared their vision had outgrown their initial achievements. It had been necessary to institute an intermediate system of programs to overcome total exclusion; however, programmed childhood was leading to programmed adulthood. The special education system, which had been developed to prepare children to be part of their communities and to eliminate the need for institutionalization, was in fact preparing people for lives of isolation. They were moving into group homes, working in sheltered workshops and still being marginalized from the rest of the community. By the mid 1980s, there was a pervasive dissatisfaction with the segregated service system in the community. It was time to move onward and upward.

The national voluntary organization, begun by parents at the local level in the late 1940s, had been incorporated at the national level in 1958. It had expanded to include not only parents and other family members, but professionals working in the field, other interested citizens and, most recently, persons who themselves had been considered mentally handicapped.

In fact, because of the inclusion of self-advocates the association changed its name in 1985 from the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded to the Canadian Association for Community Living.

Immediately after the change of name, the association embarked on an eighteen-month review of its goals and objectives. After consulting with its membership in ten provincial, two territorial and over four hundred local associations, the organization developed a plan entitled Community Living 2000 which described a vision for the year 2000. The vision is of individuals supported by a network of family and friends; they have opportunities to attend regular neighbourhood schools and be included in regular classrooms; they have meaningful work and control over the tax dollars being spent on their behalf; they have opportunities to develop a personal lifestyle and receive reliable support when they need it. This vision is shared by self-advocates, families, and members of the association-at-large. The vision is anchored in several principles which the association identified as critical in order to achieve true and full participation in their communities by all individuals, regardless of handicap. They are citizenship, membership and self-determination. Citizenship is the actualization of rights without discrimination. It encompasses voting, having equal opportunities for employment, and being entitled to due process of law whether as a victim, a witness or an accused. Membership is a sense of belonging: having friends and families through good times and bad. Self-determination is the ability to chart the course of one’s life: to choose with whom and where to live; to have a choice of career; and to choose the individuals who are providing support for activities in daily life.

Education in the regular school system is one of the fundamental elements upon which participation in the community is built. Advocates tor individuals with a mental handicap first began to promote the idea of integrated education in the early 1970s, and the first attempts at “planned integration” began at that time. However, the people calling for inclusion of all students in the regular school system were few and far between. Examples of successes were even more scarce, and little effort was made within establishd forums to seriously address the issue.

As bleak as the prospects were twenty years ago, the early 1990s have seen visitors from around the world look to Canada for models of inclusion. In Canada, integration in education is now a priority of the national advocacy organization; independent advocacy organizations have begun to promote integration primarily and it has become a preoccupation of school boards, departments and faculties of education and a regular subject in the media. What happened in the years since 1970 to push integated education onto the social policy agenda?

It appears that several factors have converged to create a climate in which support for inclusive education has flourished. These factors include developments in the advocacy movement of and for persons who have a mental handicap, the broadening human rights perspective in Canada, and educational reform.

Within the advocacy movement of and for persons who have a mental handicap, the adoption of the Community Living 2000 plan has helped mobilized efforts to include all students with mental handicaps in regular education. The analysis which produced that plan was greatly influenced by the principle of normalization, which gained recognition in the 1970s and 1980s. Originally conceptualized by Bank-Mikelson and Nirje in Scandinavia in the late 1960s and expanded by Wolfensberger in North America in the 1970s, the principle challenged the traditional segregation of persons with a mental handicap.

Wolf Wolfensberger spent two years at The Roeher Institute (then known as the National Institute on Mental Retardation) as a visiting scholar, and the Canadian Association for Community Living (then the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded) invested heavily in promoting the concept of normalization through training and publications. As the concept gained acceptance, advocates and service providers alike began to look at emerging community programs and to question how services might be organized differently to include previously devalued individuals in the mainstream of their communities. While the principle of normalization prompted a healthy re-evaluation of community services, as the 1980s progressed it became clear that simply improving segregated services would not provide the tools for eliminating the barriers to inclusion in the mainstream.

Concurrent with the emerging experiences rooted in normalization, activists promoting changes for persons with a mental handicap were influenced by an increased awareness in Canada of human rights. In 1981, Canada repatriated its constitution and included in it a Charter of Rights and freedoms. The original Charter prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex or age. A 1985 amendment also prohibited discrimination on the basis of mental or physical disability.

Protection by the Charter provided individuals, families and advocacy organizations with a weapon to use in gaining access to generic services. It also helped people to recognize citizenship rights, which enabled them to be more demanding of services. People no longer had to depend on charity or voluntary goodwill, but could make certain demands on the basis of their citizenship. The Charter influenced both how individuals who had been labelled mentally handicapped saw themselves and how they were perceived by others.

For many people the overriding image of individuals with intellectual disabilities had been as consumers of services. Their regnition in the Charter changed the image to one of citizenship.

While people within the advocacy movement were expanding their vision of posibilities, influenced by human rights advances and normalization concepts, the field of education was also undergoing major changes. There was a recognition of experiential learning - that children learn by doing, not by sitting in straight rows listening to a teacher. There was a growing appreciation of different learning styles, of individualized approaches to teaching. Experiments in creating open spaces and regrouping children were carried out. These changes made classrooms more easily adaptable to children who were previously outside the narrow definition of “average”.

In fact, early demonstrations of integration occurred in settings which were designed to meet the individual needs of a wide range of students using alternative educational models (Forest, 1984 and 1987). These early programs exceeded the expectations of the advocates for children with intellectual disabilities. Their success demonstrated not only that disabled students could be educated beside their non-disabled peers, but that in the process all the children benefitted and the overall quality of the education improved!

The convergence of the normalization and human rights experiences with the fresh approach to teaching methods created a new environment and new alliances. Previously, many advocates for persons who had been labelled mentally handicapped had identified allies only within their existing networks. Parents and other volunteers had collaborated with progressive service providers to improve services and increase the participation of people with a mental handicap in the mainstream of society.

In the field of education, those progressive service providers were special education teachers and administrators who worked outside of the regular education system. In the 1980s, for the first time, educators within the regular system who had been exposed to advocacy could make the connection between integration and their own objectives to improve the quality of education overall. The focus of the advocacy movement slowly shifted from a partnership with special educators to a partnership with general educators.

Similarly, the human rights movement was quick to ally itself with those seeking equality for persons with a mental handicap. The growing movement for human rights drew its early leadership from the women’s movement and from vigorous advocacy for persons with a physical disability. Its members saw the relationship between these groups’ experiences of discrimination and those of people who had been called mentally handicapped. These linkages were represented by the growing number of self-advocates who increasingly assumed leadership roles in both the human rights and mental handicap movements. Therefore, the struggle in the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s undertaken by a small single-interest group to secure education for labelled children became the cause of a new, loosely organized coalition. It now included people who had long been advocating for individuals with a mental handicap, and leaders from the human rights movement and from the field of education.

The social policy agenda developed by the Canadian Association for Community Living and promoted under the name Community Living 2000, seeks to achieve citizenship, membership and self-determination for all people who have a mental handicap.

Inclusion in regular education is a keystone of that social policy agenda, particularly in order to achieve the goals of citizenship and membership.

For many individuals, the label “mental handicap” was applied when they enter the school system. Once in a segregated school system, most students were guaranteed a future of continued segregation. Graduation from the sepegated school meant entering a sheltered workshop and often moving into a group home. Few would ever have the opportunity to move on from a sheltered workshop into a job in the workforce, and people living in group homes see them as another institution (Park, 1991).

Participation in the regular classroom gives students who have a disability the opportunity to escape the cycle of segregation. They break the cycle in three ways: they acquire skills which make their participation more meaningful; they develop relationships which foster true membership in the community; and their presence teaches other people how to accommodate the surrounding environment to their differences.

Perhaps the most important aspect of participation in an integrated setting is that learning takes place in an environment which provides its own rewards and measures of success. Parents and teachers from across Canada consistently report that students who move from segregated to integrated systems demonstrate improvements in communications skills, concentration skills and demeanour.

Teachers report that non-disabled students are often the most creative in helping to accommodate the needs of a peer who has a disability. Children are able to communicate without words, see wheelchairs as toys, perceive challenges as games.

The citizenship of students who have a mental handicap is already being enhanced through the elimination of segregation. As a part of their education, students with disabilities are learning about their rights and responsibilities as citizens, and their non-disabled classmates are learning not to discriminate on the basis of disability.

Furthermore, the relationships formed between the student who has a disability and his or her peers can last a lifetime and the benefits will touch both lives. In the past, most non-disabled students never had opportunities to meet an individual with a mental handicap. Therefore, many adults are unsure about how to react to individuals with a disability they meet as neighbours, clients, patients, customers, colleagues or co-participants in leisure activities. When the generation of students now in integated classes grows up, our communities should be transformed. The children who are helping to solve the challenges of accommodation in the classroom will be the adults who will make accommodation possible in the workplace and who will expect their communities to include their former classmates. Non-disabled adults often turn to relationships formed during their school years to assist in finding a job or a place to live or simply for friendship. And so students who have a mental handicap and who have experienced integrated education will also have a network of relationships, and a community of peers who understand how to accommodate their needs.

Already there are many stories about individuals who have a disability who have grown up as part of their communities and are benefitting from the friendships they formed. One story involves a young doctor who was able to respond to the needs of a patient at the scene of an emergency because he had grown up on the same street as her and knew how to respond to her. Other doctors and nurses had reacted nervously to the woman (Schaefer, 1982). Another story involves a person who has been labelled mentally handicapped and who is the business partner of two former classmates, one a doctor and the other an accountant.

When the concept of integration in education was gaining momentum in the early 1980s it had few supporters. Now, however, there is a critical mass of people representing different interests working tomake integration a reality for all students, regardless of disability.

As many of the chapters in this book indicate, integration works when there is a careful analysis of the needs of the student with the disability. It usually requires close collaboration among professionals, involvement of parents, activity-based learning, a child-centred focus, and an emphasis on pluralism and cooperation rather than competition. These factors improve the system for all students.

In the broader vision of a more inclusive society, integration in education makes Community Living 2000 a possibility. If all school-aged children are taught by example that people who have a disability are equal members of our communities, there will be less risk of exclusion later in life. Parents will be better prepared to deal with the challenges of having a child who has a disability. Adults who have a disability will be better prepared for the workforce and coworkers will be better prepared to acommodate them.

Opportunities will increase for people who have a disability to be supported to live in their own homes rather than group homes. The number of segregated programs such as sheltered workshops and group living arrangements should dramatically decrease. While some of these changes are beginning as the transition to inclusive education continues, the rate of change is hampered by existing systemic discrimination as well as by inexperience on the part of community opinion-leaders. These leaders need direction as to the role they can play in promoting community living for all.

Experience in the classroom with students who have a disability will assist the opinion-leaders of tomorrow in defining their role in the movement to bring about social changes and achieve full inclusion.

Bank-Mikelson, Dr. N.E. (1967). Danish System of Services for the Mentally Retarded. Minda Lecture, Australia. Services for the Retarded in Denmark.

Forest, M. (Ed.). (1984). Education Integration: A collection of readings on the integration of children with mental handicaps into regular school systems. Downswiew, Ont.: National Institute on Mental Retardation.

Forest, M. (Ed.). (1987). More Education Integration. Downsview, Ont.: The G. Allan Roeher Institute.

Nirje, Bengt. The Developmental Needs of Profoundly and Severely Handicapped Children.

Park, Peter. (1991). A Real Home. entourage, 6 (1), p.19.

Rioux, M. H. (1989). Last in the Queue. Downsview, Ont.: The G. Allan Roeher Institute.

Schaefer, N. (1982). Does She Know She’s There? Toronto: Fitzhenry & Whiteside.

Wolfensberger, W. (1972). Normalization. Downsview, Ont.: National Institute on Mental Retardation.

When myths masquerade as reality, fact and fiction become inseparable. It becomes difficult for most people to know what to believe and what not to believe. In addition, any serious analysis of problems becomes confusing, at best. This is the position we find ourselves in when we look at the issue of integrated education for children with mental handicaps. We have been led to believe in certain so called “truths” about education in Canada. Because these have been presented as facts, they are often used to obscure or discredit any serious discussion or argument for integration in our public school system. In making a clear and convincing case for education integration, the fallacy of these “facts” must be addressed.

Popular debate over integrating children with mental handicaps into the school system has been frequently couched in terms of four myths. The first is that education is universal, that it is available to every child in Canada without restriction. The second is that the available education is equitable and equal for each child in the school system.

The third presumption is that the education system is structured and run in a way that is necessary for the continuation of the current economic and social systems. The final myth is that the structure of the education system results in a social and economic system that ensures equality based on ability.

These four assumptions tend to be framed both as prescriptive and descriptive — in other words they both ought to be the case and they are the case.

Many people who work in and influence the education system act upon the assumptions as though they are fact. They will argue that integration is either unnecessary or damaging to the education system’s accomplishments. Any person who challenges the educational system by attempting to integrate children with mental hancaps will encounter the resistance of these teachers and administrators. It is important to understand their position based on these assumptions and to decide the soundness of this position.

What then is the real message of an education system which is designed to value things that persons with mental handicaps cannot do, and which then claim them uneducable.

Inherent in its attitude is a presumption about theincamcities of persons with mental handicaps. In addition, there is an implied expectation that persons with a mental handicap will not be in regular public schools or participants in the community in general. It is not surprising that the person with a mental handicap has problems functioning in an environment based on these assumptions — an environment created with no consideration of their abilities or participation.

In the heyday of social darwinism and the eugenics movement, education became the basis of qualification for entrance into elites, and the school system became the certifying agency. Science thought it had found a way to quantify and measure people’s intelligence. Science seemed to provide objective criteria which justified selective participation, entitlement and rights — which, in fact, legitimized a system of dismimination. A rationale was created for particular distinctions and labels, which could have a medical and professional basis rather than a social basis.

We now know that science is unable to completely quantify intelligence. However, standardized testing and narrow curriculum persist in disentitling some people and restricting their opportunities to participate. Gould, in his classic work The Mismeasure of Man (1981), claims that we continue to assign to intelligence a whole set of complex human capabilities that support "` …​ the [recognition of] the importance of mentality in our lives and wish to characterize it, in part so that we can make the divisions and distinctions among people that our cultural and political systems dictate.`"

The original IQ tests, developed by Binet in 1904, had the express and limited purpose "` …​ of identifying children whose poor performance indicated a need for special education …​ And the aim of his scale was to identify in order to help and improve, not to label in order to limit`" (Gould, 1981). Binet presumed that intelligence could be augmented by education designed to cater to the specific needs of the child. His three principles for using his tests were:

These principles were disregarded as the use of IQ and other standardized testing became popular over the next eighty years. Since Binet’s time, IQ and other standardized testing has been used to exclude children from regular classes, to place them in restricted environments, to deny them jobs, to sterilize them, to prevent their immigation, and to place many other restrictions on their social and economic participation.

Legitimizing the value of intelligence (and education — an achieved rather than an ascribed characteristic) has made it possible to attach notions of merit to social order. Meritocracy is simply a process by which society gives out its rewards to those who have merit.

The critical question is: who or what is worthy of merit?

Merit eliminates the need for measures that enable or ensure equality because it is based on an acknowledgment and acceptance of the “aristocracy of merit”. That means there are a few people who, because of their superior intellectual qualities and their efforts, are born to be leaders. It is assumed that there is a natural order where the welfare, culture and progress of society depend on an aristocracy of these intellectually skilled. The argument continues that social efficiency and progress depend on rule by the elite of merit. Further, meritocratic rule must be implemented with supremacy over all other social values:

The school system has become the vehicle for sorting people this way. It is less and less a place for educating people in the most important sense. Because most people with mental handicaps are judged to have few natural (innate) cognitive skills, they are simply denied, by definition, any access to the meritocracy, to the rewards of society. The characteristics they possess are not relevant or valued according to the standards of the meritocracy. Effort without intelligence does not provide access to the rewards of society.

Over-valuation of certain forms of intelligence and experience has become entrenched and reinforced through the public education system. This can be seen in how the school system awards excellence in certain disciplines and ignores competence in others. At its simplest level, the sciences are much more relevant than the arts within the formal school system. At a more complex level, the individual achievement of a person with a mental handicap in accomplishing certain skills is often viewed as irrelevant.

This is because of a persisting utilitarian philosophy which assumes the greatest good for the greatest number of people is achieved when educators target students with the maximum potential for contributing to the maintenance of the social and economic order.

Equality is sacrificed in the face of expidiency and efficiency. Fundamental values and the contributions from people with different intellectual abilities are of no value within that framework. Therefore education, like other institutions in late twentieth century society, has become a political activity.

Educators, students, administrators are caught up in this predicament. It is still impossible to make square blocks fit into round holes. Education integration is now little more than a process of putting students with disabilities in classrooms where the structure ensures failure for the majority of them, creating the dilemma that both participating and not participating are disadvantageous. There is an entire body of literature concerned with theories of education and special education; all these works begin with premises that are counterproductive to achieving real equality in the education system.

The education system has, ultimately, helped “educate” society into a form of blindness about how people with mental handicaps enrich and enhance society. Much more creativity is needed if we hope to achieve real learning and real understanding within the antiquated structure of the education system. The system must do more than simply open its doors; it must be restructured to value the contributions from persons with disabilities, from women, and from people with different cultural experiences. Governments will have to commit themselves to that process through the provision of founds. And educators will have to be open minded and innovative in teaching and addressing students. The contribution that people with a mental handicap make to the education system will have to be part of the reconstruction of the education system.

It is time to get rid of the myths and start fresh on creating an inclusive education that provides all children with a real learning environment.

Gould, S.J. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W.W. Norton.

Livington, John F. (1979). Fair Game? Inequality and Affirmative Action. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Throughout history, people who have mental handicaps have been disfranchised and subjected to segregation on two fronts:

1) de jure (as a matter of law) segregation: which means segregation sanctioned by actual laws (i.e., the law that prohibited people with mental handicaps from voting); 2) de facto (as a matter of fact) segregation: which refers to the various customs and practices that separate and exclude people labelled mentally handicapped which are taken as facts of life but have no specific legal sanction (i.e., the practice of confining people with mental handicaps in institutions). It was de jure segregation - legally sanctioned discrimination - which governments, for the most part, were supposed to rectify in their legislative review under section 15 of the Charter. The drafters of the Charter acknowledged, by imposing a time delay, that there were numerous examples of de jure discrimination that needed to be rectified. However, both de jure and de facto forms of discrimination are open to challenge in court under the terms of the Charter.

Examples of laws which create de jure segregation are: laws that prohibit people with mental handicap from making decisions for themselves; from voting; from receiving minimum wage; from marrying; and from being jurors. They also include laws that authorize use of aversive techniques, forced sterilization and unreviewable incarceration. These laws specifically and explicitly sanction differential treatment. De jure segregation has institutionalized prejudice and has had an obvious and destructive effect. The courts, in interpreting and upholding these laws, prior to the Charter, were allowing this prejudice to exist and were sanctioning the legal devaluation of people with mental handicaps.

Examples of de facto segregation include the practice of warehousing people in institutions, of training or rehabilitating them in sheltered workshops, and of provifing housing in group homes. These are practices that exclude and implicitlys promote inferior status, worth and position.

De facto segregation appealed natural and proper because of the numerous examples of legally sanctioned state-approved discrimination.

Education for children with mental handicap has been, and continues to be, a disturbing combination of both forms of segregation. In some provinces, school acts made specific provisions for children with mental handicaps to he educated in “special” schools and classrooms (de jure). In other places the practice and policies of school boards has been to treat children with disabilities as “special” and in need of a separate educational program outside the regular classroom (de facto). However, the Charter and human rights legislation have provided parents with powerful new weapons in the fight they wage daily on behalf of their children to gain access to an equal education.

In addition to claims to equality under the Charter and provincial or territorial education legislation, some people have made complaints under human rights. Two factors bring education under the domain of human rights:

The basis of a complaint is that it is discriminatory to segregate children because they have a mental disability in self-contained, “special” schools or classrooms, as this denies them access to a public facility or service (the school) that is customarily available to the public it serves (children).

The first human rights complaint involving a child with a mental handicap that went to a hearing, was initiated on the basis of religious discrimination. The Catholic school board in the county of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville in Ontario required all children with mental handicaps to attend one class operated by a secular school board. This meant that Catholic children with a mental handicap could not receive instruction in a separate school in the religion of their choice. The arrangement made between the boards dictating that all “special needs” children would be educated at one site was done for administrative convenience.

In some jurisdictions, parents can use special statutory appeal mechanisms to question decisions to place their children in segregated settings. These mechanisms have been established specifically for children labelled as having “special needs”. However, this appeal process has been rejected by many parents and advocates because they claim it is biased. If the statutory appeal mechanism allows the decision maker to discuss the question of whether a child should be included or not, it is inherently discriminatory. If parents were convinced that the appeal process would deal with education content and not with the actual validity of integration, people might not perceive the appeal process as biased.

In some jurisdictions, the appeal mechanism under education legislation provides for a final appeal to the minister of education. A recent decision by the minister under the equivalent section in Alberta came out alter a lengthy, organized appeal by the family and supporters of the child, Margaret Eggert. The decision came out strongly in favour of the child entering Grade 1 in her neighbourhood school.

The element that permeates all of the legal challenges by parents on behalf of their children is one of struggle. There is no universal acceptance of children labelled disabled within the education system. At every turn, parents must spend time, effort, money and emotion on justifying their child’s right to be included. Resources are continually being poured into “special” education while there is little effort to find ways of making inclusion happen. There is little exploration of the social and academic benefits to all children and the economic benefits to the whole of society.

Strategies developed by parents have been creative and intense, and strengthened by the involvement of family members, friends and advocates.

In the Elwood case, Luke was in his neighbourhood school during the year befone his trial, and his fellow students and classroom teacher became his greatest allies. The evidence given by people closest to the child ran contrary to the position taken by the school board, which no doubt inspired the school board to settle.

In cases where the minister of education was implicated, the politics of the situation became critical. In the Margaret Eggert case, wide-spread positive media coverage exerted suffcient political pressure to influence the decision in favour of the child. In the Alexandra Hysert case, the attorney general saw that the government policy on integation ran counter to the position adopted in its defense to the child’s claim. The emberrassment of the inconsistency compelled the government to change sides, leaving the school hoard disempowered.

In order for segregation, both dejure and de facto, to be dismantled, it must he challenged on all fronts. While segregation persists, the non-disabled community will never have the opportunity to relate to people with disabilities as full and participating citizens. One has only to visit a truly integrated school, speak to one of the educators responsible for the implementation of an equality setting, or meet with any of the students benefitting from a situation where all children are included, to truly appredate the result. There are some Canadian jurisdictions that provide outstanding models.

As long as people must struggle in courts for inclusion, others will continue to see disability as something negative and treat people with disabilities differently. The stereotypical impression of people with disabilities, that they must qualify to be anything but excluded and devalued, will continue to be the norm.

School board administrators and ministers of education must realize that legally sanctioned segregation has rendered people with mental handicaps powerless and disadvantaged.

The equality requirement in the Charter is intended to, and will mandate, the inclusion of all children. It will be interpreted by the courts as requiring the dismantling of segregation. The power of parents to act on behalf of their children is based on the child’s constitutional and legal guarantees. Where the goal is inclusion, the power of parents is inexhaustible. It will continue to whittle away at the barriers that persist in practioe and in law. Those who resist the inevitable transition to integation should recognize that because the power of parents is exercised in the name of equality, it will prevail.

Rosi and I were disappointed to find that these simple principles were not generally accepted in the education system, and even when they were accepted in theory they were not put wholeheartedly into practice. In fact, we found our principles to be threatening to some people in the education system. This was because most school systems are “system-centred”; the needs and convenience of teachers and administrators generally take precedence over the needs of pupils. The reasons are sometimes beyond the control of the teachers and administrators, such as a lack of money and resources resulting in oversized classes. Teachers and administrators will say that their systems are pupil-centred, but if parents look closely they will see that they are mainly system-centred with some superficial concessions to pupil-centred practice.

In a system-centred school, the evaluation schemes, such as tests, marks and grades, are mainly “norm-reverenced”. This means they are based on the abilities and achievements of “average” or “normal” pupils at each grade level. Teachers must teach for these “normal” pupils whether they want to or not, and many good teachers would rather not. Very good pupils become bored and pupils with a mental handicap are bound to fail. In other words, pupils must adapt to fit the system; if they do not, or cannot, they suffer the consequences.

As we discovered, for a school system to follow our first principle and adapt structure and curriculum to the pupil, it must change its whole way of operating and become “criterion-referenced”. In a criterion-referenced school, the evaluation scheme is based on the abilities of individual pupils. Brilliant pupils are expected to do more than the “average” pupil and are evaluated according to whether their work matches their abilities. The majority of pupils work at roughly the same level and are evaluated accordingly. The pupil with a mental handicap is given work at his or her level and is evaluated according to whether or not he or she does the work well. In this way the pupil with a mental handicap can succeed as well as any other pupil because he or she is required to do only what he or she actually can do. This system allows for all pupils who require an adapted curriculum to receive it, not just the pupils with a mental handicap, removing some of the stigma assodated with an adapted curriculum.

During our efforts, Rosi and I also discovered that we weren’t alone; many progressive thinkers and educators shared our ideas. Teachers, administrators, school board trustees and researchers are coming to understand that future national prosperity and social justice depend on maximizing the potential of each pupil. This means ensuring that each pupil gets the best education he or she is capable of acquiring, which is achieved by making our school systems more pupil-centred and less system-centred.

It is also achieved by applying good integration techniques to all pupils. In our struggle for appropriate education for “exceptional students” (the term used in our province for all pupils who require an adapted program) parents can seek out these potential allies, make them aware that we are allies and work with them. They can work to change the system from inside, while we work for change from the outside. Experience has shown that determined leadership and clear goals make a pupil-centred school system a possibility.

In a pupil-centred school the arguments for keeping pupils with a mental handicap out of the regular classroom have no validity. So our second principle, to educate all pupils together in the same class, is a natural outcome of the first.

Our third principle, to make the school system accountable to the pupil, is also an extension of the first principle and is stated separately as a reminder that the school system serves parents and their children — we do not serve it. Too frequently the school system blame the pupil or the parents for whatever goes wrong with the pupil’s education. When the school system fails any pupil it must be held accountable for its failure. This accountability encourages acceptance that the education of all pupils is the joint responsibility of the school system, the parents and their children.

Our fourth principle, to recognize that the real expert on a pupil is usually his or her parent(s), is based on this joint responsibility and applies to all pupils, not just those with a disability. However, parent involvement is particularly important in the case of a pupil with a mental handicap. Most people in regular school systems have little or no experience with such pupils. Moreover, there are relatively few pupils with a mental handicap, and there is great variation between them, which means teachers and administrators will lack understanding of a particular pupil’s capabilities. Rosi and I know our son better than anyone else does; we know his capabilities and how he learns best.

Our fifth principle, to make a gradual transition from school to work, was developed when we realized that our son could learn a skill in one setting but could not necessarily perform that same skill in another setting. This is called “low skill transference ability” in jargon. We saw that sheltered workhops — in which people with mental handicaps are supposedly trained forjobs in the real world — are almost total failures.

Our local school board was one step ahead of us and had set up a work-study program for its pupils with a mental handicap. Work-study programs are vital if our children with mental handicaps are to have a decent life. They cannot learn about the real world of work while in school; they need opportunities to learn how to work in the workplace itself. Segregated schooling leading to segregated sheltered workshops creates lives of dependency, frustration, anguish and desperation in institutions. Children with handicaps deserve much more than that.

It is important to point out that our principles challenge a number of basic assumptions about the way schools operate. Although most of the teachers and administrators who had direct responsibility for our son’s education had appropriate and sometimes phenomenal attitudes, we found major problems at the system and structural levels. We were led to think about these problems by system failures and the experiences of other parents. In fact, our principles raise a fundamental question that we thought had been resolved long ago: are all pupils to be given a chance or are some, as George Orwell said, “more equal than others”? There are educators who still believe there should be gatekeepers armed with “objective assessments” to keep pupils with a mental handicap separate from friends and peers. We also know principals, teachers and especially medical doctors who tell parents that children with a mental handicap are sub-human.

We believe that special education should he challenged. It is a faulty system based on a series of myths and failed models. And it is a menace to our children.

Many segregotionists within school systems cannot accept our principle that “the expert on a pupil is usually the parent”. In fact,the way a person in the education system responds to that principle is often a good indication of that person’s openness to integration. Many good teachers and administrators welcome the participation of parents, and other support personnel, in the overall educational enterprise. Other teachers and administrators say they fear a loss of control over the classroom. Or they seem to reject the idea that parents have anything useful to otfer. These fears should be dealt with sympathetically because the successful education of a pupil with a mental handicap and, increasingly, of other pupils, requires parent-teacher-administrator cooperation.

We find these fears are based on emotion rather than fact, and there is plenty of experience to show that the fears are generally unfounded. One of the most heart-warming aspects of our efforts over the years was seeing some teachers who were afraid of “integration” become its strongest advocates once they tried it.

We feel teachers and administrators have developed their fears through incorrect information and attitudes taught by faculties of education. In many cases, we see the teachers and administrators as the victims of their education. We find that the faculties of education of all but a handful of our Canadians universities desperately cling to outdated segregationist ideology and concepts based on out-of-date research. They refuse to give teachers the training they need to enable them to provide an appropriate, integrated education for all pupils. We have come to the sad conclusion that most faculties of education are incompetent in this major area. On the other hand this means that we, as parents, should be prepared to help and support willing teachers and administrators who want to do the right thing but do not know how.

Parent-teacher-administrator cooperation is important in the formulation of the curriculum or program fur the pupil with a mental handicap. If a pupil with a mental handicap is forced to follow the same curriculum as pupil without a mental handicap he or she will fail. For the time being the best vehicle for cooperation is the Individual Education Plan (IEP).

IEPs were originally introduced in the United States because teachers leaked experience in teaching exceptional pupils and it was deemed necessary to impose a mechanism to ensure parent involvement and teacher accountability. In that context, IEPs were a productive mechanism, and they can still be helpful. They provide a means of measuring what an exceptional pupil learns, making it more difficult to blame the pupil if thing do not go well.

An IEP should he drawn up carefully and cooperatively but without becoming a major production. The regular classroom teacher may sometimes want to turn to a resource person for advice on the program and its implementation, and the parent may want to turn to another experienced parent. The pupil can often he involved. In exceptional cases, a psychologist or even a doctor may be involved.

The IEP is reviewed and revised cooperatively at regular intervals and should be treated as a guide, not a straitjacket. It also does not guarantee that all will suddenly be well; in fact, educational crimes have been committed against pupils in the name of IEPs.

An IEP is best viewed as a confidence-building mechanism for the parent, the teacher and the administrator, and the pupil. The parent and teacher must he honest and realistic. Parents can tell the teacher how the pupil learns best, what he is interested in, how he reacts in particular situations, how to avoid problems, and so on. If things go wrong or there is dissatisfaction, all concerned must avoid any temptation to blame someone, and instead concentrate on finding solutions cooperatively.

We found that IEPs were not necessary when our son had good, experienced teachers who were committed to integration. We have also known parents whose children have had poor teachers despite IEPs.

Although our principles are simple, putting them into practice is difficult. Parents should be wary of people who promote simple answers to the complex questions facing education today.

One potentially dangerous cry is “back to the basics”. Any education system built around the back-to-the-basics theme will be system-centred and norm-referenced with no place for exceptional pupils. Securing a decent education for exceptional children means supporting integation, with all the inherent challenges involved. It means supporting theories and practices that are called progressive, rather than those that are called conservative.

It is also important to realise that our society asks the impossible of teachers and school administrators. We expect them to resolve all our social problems and have all kinds of programs such as AIDS and anti-racism education and propaganda from the nuclear industry. Integration means appropriate education for all pupils and is best accomplished when teachers are not over-stressed.

Parents should support efforts to reduce class size, eliminate curriculum overload and improve support services for teachers; parents should also support rewards for exceptional teachers. Parents must resist any postponement of integration based on the excuse that the system is not ready. lf the time, effort and money spent opposing integration were spent implementing it, integration would be a reality.

System-wide integration can work; good teachers and administrators have discovered that they can integrate exceptional students much better than they thought possible.

The ideology of segregation, while still very much alive, is now having to hide and adopt new tactics. We believe that continued, consitent pressure to apply our five principles can keep the segregationists on the run, and help all those in our school systems who want to provide an appropriate, inclusive education for all pupils.

People’s attitudes proved to be one of the greatest barriers. People felt that Mandy had to master an array of skills before she could join the lives of neighbours, friends and schoolmates. I was told that people needed time to get “ready”, and attitudes needed to “change” before she could be accepted into their schools. In other words, positive attitudes of the community and of the teachers were requisite for Mandy to attend school.

But I believed that Mandy could not wait for people’s attitudes to change. I felt she belonged in the regular school system with her peers.

When Mandy was four years old, our family was transferred to Ottawa, Ontario. I enrolled Mandy in a nursery school for special needs children. I grappled with my conscience at doing this, and, after monitoring Mandy’s progress for several months, I gave in to the gnawing feeling that she was in the wrong place. How was she going to make friends in her neighbourhood and learn to cope with everyday situations if she was segregated from other children?

After making many inquiries, I arranged for Mandy to attend a local daycare centre that had set aside three seats in their program for children with mental handicaps. Mandy spent an exciting year there. As she blossomed we saw many changes in her.

At the end of this year, much to our disappointment, Mandy was denied access to the junior kindergarten program in the same school as the daycare centre. The teacher did not feel she could handle a child with a handicap in her classroom.

This threw me into indecision. Did Mandy really deserve the same things other children took for granted? Was I being realistic? I wondered if I should I just give up — which would have been the easier route — or if I should persevere, doing what I felt was right for Mandy and helping others to see Mandy as I did.

Should I challenge this system that wanted to keep her out of their lives?

The decision was made. We felt that education was for everyone and that Mandy should and could belong. We decided to approach the school down the street from our home, the same school her older brother, Justin, was attending.

My husband and I met with the principal and discussed my thoughts and beliefs, and my desire to enrol Mandy in the next school year in their junior kindergarten program. He said they did not have any children with handicap at this school; however, did I know of the special school across town for the mentally retarded? I assured him that I was aware of it but was not interested in visiting the special school, nor was I considering it an option for my daughters education. The principal was genuinely supportive and optimistic as he tried to understand my concept. He told me that he would consider my request and would bring it up at the next meeting with his superiors.

As we waited with anticipation, the summer months flew by and fall was upon us. The first day of school approached and still we waited for an answer. Finally, the Friday before school was to begin, the phone call came. That phone call changed our lives. Mandy was to start school on Monday with her brother. We were ecstatic!

The following year was exciting, with none of the anticipated obstacles or problems. It really was an ordinary school year. Mandy was just another kid at school.

Her presence at school that year had a major impact on people’s lives, including her brother’s. One day, during Education Week, I received a phone call from Justin’s Grade 4 teacher. She wanted to share with me an emotional experience she had witnessed that day at school.

Each of her pupils had been required to choose a topic related to education, write about it and present it to the rest of the class.

The teacher said that she became concerned when it was Justin’s turn; there he stood at the front of the class with no written material prepared. He proceeded to tell the class that he had chosen to talk about his sister, her life and what his family’s dreams were for her. He spoke about the label society had given her, about her struggles, her accomplishments and about how she was just like the other students. She like to skate, watch vidios, go to school, and play with her friends, and her favourite singer was Michael Jackson. Justin concluded by telling the class that he did not need to write down on paper or prepare beforehand what he knew was right because it came naturally from his heart. l was told that this presentation not only moved the entire classroom to tears, including the teacher, but that it was also the most educational presentation the teacher had ever heard.

June came and the school year was winding down when the news came: our family was being transferred to Oromocto, New Brunswick. It sounded like the other end of the earth. What was to become of Mandy and her education?

With just two days left in the school year and only days before we left for our new home, the school principal called and asked my husband and I to meet with him the next day. Not knowing what it was all about, and feeling both apprehensive and curious, we went to the school.

Upon our arrival, we were escorted into a crowded board room filled with people — teachers and administrators who had been directly involved with Mandy, and other teachers whose only experience had been to say hi to her in the halls. To our surprise, they all thanked my husband and I for giving them the opportunity to have Mandy at their school. They told us how sorry they were to see us leave and that they wished we were staying in Ottawa for at least three more years. They added that they hoped Mandy had learned as much from them as they had learned from her.

It was a moment I will never forget. It sealed my beliefs; I made an added commitment to our family’s direction.

I later learned that Mandy’s presence had set a precedent; the following year the school had three children with special needs enrolled in regular classes.

When I arrived in New Brunswick I was consumed with mixed emotions. I dreaded my new neighbours’ reactions to our family; I feared that I would have to explain and fight all over again. It was difficult to have left everything that made me feel safe and secure: my family and my friends. I felt a tremendous burden on my shoulders. Everything had been going so great; and now I suddenly felt desperately alone!

But it was upon moving to New Brunswick that I learned there was a special word for my beflef that Mandy should and could participate in regular classes with other neighbourhood children. The word is integration.

That September both kids started school — Mandy in regular kindergarten and Justin in Grade 5 at the same school. While things were off to a smooth start, I soon heard that there was to be a review of school policy regarding integration. A concerned teacher at the school convinced me that it was important that parents like myself become involved in the issue.

I began making phone calls to other parents who were considering integating their children. I explained to them that I had recently moved from Ontario and, like them, had a child with special needs. I asked them if they new that changes to school policy regarding integration of children with exceptional needs were under review. We talked about how important it was that we as parents contribute and voice our opinions and concerns. We agreed that we needed to meet each other and discuss the impending changes which would effect our lives.

Every person I called — which added up to ten families — came to a meeting at my home.

We sat with cups of coffee and shared stories, concerns, ideas and plans for the future. The atmosphere of this first meeting was one of caring and sharing; it was both exciting and rejuvenating.

After everyone left that evening, and as I sat alone in my living room, I was filled with a new, warm, safe feeling. I wasn’t alone at all. I knew then that everything was going to be alright It was a wonderful feeling to finally share and discuss how I felt — my frustrations, worries, thoughts and actions — with other people who understood. It lifted the weight off my shoulders.

The group was immediately active, following the burning issue of integration, and keeping up-to-date on progress, espacially in the school system. We prepared and mailed documents to the school district, informing them of the formation of our parent group. In our letter, we spoke of our support for their endeavours to integrate children with exceptional needs into the regular school system.

A formal presentation to the school board was the next item on our agenda. As the designated leader of the parent support group I was responsible for the presentation: the first one I’d ever given! Despite my nervousness, the response was tremendous; our report of our expectations drew the attention of many school board members and the media. We continued to attend school board meetings and were called upon to discuss and comment on other school policies.

The years were both positive and rewarding, not only for our family but for our community. The parent group continued, becoming a united voice, a resource to other parents and to the community, and a source of strength for one another. Because we stood together we saw many significant and exiting changes in our schools and our community.

The most important outcome of our efforts was that Mandy was permanently integrated into the regular school system in Oromocto, New Brunswick. Integration meant that she became a part of one school system that exists for all children. It provided the opportunity for her to learn, to participate and to play with her friends in and out of the school.

Mandy now has friends; I think this is one of the greatest benefits of inclusion. For years I watched Mandy stand alone on the front lawn as all the neighbourhood children rushed by on their way to school or games. I remembered thinking, “Please just one person stop and talk to her; just one of you ask her to play too.”

My eyes fill with tears when I remember the first time our doorbell rang and there stood three little girls asking, “Can Mandy come out and play?” The look of pure joy on Mandy’s face was a dream come true.

The original group of friends soon more than quadrupled in number. Now Mandy’s classmates are the children who speak up and support her; they are her advocates at school and in the playgrounds at home. These children speak proudly of the joys and triumphs they have shared with Mandy, not only at school but in the oommunity. Her classmates call on her to come out to play; they are the friends who invite her to parties and dances and who are anxious to see her at Brownies, gmnastics, figure skating and baseball. These are the children who can’t wait to introduce me to their parents as “Mandy’s Mom; Mandy — she’s in our class”.

Integration is more than just education in school. It is a part of everything we do. Mandy’s integration does not start and stop in school; she is an active member of her community. Besides belonging to the figure skating club and attending the summer playground programs and gymnastics, Mandy was a Brownie for three years. The Brownie leader admitted that when she first learned that Mandy had enrolled in her pack she was scared. But she said that, once she got to know Mandy, she realized, “There isn’t anything she can’t do. She’s not a problem. We just love her and the kids all look for her on Wednesday nights.” Recently, the leader was asked if she had any children with special needs in her Brownie pack.

She replied, “No”. The person asked,“Well don’t you have Mandy?” The Brownie leader’s response was, “Yes, but she doesn’t have special needs. She’s just Mandy.”

Integration has helped Mandy to see herself as part of the whole. Her Grade 1 teacher told me that one day, during math class, Mandy suddenly stood up and literally picked up her desk. She moved it from the last row by the door to the front row in the middle of the classroom. At the beginning of the period, the kids had been asked to move their desks into groups, but, with good intentions, Mandy’s desk had been positioned so that she would not have to move. As the teacher stood there speechless, a little boy at the back of the class put up his hand and said, “Don’t be mad at Mandy, she just feels left out.”

We quickly realized what Mandy was trying to tell us through her actions. In her own way she was showing us that although she was physically integrated she still felt special or different, an outsider. The other kids recognized this and spoke up on her behalf. Mandy’s desk remained in the middle of the classrcom, in the front row, for the rest of the school year. The incident also illustrates how Mandy’s participation has enhanced the other children’s learning process, providing a creative, accepting, learning environment for every child. In fact, all students have benefitted in many ways from a unified school system in which all learning needs are readily addressed. The supports and resources provided through integration, such as the methods and resource teachers, teacher’s aides, peer tutors and cooperative learning groups, are providing valuable assistance to all students in the classroom.

Mandy has been accepted and made to feel comfortable and welcome and that she belongs in her neighbourhood and community.

She is now recognized as Mandy: a cute little girl with strengths and a personality She has experienced real life situations; she is learning in a setting that will prepare her for life in the community as a contributing and participating adult. She is accepted regardless of her abilities or disability by her peers, by those who will also someday be the adults in her community.

Peoples’ attitudes are changing; people are more knowledgeable, more sensitive and more willing to accept children with differences into their classrooms, lives and communities. This letter from the mother of one of Mandy’s clamates shows just how much attitudes are changing:

Looking back, I have no regrets as to the path we chose for Mandy. As pioneers in our educational system and as advocates for the acceptance of people with differences into communities, our pleasure and success came in our relationship with our daughter. As parents we were only catalysts, providing her with the opportunities to build and develop friendships at school and in the community. Yet many times I asked myself, “What do I really want for Mandy?” One day, as I looked out my front window, I knew.

There, as the wind whistled about and the first snow flurry of the year danced in the air, two little girls sat with their jackets off. They knew that they weren’t allowed to have their coats off but it was fun. As they laughed and played on the lawn swing they tried to catch snowflakes on their tongues. Suddenly, overwhelmed, tears began to stream down my face. I said out loud, “_This is what it is really all about!_ This is the kind of life I want for both my children. This is the future. A future where integration is no longer an issue but a fact of life.”

I have learned never to “judge a book by its cover”. I have learned that change is not easy and it does not happen over night. You have to make it happen!

As I look to the future I know there are still struggles ahead. But, for Mandy and our family, because of integration, we’ll be able to rise to meet these challenges with others in our community.

Two and a half years alter I graduated from Vincent Massey, I was hired as an Educational Assistant at the Separate School Board. There were many good things and there were some problems. The teachers would get upset with me because I did the wrong thing. I didn’t know that it was wrong. I could not read the list of duties that the teachers gave me. I was embarrassed to tell them that I couldn’t read. When they found out that I couldn’t read they said I should not have my job. I did not feel good about myself. I felt that I was different from the other staff. People didn’t always want to help me.

My sister and I talked about the situation. She asked me if I wanted to learn. I said I definitely wanted to learn. My parents, my brothers and my other sister weren’t sure that it was necessary. Maybe it wasn’t a god idea, they thought. They said if I needed reading skills for my job maybe I should quit my job. I thought, “No way!” We looked for a course but everyone said they didn’t have a program for “special needs” students. Finally, the adult program at the Separate School Board said OK. I went to the adult literacy program sponsored by the Hamilton Catholic School Board Adult Education Program. I started in I986 and continue to go for two half-days per week.

Donna hired a tutor to give me extra support for a while. It was great. I was learning. I made a commitment to stay with it.

I Iove going to Sacred Heart. My teacher Barb and I have a routine. I make a sentence and I say it in to a tape recorder. Barb then writes the sentence and we work on each new word. I make my own dictionary with my new words.

I’m doing so well that I now read in my church on Sundays. When my sister Patty got married I asked her if I could read at her wedding. At first she said no. A friend at church asked me to read on a special occasion. Another friend told my sister that I did a good job. After that she asked me to read at her wedding. My relatives said I did a good job.

I do not have many problems at work. I can read my duties. I can go to P.D. days and I can participate in what’s going on because I can read some of the notes and I can write notes. I can now read books. I learn more now. I can be more independent because I can read signs in the community. I can help children to read I feel good about myself because I can do it. I love learning to read. It inccreases my vocabulary and this helps me to express my feelings and my thoughts better. I am President of People First in Hamilton. I can now write my own agenda for the meetings and I can read letters from other groups that come to me. I read these letters to my group. There are words I don’t know yet. I get stuck sometimes but people help me. I keep practising.

Methods and resource teachers reported using a variety of strategies to support regular class teachers while avoiding positioning themselves as experts who provide easy answers to problems. They stressed the importance of being seen as fellow-teachers and collaborators: “You can’t ask a teacher to do anything you wouldn’t do yourself. You can’t be an expert. You have to be one of them.”

One strategy is to encourage the regular class teacher to take ownership of both the problem and the plan to deal with it:

The M&R teachers emphasized the need to listen to teachers, especially to their ideas about possible strategies to use in the classroom. M&R teachers can help them select what they think is the most appropriate strategie but it is the teacher who must use it in the classroom:

Several M&R teachers mentioned using other faculty members to provide reinforcement to teachers. One described a situation where the principal served in this role:

With the many visits M&R teachers make to various classrooms, they become well informed as to each teacher’s strengths and where these strengths might be useful in other classrooms. They can facilitate an interchange of ideas and among staff, promoting cooperation among teachers:

The use of group problem-solving through either formal problem-solving teams (see Chapter 12) or more informal approaches was mentioned by several teachers. In one particular small school, the M&R teacher suggested that all seven staff members act as a team. Now they frequently discuss problems and help each other resolve them. The methods and resource teacher — who was new to the profession — said:

In the high school and, to a lesser extent, the junior high, students typically see a teacher for only one period, which creates problems in the consultation process. Effective group meetings can be especially useful here:

Attention to detail goes a long way in making the consulting role work. For example, it helps to hold meetings at the teachers’ convenience:

The job of an M&R teacher is challenging in many ways. first and foremost, M&R teachers feel they never have enough time to do everything that needs to be done. Program planning, materials preparation and completing the paperwork associated with IEPs and other documents interferes with their ability to get into classrooms to observe and monitor student progress. M&R teachers recognize that they should spend several hours at a time in the classroom but usually only find time to observe for ten minutes to a half hour. As a result, most methods and resource teachers depend to a great extent on the reports of teachers and feedback from teacher’s aides.

Methods and resource teachers suggest that there are serious problems with classroom teachers expecting too much of their students with disabilities. M&R teachers must work very hard to see that teachers have realistic expectations and that students don’t experience frustration and failure.

While teachers’ expectations tend to be too high, parents of students who have spent a number of years in segregated settings often need encouragement to have higher expectations for their children. M&R teachers report that the parents seem reluctant to take risks with their child’s placement, putting tight limits on program alternatives. When there is a great gap between the M&R teacher’s judgement and the expectations of the classroom teachers and parents, development of an appropriate instructional program becomm very difficult.

It is also difficult to establish integrated programs for students with disabilities when teaching methods over-emphasize content and put little emphasis on individual and group activity, particularly at junior and senior high levels:

It is clear that the recruitment and selection of appropriate candidates is essential for the M&R teacher concept to work. Special education training would be a benefit, but regular classroom teaching experience is an essential prerequisite. Teachers with successful teaching experience bring a background and measure of credibility to the position that can’t be taught. Ongoing training is necessary and teachers who have the potential should be recruited and encouraged to switch to the M&R teacher role.

It should be accepted that not everyone who tries the position will find the job suitable. Some teachers find it difficult to switch to a collaborative consultant role. Others will find they miss the security of regular teaching assignment and want to return to it. A reasonable agree of turnover should be welcomed and can prove beneficial by bringing new people with new ideas into the position. Experience shows that those who leave the position return to the classrom with improved skills and an anhanced perspective on meeting student’s individual needs.

Teachers and principals in districts 28 and 29 indicated that they needed more training and experience to understand the M&R teacher role. This is essential if M&R teachers are to play their part in the process of inclusion. For the program to work well teachers need to gain an understanding of the value of school integration and their responsibility in carrying it out. Direct experience with a student with a disability appears to be a critical part of this process. Successful experiences must be shared and the idea that integration is a fad or a cycle needs to be put to rest.

M&R teachers identified a number of strategies they have found effective in working with regular class teachers. It will be important to share that information and develop additional approaches. Many principals also need to be more involved in the program. Their participation, understanding and support is critical. It’s clear that when principals take an interest and show leadership they can give the program the credibility it takes to be successful.

It is important to consider the classroom practices that facilitate the inclusion of students with disabilities. Instructional practices need to change. The reliance on teacher-directed instruction and mastery of content does not encourage participation by students with disabilities and it is questionable how much it benefits other students. Progressive teaching methods like multi-level instruction, cooperative learning, peer-tutoring, project work and activity-based learning need to be promoted.

Special educators need to ensure that the general effort to improve instruction includes factors relevant to students with special needs.

It will be necessary to advocate for sufficient resources to carry out an inclusionary program. Class size has a definite effect on the ability of teachers to meaningfully integrate students with special needs. A class with twenty-five students including one with special needs is much more manageable than one with thirty-four students. Ongoing training is required for both regular teachers and M&R teachers. A sufficient number of M&R teachers need to be provided as well as teacher’s aids and other consulting professionals. Integration is not a way to reduce the cost of special education. It is a way to enrich the quality of education for all students.

Finally, it’s important that those responsible for the program resist being dogmatic or defensive. They need to be open and receptive to constructive suggestions to improve both the policy and practice of the model. New ideas need to be incorporated into the plan as it goes along. The opinions of those participating must be respected, and flexible responses developed to deal with new situations. Integration must be seen as consistent with providing better education to all students.

On several occasions we have had M&R teachers track their use of time to provide an objective look at their activities. This makes it possible to monitor the degree to which day-to-day practice corresponds to the theoretical model for their role. The most recent survey was completed in January 1990 during the fourth full year of an integrated school setting.

Twenty-five methods and resource teachers completed a time-use log for two consecutive teaching days. They recorded the maior activities they were engaged in during fifteen-minute time segments throughout the work day. Four major categories of activity emerged: 1) collaborative consultation; 2) teacher support; 3) instruction; and 4) other (see chart A1) .

The category that took up the major portion of time — 32.5 per cent — was collaborative consultation. This involves collaborating with teachers, teacher’s aides, other M&R teachers, parents, the principal and consulting professionals such as psychologists. Time spent monitoring in-class activities was also considered a collaborative function.

The second major area is teacher support activities. This category included areas like referral and assessment, planning, IEP development and the preparation of materials for instruction. These activities took 24.7 per cent of the M&R teachers time.

A third category, instruction-related tasks, totalled 27.9 per cent of the time. This area was made up of three distinct activities: 1) occasions when the M&R teacher provided direct instruction to the whole class so the regular teacher could work with the individual student or do program development for a student; 2) individual or small group instruction in the regular classroom in partnership with the regular teacher; and 3) pull-out instruction in the resource room.

The fourth and final category of activity included all the other activities teachers engage in such as professional development, meeting with students or student groups, school duty, and a variety of other activities. This area accounted for 14.9 per cent of the M&R teachers time.

Charts [A2], [A3], [A4] and [A5] detail the use of time in each area. Most of the time M&R teachers are actively engaged in collaborative and supportive activities with other staff members, students and parents.

It is interesting to note that only about 13 per cent of the M&R teachers’ time was devoted to pull-out instruction. Special education teachers have substantially changed the way they use their time over the past five years. As resource teachers and special class teachers, they were providing direct instruction in a segregated classroom or to a small group on a pull-out basis.

There was an emphasis on special education teachers replacing regular classroom teachers as the instructors of special nude children. In their new capacity as M&R teachers, they spend a majority of their time consulting with and helping teachers rather than replacing them.

In January 1988, interviews were held with thirteen teachers who have worked as methods and resource teachers in New Brunswick school districts 28 and 29. Two of the thirteen were working in other capacities during the 1987-88 school year and reflected on their previous experiences. The interviews were held in the school where the teachers are on staff, and lasted from forty-five to ninety minutes. The interviews were taped and the resulting transcripts provided the information base for the study.

The study was based on qualitative research methods and utilised an inductive approach. The interviews were openended and the teachers were free to take the discussion where they wished. However, the focus of the interview was on their work as methods and resource teachers.

Ten of the teachers completed a time-use log over two work days in the weeks following the interview. They recorded their major activities for each fifteen-minute time period while they were at school. These were used for analysis of their actual work activities.

The information from the interviews and the time-use logs was used to generate the research findings. Time-use logs were also completed by all methods and resource teachers in 1989 and 1990. The results for 1990 are reported in the charts A1 to A5. The analysis and synthesis involved extensive sorting and organizing of the data to generate the themes that are described. The findings are firmly “grounded” in the recorded views of the methods and resource teachers.

Methods and resource teachers consult and collaborate with teachers, parents, and other personnel and/or agencies to assure student success in learning. Their job responsibilities include collaboration, liaison, program development, monitoring, and professional development.

Forest, M. (1984). Education update: Wellington County Separate School Board at work. Mental Retardation, 34(3), pp.35-39.

Porter, G.L. (1986, November). School integration: Districts 28 and 29. In Education New Brunswick. Fredericton, N.B.: New Brunswick Department of Education, pp. 6-7.

Since 1986 and the passage of Bill 85, many school districts in New Brunswick have integrated exceptional students in regular classrooms. However, integration was in effect for a number of years in NewBrunswick prior to Bill 85 and, as a result, teachers and principals developed ways to implement integration and make it successful for their own situations. They drew on various sources of expertise including workshops, books, articles, visitations, courses, sharing sessions, and practical experiencies. Even before Bill 85, professional development in integration ranged from visitations outside of New Brunswick to individual consultations with teachers and administrators.

In 1986 and 1988, a series of regional workshops on integration were sponsored by the New Brunswick Department of Education. The series consisted of three workshops in 1986, attended by 104 classroom teachers, methods and resource teachers (see Chapter 8) and school and district administrators; and four workshops in 1988 with 170 educators in attendance. The main purposes of these workshops were: 1) to provide training to teachers; 2)to share experiences; and 3) to problem-solve.

Following the second series of regional workshops, a provincial meeting on integration was held in March 1988. It was attended by fifty-five classroom teachers, methods and resource teachers and school administrators from across the province. The participants were selected for their experience in the integration process; they could provide useful information to other educators working towards integration. At this meeting the teachers and administrators shared their experiences, discussed their needs and concerns, and helped one another to solve specific problems.

At both the meeting and the workshops, people were asked what had been particularly helpful to them in making integration work. In addition, similar information was obtained from school administrators at a meeting of three districts held in April 1990. The feedback has become useful as strategies and recommendations for successful integration.

Without a doubt, the school principal is one of the key persons in successful integration. Educators who were asked for feedback said they realized the importance of a positive school environment in making integration work. They gave valuable recommendations for school administrators involved in the integration process.

In the past few years, more and more educators have gained experience in integrating exceptional students in regular classes. Many strategies have been developed and have helped educators initiate integration and make the process successful (Biklen, 1985; Sailor, Anderson, Halvorsen, Doering, Filler and Goetz, 1989; Stainbeck and Stainback, 1989).

In New Brunswick, workshops have been held with educators experienced in integration to identify and discuss what has helped them. Over the course of these workshops, it was found that what was effective for one educator may not have worked for another. Therefore, many strategies have been presented here and more than one may be implemented to assist staff in a particular school or school district.

Biklen, D. (1985).Achieving the complete school: Strategies for effective mainstreaming. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

California Research Institute. (1989). What makes integration work? Strategies …​ a part of the TASH Dissemination Project, 1, p. 1.

Chalfant, J., M. Pysh and R. Moultrie. (1979). Teacher assistant teams: A model for within-building problem solving Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 2, pp. 85-96.

Little, D.M. (1985). A crime against childhood — uniform curriculum at a uniform rate: Mainstreaming re-examined and redefined. Canadian Journal of Special Education, 2, pp. 91-107.

Lusthaus, E. and M. Forest. (1987). The kaleidoscope: A challenge to the cascade. In M. Forest (Ed.), More Education Integration. Downsview, 0nt.: The G. Allan Roeher Institute. pp. 1-17.

New Brunswick Department of Education. (1988). Working Guidelines on Integration. Fredericton, New Brunswick: Department of Education.

Sailor, W., J . Anderson, A. Halvorsen, K. Doering, J. Filler and L. Goetz. (1989). The Comprehensive Local School: Regular education for all students with disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.

Stainback W. and S. Stainback. (1989). Practical organizational strategies. In W. Stainbeck, S. Stainback and M. Forest (Eds.). Educating all Students in the Mainstream of regular Education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., pp. 71-87.

Thousand, J., T. Fox, R. Reid, J. Godek and W. Williams. (1986). The Homecoming Model: Educating students who present intensive educational challenges within regular education environments. (Monograph No. 7-1), Burlington, VT.: University of Vermont, Center for Developmental Disabilities, pp. 33-37.

Strategies in Preparation
Teaching an integrated class requires a personal as well as a professional commitment. It is not enough for the school board, the superintendent and the school administration to support the philosophy of integration. The actual success or failure of integration hinges on the classroom teacher’s beliefs and practices. In fact, the strongest indicator that integration will be successful is the degree to which the classroom teacher believes in the idea. The teacher must believe that the school is the most natural setting for students to grow and learn from each other and from educated adults.

One of the most common remarks teachers make when facing integration i that they are not ready for it. They say there is too much they do not know and they feel ill-prepared. These are real concerns and should be acknowledged.

However, it seems to be the human condition that few of us are prepared for the major challanges in life, such as marriage, parenthood, or career changes. While I think it is important to recognice the challenge of an integrated classroom, I believe it is equally important to embrace integration with optimism.

In addition, preparation does not necessarily mean textbook knowledge of various physical and mental conditions. Preparation may simply consist of studying the student’s individual education program the time he or she entered the school system. It helps put things in perspective to see where the student was at the beginning of his or her education and what growth has occurred over the years. It relieves teachers from feeling that they have complete responsibility for the future success of the student and it gives teachers reassurance to see themselves as part of a team. Further preparation would involve discussions with parents to strengthen understanding of potential goals.

Avoid lists of things the student can and cannot do. They can be both discouraging to the teacher and damaging to your creative vision. Children who have a mental handicap can be handicapped by our perception of their limitations.

The most important part of preparation is to meet and get to know the child. No matter what physical or mental challenges the child presents, he or she has the some basic needs as all other students — the need for understanding and respect, the need to be listened to and appreciated, and the need to learn in his or her own style. If teachers address these needs competently, everything will fall into place.

Creative Freedom
When teaching in an integrated setting, teachers should permit themselves some creative freedom. When teachers first begin their careers, they are daring, trying new ideas, making mistakes, revelling in their successes. Unfortunately, creativity is an early casualty in many classrooms, not by design or intent but by a slow and quiet process as teachers slip into comfortable routines.

Because a child’s special needs may be beyonds teacher’s experience, we are forced to throw out some of our traditional methods and find innovative approaches. What we discover is that all our students benefit from this change in practice.

One year I was assigned to teach french to a class which included a blind student. Although it was a language course, the lessons included a lot of visual stimuli. In order for the blind student to participate and be involved, the language had to come alive, which we achieved by physically acting out situations. The students loved not having to sit at their desks doing board work. The results were so much better that I used the same approach in another French class I taught which did not include anyone with special needs.

Over the years I have had students with a wide range of needs. They have opened my eyes to countless new ways of doing things. And because of this creative freedom, I have realized that the child’s learning process is every bit as important as what he or she learns.

Common Objectives
For many children with special needs, the regular academic objectives are not appropriate. Programs need to be modified, with much more emphasis placed on helping students to develop into functional, contributing members of their community.

Teachers should have a vision of the desired results and avoid confining themselves to a list of objectives for a particular grade level. Everything a teacher plans for the student should fit into the vision the teacher and the parents, and, in many cases, the student have for his or her future.

Collaboration
Because teachers often view having a student with special needs as a big responsibility, it is wise to embrace the collaborative spirit. Collaboration with other school staff members is an extremely intelligent approach with far ranging benefits.

While it is true that an open-door policy is often threatening to teachers trying new strategies to meet the needs of their integrated student, itis equally true that two heads are better then one. An observer, such as another staff member, can often shed light on factors in the classroom environment which may be influencing the way a student is learning or behaving.

Integrated classroom teachers also have the right to be demanding. They should ask for release time to attend workshops or to visit classrooms or schools. They should request parent volunteers and aides. In some cases extra preparation time is allotted or smaller class sizes given to teachers who work in an integrated classroom. Administration should be made aware that teachers need their support in the way of special resources and additional support people.

The strategies outlined above are practised in classrroomsevery day. They are not particular to an integrated classroom but are found wherever students and teachers enjoy learning together.

It has always been a characteristic of education that there has never been enough time to get everything done. Today, even with advanced technology surrounding us, it seems that more and more activities are cutting into our precious minutes. Each child needs time with the teacher, and teachers make conscious efforts to interact with each student every day. But we never feel that we have spent enough time with each student.

This feelinq only increases when the class includes a child with spedal needs. Because of their needs, they generally require even more one-on-one attention.

Strategies for One-on-One Attention
The following strategies call on various resources and tactics to enable the teacher to focus more time on each student.

The first resource is the para-professionals in the education system: teacher’s aides, assistants, and trained volunteers. The teacher can ask this other adult to handle the class, which may be working on an assignment prepared by the teacher, while the teacher works with an individual student. Or the teacher may ask the aide to work with the individual student on a task again prepared by the teacher.

The second source of help is the children themselves. It is a wise teacher who realizes he or she is not the only instructor in the classroom. Peer tutoring is a growing practice not only within a class but across grade levels as well. One of the wonderful things about children is that they do not see the limitations of other children. They are compassionate and passionate at the same time. The most umnotivated student turns into a zealot when asked to help another student. A word of caution: monitor the tutoring so that the time spent is meaningful to both parties.

Another strategy is to design activities for the whole class which free the teacher for short blocks of time to work with an individual student. Again, the activity should he worthwhile for students, but one which requires only minimal interaction with the teacher.

A fourth strategy is parental support. It is important to choose parents who have a strong commitment to their involvement. Working with small groups in the classroom, a parent can add a warm and caring touch that all children enjoy and many children need.

Creating a Community Atmosphere
To work well, a class has to be a cohesive unit which pulls together for the benefit of all students. It is the teacher’s responsibility to promote a feeling of community and an appreciation of the differences which make up that community.

This is an increasingly challenging role as children from different backgrounds are bought together.

Sometimes, the teachar is forced to become a social coordinator, creating a cooperative rather than a competitive environment by designing activities, both academic and social, which support cooperative values. Since social development is critical to successful functioning within a community, the teacher’s role as coordinator is important to all students in the class. Individual children are not lost in the cooperative structure; instead, they are shown that they each have something to offer which is of equal value to everyone else’s contribution.

In a classroom which includes a child with a mental handicap, the teacher includes this child in most activities and quietly encourages interaction without drawing special attention to it. The other children soon assume responsibility for any extra needs the child might have. It has been my experience that they develop strong bonds with the child and may need only to he cautioned against doing too much for him or her.

Monitoring the social development of all students provides teachers with opportunities to assess the growth and maturing of individual students.

Motivation
In a classroom where teachers need time to work closely with children with special needs, the teachers need to be motivators. They must encourage students to do their best, think problems through and develop self-discipline. This develops independence and permits the teacher to have quality time with an individual student without having to continually break away to quiet or direct the other students.

From my observation, smoothly running classrooms have teachers who are motivators. They have regular dicussions with their students on the benefits of sharing ideas, on problem solving techniques, and on responsibility. These discussions are ongoing and are rarely reactive in nature.

Often in these classrooms there is greater freedom of movement and a mutually agreed upon noise level.

Part of providing motivation includes designing activities which children find interesting and challenging. As in any classroom, this requires activities covering a wide range of abilities. Cooperative activities and learning centres lend themselves well to multi-level lesson plans (see Chapter 11) .

The physical layout of the classroom can also be structured to promote independence. All materials are organized and visible. Instructions for centres and activities are posted. Specific places for completed assignments are established, as are produceres for leaving the classroom, late arrivals, and free time. At all times, students know what they me supposed to be doing. While the teacher is responsible for designing, initiating and monitoring all activities, everyone benefits as students become more independent.

Providing Role Models
Probably one of the most important roles a teacher can play in an integrated classroom is that of a model for his or her students. The teacher should treat every member of the class with equal respect and show that he or she values every student, including the special needs child.

This approach may feel unnatural, however, as teachers are in the business of teaching, and are in the habit of constantly rewarding those who learn well. It is understandable to have more respect for successful students and to pay more attention to their ideas. In an integrated setting, however, these teacher distinctions can be detrimental. Less successful students will find someone who they consider to he worse off than themselves to bear the brunt of their frustration — and that may well be the student with a mental handicap. As mentioned earlier, a sense of community is needed in the classroom, and the teacher models the way community members should treat each other.

The teacher should include all children and make no exceptions, showing that everyone is valued and accepted. At assemblies, plays, concerts or sports days, the teacher should insist that all students are included. The pupil who has a mental handicap should be included in activities in the cafeteria and library, and in fire drills or on field trips. By modelling normal interaction and promoting it in the classroom, the teacher gives students something they will carry into their adult lives in the ommunity.

Learning Through Observation
It is now a common belief that teachers learn as much about their students through observation as through formal testing. The teacher can use keen observation in an integrated classroom to prevent problems. In a class including students with behavioural problems, the cooperative spirit will take a while to build. In any class there will be bullies and people who make fun of others. Through careful observation by the teacher, negative situations can be minimized and the teacher can develop strategies which allow everyone to be more comfortable in the classroom.

Some interactions may seem harmless in the eyes of the instigators — like teaching the child with a mental handicap to say “bad” words. But, since the long term goal is to help this child develop into a social member of a community, setbacks are not appreciated. Students must be educated to understand this. Observant teachers will also pick up on things they can work on to help the child socialize: table manners, conduct when eating, personal hygiene.

The teacher’s role in the classroom stretches well beyond the narrow limits of “instructor” to include: time manager, social coordinator, motivator, model, observer and more. Again, most teachers will have read much here that is familiar to their daily routine.

Multi-Level Instruction
While each member of the class should be treated equally and given the same rights and value, equality must not be confused with sameness. All students in the class are indivdual and have needs different from each other. Individualization within the class should be built in as much as possible. We must acknowledge that students do not learn at the same rate or in the same way, and we should be equally aware that one set of goals is not appropriate for all students. As logical as this sounds, it is sometimes difficult for teachers to accept.

One of the most useful strategies for the classroom teacher is to design lessons which permit multi-level participation (see Chapter 11) . This means, for example, that while some students are reading a novel, the child with a visual impairment is listening to a taped version of the novel, while other students with lower reading vocabularies have access to a modified version or a peer reader. It means that while one student prepares a written report, another prepares a report orally or with pictures.

Multi-level instruction promotes the use of questions designed to address all of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom,1969) — levels of cognitive difficulty developed by Benjamin Bloom, a psychologist and educational theorist at the University of Chicago (see Bloom’s Taxonomy) . Therefore questions will reach children at different levels of understanding. Similarly, many learning tools, including computers, calculators and recorders, are encouraged and accepted so that all children can be involved.

Life Experiences
Providing meaningful experiences is one of the most interesting aspects of teaching children with special needs. Because many of the students I have worked with have had limited understanding of their world, it is essential to create situations which bring them greater knowledge.

This may involve bringing pets to school, cooking, dressing up in costumes, working with utensils or taking nature walks. For older students, it may be visits to businesses and places outside the school.

It is important not to isolate the student from his peers during these experiences. Involve the whole class or small groups, depanding on the situation. Because children learn terrific lessons from other children, minimize the teacher’s role and maximize the students’ during these activities.

Highlight Strengths
Teachers can also create situations which highlight the strengths of the student with a disability. Everyone has strengths; and it is interesting that children view achievement with equal admiration regardless of who is the achiever. I remember watching some young children being tutored in reading by a blind student who was reading braille. These youngsters where genuinely impressed, but not because this student could read — they expected older kids to be able to read. They were impressed because she had a special skill and could decode dots with her fingertips. That was “cool!” A child who had been labelled autistic had an uncanny mathematical memory and was regarded with some degree of awe by his classmates. During math competitions, he was always in demand as a teammate. A student with a mental handicap was a terrific runner and during sports day he was cheered vigorously and genuinely by his classmates.

While we may design activities which will allow the strengths of our students with disabilities to shine, we must be cautious that they are not artificial. We are not trying to spotlight the child, we only want to build in activities that will allow him or her to experience success and receive the admiration of classmates. As teachers, we know the importance of building self-esteem; the link between high self-esteem and success is the same for all students.

More often than not, children will create their own moment in the sun. Unintentionally and unexpectedly, they will do something, and other students will take notice. Perhaps my favourite memory of just such a moment is of a Grade 3 French class. Every day I wrote the date in French in a sentence on the board. We would repeat it a few times and move on to something else. One student, who had been labelled autistic, usually spent five or six minutes laboriously copying the sentence into his notebook. He was never asked to, nor did any of the other children copy the sentence. It was just something that he had decided to do. This went on for several months. One day in early spring; I was late putting the date on the board because a little girl met me at the door and wanted to tell me about her birthday. I looked into the classroom to see every eye staring at the board. I was amazed to see this little boy finishing the date sentence. He had written it in French by himself, unaided. It was letter perfect. We were collectively impressed. Several students spontaneously went over to him and told him what a great job he had done. Their praise came not only because he had done it but also because they knew that they could not! After that, several children wanted to try writing the date and eventually some of them succeeded. That is the kind of situation teachers wish for regularly — where one student teaches others something worthwhile! Teachers should allow themselves the flexibility to capitalize on these moments.

Developing Independence
The teacher must also concentrate on developing independence in the child with a disability. All students need to be independent, but for a child with a disability, it is one of the most important and intensely difficult things the teacher will help that student achieve. The struggle is long and gains are often made in small steps.

Some members of my class worked with a student to help him walk home from school. He does not live far from the school but he had never walked anywhere by himself.

For several months they walked behind him, prompting him when necessary to stay on the sidewalk or to stop at the sign or keep walking. Progress was slow but they continually came closer to their goal. Another child was learning to use his wheel chair, and yet another to manoeuvre her way to various parts of the school although she is totally blind.

Other students are dedicated helpers in this fight for independence. Young children do not see disabilities in the same light that adults do. We tend to be overwhelmed by the disability and the obstacles it creats. Children just see the moment and they do whatever has to be done to fix things for that moment. Watch them interacting: directing, encouraging, helping or just plain nagging, "`will you hurry up!"` Another interesting reason for including other children in efforts to reach goals is that children will do things for other children that they will do less willingly for an adult.

Teacher as Supporter
Each child with special needs who I have worked with has inadvertently defined a special role for me: the role of supporter. As classroom teachers, we need to be the supporter of our children, to be there for them, to listen to their concerns and to understand them. No one needs this more than children with disabilities. Their teachers must be available to explain to other educators their strengths, learning styles, and goals, to tell who their friends are and to suggest strategies.

The teacher does not need to be an expert or have all the answers for the child. But it should be clear that the teacher supports this child and will do whatever he or she can do to help; it should also be clear that the teacher appreciates the support of others. Interestingly enough, when we actually ask for help, we often get it.

Teachers who have integrated classrooms design lessons which include all students according to their learning styles. They include activities which will build on the strengths of their students. They strive to give their students the tools for

Methods and Resource Teachers No matter how experienced, enthusiastic or determined teachers might be, they will find their roles easier if there is someone to help. Methods and resource (M&R) teachers (see Chapter 8) are, first and foremost, experienced classroom teachers who have received additional training in areas such as student assessment, Individual Education Plans (IEPs) and multilevel instruction. They provide the teachers with assistance in: assessment, planning, instruction and evaluation for students with special program needs. An important working relationship exists between the classroom teacher and the methods and resource teacher.

Assessment: A student with special needs is usually identified upon entry into the school system, and, as that student moves through the system, his or her file is updated frequently. If new problems or circumstances arise, the teacher gathers information on the child and consults with the M&R teacher. At this point, the M&R teacher reviews the program needs of the student and decides if new or further assessment is necessary. It is important to note that much of the assessment is done through observation rather than formal testing. The M&R teacher reviews the information and makes recommendations.

Program adjustment: The M&R teacher and the classroom teacher develop an IEP for the student which includes recommendations from the assessment. Together they modify the regular program or develop special programs to meet the student’s needs.

Parents are frequently asked for their input, as it is imperative that home and school focus on similar goals.

Some parents are very involved in setting goals for their children, wanting their children to be included in regular programs and activities as much as possible.

The IEP is generally written with both short and long term goals and may be adjusted frequently. If something in the program is not working, the classroom teacher and M&R teacher revise the program. Flexibility is important.

Assistance through various stages: Regular classroom teachers of children with special needs almost always need assistance in modifying programs and instruction. The methods and resource teacher is a strong support in these areas.

The M&R teacher helps select appropriate materials, and organizes them so they can be used effectively. The classroom teacher keeps the M&R teacher informed on the usefulness of the materials.

The M&R teacher helps the classroom teacher to identify the student’s learning style; using this information, he or she helps select the best methods of teaching the student. He or she may even help out in the classroom when the regular teacher first puts a new, specialized program into action. In some cases, the M&R teacher may work in the classroom with the student on an ongoing basis to meet the student’s needs.

The classroom teacher implements the programs or methods recommended by the M&R teacher, and reports any success or failure. If the M&R teacher has been working one-on-one with the student in the classroom, the classroom teacher watches and discusses the strategies and methods in order to carry them over into other classroom activities.

Together the M&R and classroom teachers decide on evaluation procedures where appropriate and organize a schedule for evaluation. The classroom teacher does any testing and keeps a record of procedures used. The test results are used as a guide in revising the IEP if needed.

The M&R teacher will assist the classroom teacher in reporting to parents; he or she will also consult with parents on any matters regarding their child which arises in the classroom.

Attendants and Aides
Other members of the support team within a school include attendants, who are available to help with children with total care needs such as feeding and taileting. Aides, on the other hand, generally assist in the amdemic program. Both attendants and aides receive their instructions from the classroom teacher who remains responsible for the programs and students in the class. The classroom teacher may also seek support from psychologists, speech pathologists, diagnosticians, specialists for children who are blind or deaf, and sometimes physiotherapists.

When problems arise, the classroom teacher can request that a problem-solving team be formed by the M&R staff. The team is a problem-solving unit made up of volunteer staff members (see Chapter 12) . Frequently, the team includes the school guidance counsellor, district psychologists, a member of the administration, and, of course, the M&R staff.

The team approaches the problem using a prescribed plan, and offers a series of possible options for the classroom teacher. Follow-up sessions are arranged to provide the teacher with continued support if needed.

These resources help teachers do the best possible job. A close working relationship with people in these supportive roles ensures that the student with special needs will be assessed accurately and that feasible programs will be drawn up which are implemented properly. A close relationship also makes teachers feel that they are not alone; the value of that support is immeasurable.

My goal has been to show the simplicity of integration. In fact, so much of what has been described here is already accomplished well by teachers every day in clasrooms everywhere.

Any teacher who believes it is his or her professional responsibility to accept and teach all children will find a way to make integration work. Any teacher who believes it is his or her personal responsibility to uphold the value of all children will do so.

Bloom, Benjamin S. (Ed.). (1969). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: David McKay Company Inc.

Multi-level instruction (Schulz and Turnhull, 1984) is based on the premise that one lesson will be taught to the whole class. It is an approach to planning that assumes the individualization, flexibility and inclusion of all students regardless of their personal level of skills. It allows the teacher to plan for all students within one lesson, thereby decreasing the necessity for separate programs while allowing the teacher to weave individual goals into the classroom content and instructional strategies.

In order to achieve this, teachers need to fully understand the concept of multi-level teaching strategies. To develop a unit or a lesson that is truly multi-level, the lesson must have a definite aim for all students. It must also include a variety of teacher techniques aimed at reaching students at all levels. This means:

In order to develop a lesson that meets these objectives, teachers may use the following four-step process as a guide:

The first step is to identify the underlying concepts to be taught within a unit or a particular lesson. It is important to understand that underlying concepts are not merely the objectives established for a particular course. Objectives may be only part of a much broader picture.

Teachers must identify, in the material they are teaching, what they would like all the students in the class to understand when the lesson has been completed.

Different content may be necessary for students with different levels of skill. However at the end of the lesson all students should have a similar understanding of the concept, taking into consideration the level at which they are working.

This will involve close scrutiny of the materials to be taught. Many school programs now in use especially at the junior and senior-level, rely heavily on the teaching of content. The difficulty with teaching excessive content is that many students who could successfully grasp the overall concept cannot master all the content. There is a need to clarify the difference between the underlying concepts and the content which is used to develop these concepts.

Imagine a traditional lesson on conflict within a story taught at the junior or senior high school level. Students are generally expected to recognize specific types of liteary conflict. This is evaluated by having them read a particular story or novel with the aim of identifying examples of conflict. It is easy to imagine the difficulty experienced by students working at a reading level below that of the reading material. The difficulty is not in understanding the concept of conflict but in reading the material in order to complete the assignment. By placing emphasis on the ability to read and write without allowing other means for demonstrating learning or illustrating knowledge of conflict, students are “handicapped” by the structure.

Instead of expecting all students to know the types of literary conflict and read all the material, the teacher can approach this concept in a broader sense. If the teacher were to concentrate on acquainting all students with an understanding of conflict and have them identify the types through examples in real life, the types could later he related to a particular novel or short story. This would allow all students to be involved in the concept while variations are made in the assignments to accommodate different levels of skill.

Once the underlying concepts of the lesson are established, it is clear that the lesson cannot be presented in one way to all students, if all students are to be sucessful. Therefore, the idea or concept to be barned must be presented in such a way that all students are able to gain varying degrees of knowledge based on their level of understanding.

Learning Styles of Students The teacher must remember that a class is made up of students who learn visually, auditorially, and kinaesthetically. Most children tend to use one perceptual style more than the others. Teachers need to plan instruction which addresses each student’s dominant perceptual mode. Although eighty to eightyfive per cent of students are visual learners, teachers tend to teach most often in an auditory fashion. Teachers could meet the needs of visual learners by using the blackboard more and incorporating filmstrips, films, pictures, charts, and overhead transparencies into their lesson presentation (Wood, 1984).

Teachers should obtain more information about perceptual learning modes, observable behaviours connected to each mode, and teaching techniques for each mode (Wood, 1984; Schulz and Turnbull, 1984).

To return to the example of teaching elements of a story or novel, in using the multi-level approach to teach the idea of setting in stories a variety of different modes could be used. The idea of setting could be introduced by getting students to discuss their own lives. This would allow each student to express orally, perhaps to a partner, the setting of his or her life. A student with limited verbal ability might be asked specific questions by a student who has been coached in what to ask. Another approach might be to discuss the setting of a picture, a television show, or a story chosen by the student.

In an elementary lesson on capitalization, a discovery approach could be used. Instead of the teacher giving the student rules for capitalization, the student could be given a paragraph, asked to locate the capital letters, and then, in a group, discuss why capital letters were used in those particular situations. In this way the students have to come up with rules on their own rather than memorize rules given to them.

In a math lesson on percent, students could be asked questions based on particular objects that are in the room. For example, they could be asked to give the percentage of windows that are open; the percentage of students in the classroom who have blue eyes; a percentage to indicate the number of students absent from the class that day; or various other problems that the teachers could devise. Thess questions would not be based on problems from a text book but on relevant material that is at hand. Those students who have difficulty with reading would be able to work on the concept of percent from these preliminary problems without having to worry about being able to read a problem from a textbook.

Levels of Cognitive Domains
Another consideration in presenting the lesson should be the involvement of students at their own level. This requires the use of Bloom’s Taxonomy in the development of questions and assignments. Bloom’s Taxonomy, or other similar structures that indicate levels of thinking, are useful in structuring questions to ask students at various levels. All students can be involved in the lesson if suitable questions are developed to allow their involvement. Although Bloom’s Taxonomy is well known, it is utilized less than would be expected for preparing questions and assignments for students. The chart that follows indicates the levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, defines each level, lists key verbs used to ask students questions, and lists products or activities that students could produce or perform at the indicated level.

The third step in the four-step process for multi-level instruction is determining the method of student performance. The method of performance that the student utilizes to show he or she understands the concept taught should follow the same variations discussed under method of presentation. There should be an allowance for assignments based on varying modes of learning, assignments based on different levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, and assignments that show partial participation. This will allow students who would not be able to read a story, for example, to be taught the concept of setting and to complete assignments to illustrate this understanding. Assignments might be oral or written, or involve drawing or acting. If the main objective is to have all the students understand setting, it can be reached in many ways, all of which are equally valuable.

In allowing for different methods of student performance, perhaps the most fundamental issue is the idea of choice. Students must be allowed a variety of different ways to show that they understand a concept. This involves an acceptance that the written word is not the only way of expressing understanding. It also involves instilling in students an acceptance that other ways of expressing understanding of a concept are of equal value.

What must be discouraged is the idea that the written word is the most important way to express ideas, and that drawing or illustrating is done only by students who are unable to express themselves in the more vital written format. When all methods of expression considered of equal value and all students are encouraged to express their views in different ways, the students will begin to see all methods as having equal value.

Many teachers will have concerns related to the seeming de-emphasis on reading and writing skills. The examples of alternate methods of student performance are an attempt to emphasize different presentation techniques, not to suggest that reading and writing be avoided. The intention is to ensure that attempts are made through various teaching styles to reach all students. All students should be able to appreciate and understand the main idea taught. There is no attempt to suggest that students will not be expected to read selections or write responses where appropriate.

However, some students will be unable to succeed with the prescribed material, and alternate materials will have to be used so all students can attempt similar activities. Many strategies can he used for reading adaptations, including using textbooks or library books at a lower reading level, taping books, highlighting pertinent materials in textbooks with a coloured marker, providing study guides or outlines of the major concepts, or rewriting material at a lower reading level (Schulz and Turnbull, 1984). These methods still place an emphasis on reading and writing but at the student’s appropriate level.

Use of Bloom’s Taxonomy
Assignments should not only allow for different modes of presentation, but should be written at different levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1969). That way, students who need to be challenged more than they are by the regular curriculum will have activities at their level; and students who have difficulty doing work at the grade level will have activities that allow them to express their knowledge in a different format.

The following activities, assigned to a class to show their understanding of plot of a story, illustrate the use of different modes of presentation and the different levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy:

(Sample Lesson One includes a number of other activities at various levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy.)

When students are presented with a variety of assignments at varying levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, the need for enrichment as well as modification can be met. Most students, when given the choice of assignments, Will select one that is appropriate. However, there are two notes of caution:

A student’s choice of assignments should reflect a reasonable balance between the need to succeed for motivational purposes and need to learn new skills for the purpose of future success.

Partial Participation
In the area of method of student practice, partial participation is an important concept. Students with very limited academic ability can still be involved in activities in the class, based on their specific objectives.

A student may be placed in a group in order to meet objectives in his or her personal program. Objectives might focus on social skills or communication skills. The teacher would be aware of the reasons for the student being in the group and would concentrate on the development of the targeted skills, rather than on the attainment of academic knowledge about a particular subject. Examples of inclusion of students with special needs are found in sample lessons .

Specific Strategies
Cooperative learning is an excellent strategy to consider when choosing a method of student performance (Johnson, Johnson and Holubec, 1984). It accommodates partial participation by students who cannot do all the required work. It allows for social skill development and cooperation among all students, as well as providing a choise of activities that will utilize the various levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Cooperative learning, as a strategy, cute across two steps in the multi-level instruction process — the method of teacher presentation and the method of student performance.

The discovery approach is another strategy which covers both teacher presentation and student performance. If the students, for example, are expected to discover the rules for punctuation by completing an activity initiated by the teacher, the method of teacher presentation is student discovery and the method of student practice is also discovery.

The fourth step in the process, the method of evaluation, is very closely linked to the method of student performance and involves the same three areas — modes of studant performance, Bloom’s Taxonomy and partial participation. Students should he evaluated on their assignments with equal weight being given to each mode of presentation. Written work is not made more valuable than oral or artistic work. In this way, contributions are of equal value and a student who cannot write is not devalued in the eyes of the class.

Bloom’s Taxonomy should he used in the development of test questions. However, if different levels of questioning such as analysis, synthesis or evaluation — which are not typical test questions — are included, the student should be prepared for this type of questioning. It is not appropriate to deal exclusively at the knowledge, comprehension, and application level in the classroom and then expect students to make the leap into the higher levels of thinking on test questions.

The main point to remember is that, in multi-level instruction evaluation is based on the individual level of skill of the students.

In multi-level instruction: a concept is determined; a variety of methods of presentation are employed to meet all learning styles; choices are given in assignments to allow all students to participate; and evaluation of students is based on the individual ability levels of the students. Multi-level instruction is a means of developing lessons that allow all students to participate to their fullest extent, and be legitimate members of the class.

REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTI-LEVEL INSTRUCTION
Multi-level instruction does not consist of strategies designed for use only in certain situations. It is a process that can be developed across the curriculum. Therefore, it requires a great deal of commitment and planning by teachers. It does not require extensive training, although it does challenge teachers to rethink material previously taught. It may mean that a teacher must abandon lesson plans used many times before, and be open to new approaches to that same material. It requires time to plan new lessons and a willingness to give up the role of presenter for that of facilitator.

Multi-level instruction requires movement away from a teacher-controlled classroom and towards more choice and autonomy for students. It is a means of meeting the needs of students at their level while also meeting the needs of the curriculum. This however, entails a great deal of work on the part of teachers. Why should teachers be willing to expend the energy that is necessary to bring about these changes?

Rationale for Multi-Level Instruction
One rationale for multi-level instruction is that it encourages inclusion and integration. At the same time it addresses different learning styles. It allows teachers to reach all of the students some of the time (it is not possible to meet all of the needs of the students all of the time). However, the use of a variety of techniques within the same unit or lesson eliminates the need to teach the lesson many different times, in many different ways, to meet the individual styles of the students.

The multi-level instruction approach does take students beyond the knowledge and comprehension levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. It allows for enrichment for very able students as well as modification for students who have difficulties in learning. It stresses cooperation among students and allows evaluation at individual skill levels.

It allows students choice in expressing the knowledge that they have gained. It also meets students’ social and emotional needs as well as their academic needs. Student involvement with peers is encouraged because of the emphasis on cooperative learning. Permanent grouping is discouraged. This strategy fosters social relations in the classroom which are important in making all students feel a part of the group.

Multi-level instruction allows for participation of all students in the learning process and an acceptance of each person’s contribution. It develops and encourages the concept of self-worth in all students. Increased motivation through the involvement of students in the activities of the classroom makes classroom management easier.

The thought and planning needed to determine the underlying concept of the material should result in a more meaningful curriculum. Teachers will be aware of why something is being taught and will focus on helping students understand various concepts, rather than on memorization of material.

TRAINING CLASSROOM TEACHERS
Today’s classroom teachers realize that many styles of education will be neccessary to meet the needs of the variety of learners in their classroom. Multi-level instruction is but one way to meet these needs. In order to develop this skill, teachers require some initial training. However, the main components of training in multi-level instruction are time and practice in developing lesson plans that incorporate strategies to allow for inclusion.

In two particular school districts, training for classroom teachers was provided in the following way:

The training approach used relies on collaboration among teachers in developing and sustaining multi-level instructional strategies. A collaborative team approach allows teachers to share ideas and support colleagues who are feeling the stress of having to meet diversified needs that they may not feel equipped to handle. There is no time limit for the completion of training, as it must be an ongoing process that allows for differing rates of acceptance of change by teachers.

Because teachers are now responsible for a greater diversity of students in regular classrooms, a wider range of teaching strategies is needed to meet the needs of these students. As the integration of students with special needs has evolved, inclusion has become a major concern. Multi-level instruction is a teaching method which allows teachers to meet the individual needs of students and provide quality education for all. This will not be easy to do, nor will it happen quickly. However, if inclusion of all is to be a characteristic of the education system in the future, there must be commitment to the development of multi-level instruction. That will require a commitment to the ideology and a commitment to providing the resources needed for its implementation. Both students and the education system will achieve a higher level of success as a result.

Language arts lends itself to the format for multi-level instruction, as the following unit plan for teaching a novel or short story illustrates.

character
plot
climax
setting
atmosphere
conflict
theme

One suggestion for teaching these concepts was through the use of a movie (e.g., The Outsiders by S.S. Hinton). This would be effective for all students and particularly for two groups — visual learners, and children with low reading levels. The concepts would be presented by a variety of modes and then the novel could be the vehicle for project work based on understanding the concepts.

A variety of assignments was developed to show an understanding of each concept as it was covered. They ranged from the concrete to the abstract in ideas and from the knowledge level to the evaluation level of Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Individual assignments were used as the major evaluation. Main concepts were tested in a written form where possible. Adaptations were made for students who had limited writing skills.

Setting

Plot

Characters

Atmosphere

A group of methods and resource teachers were asked to collect examples of inclusion activities they had seen in various classrooms. The following are examples of some of these lessons with inclusion activities which allow children with varying abilities to participate.

Lesson: Social Studies
Topic: Sir Wilfred Laurier
Grade: 8

The concept to be learned was “Who is Sir Wilfred Laurier?” Sir Wilfred Laurier was discussed by the teacher.

His picture was used for identification. The students took turns reading aloud material on Sir Wilfred Laurier. Students with reading difficulties were given short sections with fairly easy vocabulary. The student with a serious speech problem due to a brain injury was asked occasionally to choose the next reader. In checking for learning, a number of students were asked to name the first French-Canadian prime minister. After a few students answered correctly, the student with the speech difficulty was asked the same question but only had to say his lastname. She he was also expected to identify his picture from the pictures of prime ministers posted around the room. For seatwork she was given a picture of Laurier with his name written under it and another sheet with the same picture and a blankspace under it. She was required to write his name in the space. This met two objmtives established for her:

When the class was tested she was expected to complete a test as well. (Linda Fanning, 1989)

Lesson: Social Studies
Topic: Chinese Culture
Grade: 9

In studying the culture of China, students were divided into groups to research different aspects of Chinese culture. Each group was expected to do a written account of their topic, complete a visual presentation illustrating pertinent points, do an oral presentation to teach material to the class, and develop, administer, and evaluate a short quiz on the material. Students were divided into groups based on their individual skills and abilities. An attempt was made to have heterogeneous grouping. The student with more severe learning difficulties was placed in a group with very supportive students. This group dealt with the economy of China. Her part involved doing a poster on different forms of currency. She was responsible for knowing the types of money on the poster and assisting when the class presented the information.

She felt that she belonged and was a part of the class. (Larry Harley, 1989)

Lesson: Language Arts
Topic: Learning New Words
Grade: 2

Each student in the class wrote a paragraph about himself or herself using a list of new words. The student with special needs had a paragraph prepared that was based on her life. From it, a list of important new words was developed and she was given exercises to learn the words.

Mary
Mary is a girl. She is in Grade 2. Her teacher’s name is Mrs. James. Mary has black hair and blue eyes. She is a very pretty girl. Mary rides on a bus every day. She lives in a new house. Mary has two sisters and one brother. Their names are Amy, Elizabeth, and Tommy. She has many friends at school. One friend is Beth. Another friend is Larry.

Read these words:

Complete the sentences:
Mary is a _ _ _ _ _ _.
She is in _ _ _ _ _ _ 2.
Her teacher’s _ _ _ _ _ _ is Mrs. James.
Mary has black _ _ _ _ _ _ and blue _ _ _ _ _ _.
She is a very he _ _ _ _ _ _ girl.
Mary _ _ _ _ _ _ on a school bus.
She lives in a new _ _ _ _ _ _.
Mary has two _ _ _ _ _ _.
She has one _ _ _ _ _ _.
Mary has many _ _ _ _ _ _ at school.

At this point the sentences were put in a paragraph identical to the original paragraph and the student was asked to fill in the blanks. (Wendy Manuel, 1989)

Lesson: Language Arts
Topic: Listening Skills
Grade: 3

Alter several listening activities, the teacher realized that a student with special needs was having serious difficulty with the exercise. He constantly interrupted by moving about the class distracting others. The teacher photocopied pictures from the book she was reading and had the student with special needs place the pictures on the board at the appropriate time using magnetic strips. At first, she tapped a bell to indicate when he was to place the pictures on the chalkboard. The technique allowed for inclusion of the student as well as keeping him on task. The student had become a valued member of the class and was actually helping other students to improve their listening skills. (Sherille Crouse, 1989)

Lesson: Social Studies
Topic: Introduction of the provence of Québec
Grade: 5

The boundaries and important places in Québec were discussed. The students were expected to label these places on a map using an overhead produced by the teacher. The student with special needs was assisted by assigned students. Lines were drawn on the map within which the names of places were printed. The spelling was checked by the students, who were also expected to make notes about the places or events discussed. The important facts were written on the board to provide a guide for the students to use for writing complete sentences. The student with special needs listed the facts but was not responsible for writing the sentences. As a result, the student felt a part of the lesson. He benefitted from the lesson by learning the main ideas and the class benefitted by learning a study skill — utilizing key facts to remember notes.

Lesson: Math
Topic: Recognition, Identification and Construction of Solids
Grades: 2-5

When the concept of solids was introduced by the teacher, models were given to all students to observe and manipulate. The student with a visual impairment was allowed to manipulate the model for the entire time the teacher was discussing the figure. When constructing a model of the solid the teacher worked from this student’s desk. As each step was introduced the teacher assisted the child by showing her how to fold the paper and by allowing her to feel it after each step. The child was able to see, through touch, the flat sheet of paper turn into the desired model. This technique could be used for teaching other concepts, such as perimeter, area and volume. (Lois Wright, Joan Sheen, 1989)

A group of methods and resource teachers compiled a list of suggestions for including students with disabilities — both those with verbal skills and those without verbal skills. They are suggestions geared to various levels of disability and they range from simple techniques for involvement at the verbal level to more complex ways of delivering instructions and developing writing skills. They are listed in order of complexity under verbal and nonverbal categories.

SUGGESTIONS FOR STUDENTS WITH OUT VERBAL SKILLS:

Bloom, Benjamin S. (Ed). (1969). Taxonomy of Educational Objectiues: The classification of educational goals. New York: David McKay Company Inc.

Campbell, C., S.Campbell, J.Collicott, D.Perner and J.Stone. (1988). Individualizing instruction. Education New Brunswick, 3 (June) pp. 17-20.

Dickinson W. (1988). Unpublished material on Verbal and Nonverbal Inclusion Strategies.

Falvey, M.A., J.Coots, K.D.Bishop and M.Grenot-Scheyer. (1989). Education and curricular adaptations. In S.Stainbeck, W.Stainbeck and M.Forest (Eds). Educating all Students in the Mainstream of Regular Education. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., pp. 143-158.

Fanning, L., et al. (1989). Unpublished Material on Inclusion Strategies in Districts 28&29, Woodstock, NB.

Gearhart, B.R., M.W. Weishahn and C.J.Gearhart. (1988). The Exceptional Student in the Regular Classroom. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Publishing Co.

Johnson, D.W., R.T.Johnson and E.Johnson Holubec. (1984). Cooperation in the Classroom. Edina, Minnesota: Interaction Book Company.

Schulz, J.B. and A.P.Turnbull. (1984). Mainstreaming Handicapped Students. Newton, Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.

Wood, J.W. (1984). Adapting Instruction for the Mainstream: A sequential approach to teaching. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.

Schools which successfully include all students must employ a range of strategies and techniques so teachers can gain the support they need. The teacher-helping-teacher problem solving strategy has proven to be an effective method of creating open, productive collaborative consultation among educators. We have developed and refined the strategy over several years. It has been particularly useful as we have implemented integrated or inclusionary programs for all students.

The fundamental principle of the process is that teachers can help other teachers. Problem solving proceeds through an orderly sequence of steps from the initial designation of the problem to the development and implementation of a plan to resolve it, to evaluation of progress, to monitoring. The process is dynamic, evolving, flexible, and cyclical in nature.

Programs for teachers of students with special needs have come under a variety of labels: pre-referral intervention; teacher support teams; and teacher assistant teams (Canelli and Lange, 1990; West, 1990; Chalfant, Pysh and Moultrie, 1979). Our present use of problem-solving teams in New Brunswick school districts 28 and 29 originated with the teacher assistant team (TAT) concept developed by James Chalfant and his associates in the United States. This model was created to address the increasing referral of students to special education services and to stop the flow of referrals for formal assessment. The goal was to handle more situations at the school level, reduce the number of inappropriate referrals, and use special education personnel more effectively.

In 1979 we brought Chalfant and Pysh to our district to train teachers and administrators from each school in the use of their model. Subsequently, schools set up teams by either recruiting volunteers, holding elections or having the principal choose team members. Despite the fact that results were mixed and the model eventually fell into disuse with teams disbanding in most schools, we had many positive experiences with the TAT model. Those experiences became a useful resource as teachers worked hard to meet the challenge of integrating students. We looked anew at the elements of the TAT model that were most compelling for our circumstances and our present day problem-solving teams become an outgrowth of our experience with the teacher assistant team model.

Our revised model is a mix of old and new ideas. The purpose of referral is now to give teachers needed support to keep all students in regular classes. The facilitator is most often a school-based methods and resource teacher or a guidance counsellor. The make-up of the teams is flexible and open to whatever considerations seem relevant. The process followed during the thirty-minute meeting, however, is similar to the TAT model.

One of the most meaningful changes has been the perspective brought by the teachers themselves. Changes that occurred during the last decade, particularly the move to integration, have altered our assumptions of educational practice and made teachers much more open to working cooperatively with their peers. It has become understood that teachers can no longer work in isolation and still meet the needs of every student. They increasingly accept the philosophy of collaborative consultation, “an interactive process which enables people with diverse expertise and experiences to generate creative solutions to mutually defined problems. The outcome is enhanced, altered, and different from the original solutions that any team memeber would produce independently” (Nevin et al., 1990).

Teachers usually work to solve problems on their own before seeking consultative assistance. Typically, they try various classroom interventions, confer informally with other teachers, or meet with parents. The teacher may seek advice from a resource person because of his or her expertise or because a supportive relationship has developed between them. Most classroom problems are solved in this manner. If independent problem solving doesn’t work, teachers may request assistance from a colleague at the school or district office, or from the school problem-solving team.

Meetings with a team can be requested by the teacher or suggested by a resource person, typically a methods and resource teacher, or by the school principal. Meetings must be formally arranged because of the work involved in coordinating five to seven people. Problem-solving team meetings are effective for particularly frustrating situations, or when it is deemed important to promote communication among a number of teachers.

Consultation does not end with the peer problem-solving meeting. It may be decided, for example, that it is more efficient to have an methods and resources teacher, guidance counsellor or district-level resource person work with the referring teacher to thoroughly develop the specifics of a particular intervention.

Stage 1: The facilitator states the reason for the meeting and explains the process to be followed and the problem to be dealt with. He or she can also outline the problem-solving process if needed. Additional responsibilities of the team facilitator include:

Teachers who have participated in problem-solving meetings state that facilitators should be positive, business-like, task-oriented, and able to clarify issues and summarize well.

Stage 2: The referring teacher makes a brief oral statement about the problematic situation.

Stage 3: Team members ask questions of the referring teacher to clear up any uncertainties they may have as to exactly what the problem is or what the circumstances are.

Stages 2 and 3 permit team members to focus on defining the parameters of the problem for the teacher. After the referring teacher provides a vignette of the situation and his or her concerns, team members may ask for somes pecific examples of the behaviour, such as “You find that Susan is aggressive toward other children. Can you give me some specific examples of her aggressive behaviour?”

During stage 3, team members may:

The process of clarification helps make the problem specific enough that team members feel they understand it clearly. The facilitator provides input to pull the threads together so the team has a mutual sense of the issues causing a problem for the referring teacher.

Stage 4: Once the problem has been clearly defined and analyzed, a range of possible interventions must be generated. A round-table brainstorming session is held to generate suggestions from team members as to how the problem may be solved. Brief, practical statements are encouraged, and are directed to the facilitator.The referring teacher does not interact with others at this stage.

The central rule of this phase of the process is to avoid evaluating ideas until the brainstorming segment is completed. There is often more than one way to rsolve a problem, and by generating a number of possible solutions the team is more likely to come up with an intervention that is both effective and acceptable to the referring teacher.

Team members usually suggest some change in classroom management or instructional strategies in areas like curriculum content, rewards or instructional techniques. They may also suggest changes to teacher behaviour, peer and sibling behaviour, and the physical arrangement of the classroom
(Gutkin and Hickman, 1990).

Stage 5: The facilitator and the referring teacher go over the suggestions and strategies together. The referring teacher evaluates them to determine how beneficial they will be for the child and how feasible it is to implement them. The ultimate selection of strategies rests with the referring teacher who is asked to rate each suggestion by assigning a number to it:
number 1 is an idea or strategy that the teacher wants to try immediately;
number 2 is an idea or strategy that has merit, but is not a priority; and
number 3 is an idea or strategy that has already been tried or is not seen as immediately practical by the referring teacher.
When rating strategies, teachers should keep in mind:

Stage 6: The facilitator establishes a plan to follow up on the ideas or strategies that have been selected by the teacher. This might include arranging for more detail on a specific idea, providing assistance in further developing a plan of action, or setting a date for a future meeting to evaluate the plan.

The roles and responsibilities of all participants must be assigned and agreed upon. All aspects the plan should be put in writing, at least in outline form, so each person involved has a clear idea of his or her responsibilities. The specific techniques to be used should be set out step-by-step in the outline. The time of day and the settings or subject area in which the intervention will be implemented must be decided. This written plan also serves as a record for people’s accountability.

Stage 7: The facilitator thanks team members and ensures that all participants leave feeling that something constructive will come from the meeting.

Teachers always have favourable comments regarding problem-solving meetings. They appreciate the variety of practical suggestions that result from the meeting. They are pleased that it only takes thirty minutes from beginning to end.

They report a ripple effect from the process where the solutions developed in the meeting may be relevant to other problems. And the teachers leave the meeting feeling empowered and supported by their peers.

The two case studies of actual problem-solving meetings provide specific details that illustrate the operation of a problem-solving team. The first is from an elementary school and the second is from a high school.

Case Study One: Amanda
Amanda is a nine-year-old student in Grade 4. She is having difficulty in language arts. Though she likes books and expresses herself well verbally, she is not a fluent reader and does not expess herself well in writing. She is described as being very cooperative and anxious to succeed. However, she lacks organizational skills, independent work habits and a level of comprehension necessary for her to be successful.

She was referred to the school methods and resource teacher by her home room teacher. The methods and resource teacher completed a reading assessment and located suitable reading material for Amanda. Her teacher tried physically separating her from a particular student Amanda seemed to find distracting. The teachers also attempted to find something to praise her for every day. A problem-solving meeting was set up.

Stage 1: The methods and resource teacher, acting as the facilitator, welcomed the participants who included the referring teacher, the guidance counsellor, and three other teachers. She stated that the purpose of the meeting was to help the referring teacher find some practical suggestions to help Amanda in language arts class.

Stage 2: The referring teacher gave a brief description of Amanda and specified that he wanted her to improve her reading skills and to work independently, and also to gain self-confidence.

Stage 3: Team members now had a chance to ask any questions for clarification. One member wanted to know whether there was support from the home, which there was.

Stage 4: During the brainstorming session all suggestions were directed to the facilitator. The suggestions were:

Stage 5: The facilitator and the referring teacher went over the suggestions and the referring teacher assigned either number 1: an idea to try immediately; number 2: a good idea, but not a priority; or number 3: an idea that has already been tried or would not work. In this case, the referring teacher choose three ideas to try immediately.

Stage 6: The facilitator assisted the referring teacher in establishing the following action plan:

Stage 7: The facilitator thanked the participants and assured each one that their help was greatly appreciated.

The follow-up meeting was held to assess progress to date. The referring teacher was extremely pleased with the results of the suggestions which he had tried after the problem-solving meeting. He and the methods and resource teacher had met with Amanda’s mother and found her to be cooperative. The suggestions for improving her reading and writing skills had been equally successful. He had seen a remarkable improvement in Amanda’s writing and said that she was reading with much more confidence now. His over-all assessment was positive; he found the problem-solving process to be a valuable strategy.

Case Study Two: Nathan Basically there is a behaviour problem. Nathan. a Grade 11 student, disrupts the class, causes serious difficulties for other learners, and refuses to take responsibility for his own behaviour.

Stage 1: The facilitator explained that the purpose of the meeting was to help the referring teacher develop some strategies to deal with Nathan, a student in her Grade 11 English class. The facilitator specified that the referring teacher was looking for ideas to confront Nathan with the reality of the sffects of his behaviour and also some strategies to help change his behaviour.

Stage 2: The referring teacher elaborated on the problem by stating that Nathan’s disruptive behaviours included pushing desks, striking out to other students, staying turned around in his seat, and continually talking. When she talked to him privately about this, Nathan refused to accept that there was a problem; instead, he blamed the other students.

His seat had been changed a number of times, but this had not helped. His work had been modified because of his weak reading skills.

Stage 3: The following questions were asked for clarification:

Stage 4: The brainstorming session provided the following suggestions:

Stage 5: The facilitator and the referring teacher went through the list of sugestions. Nine ideas were chosen to act on immediately.

Stage 6: The facilitator provided a list of the nine actions choosen by the referring teacher and suggested that they meet within the next few days to review them in case she needed assistance with any of the ideas. The referring teacher agreed to meet and said she would share some of these ideas with Nathan’s other teachers.

Stage 7: The referring teacher stated that she felt much more optimistic regarding Nathan and thanked the group for their suggestions. The facilitator also thanked the participants for their help.

Tom Skrtic (1991) has criticized education systems for their rigidity and inability to be truly adaptive to the needs of students. He advocates that schools must operate as adhocracies where both students and teachers work in a collaborative manner, applying their unique strengths to the problems of the group, and pooling their resources to come up with novel and innovative ways to meet student needs.

Education is seen as a dynamic and flexible process constantly attuned to the needs of the learners. The adhocratic school has a problem-solving focus, involving collaboration among a number of professionals who pool their skills as peers in the group. In this system, teachers have the freedom to problem solve without fear of criticism. They can also develop confidence that the system is flexible enough to allow innovative solutions to he implemented. In addition, the range of feasible solutions is mostly increased.

We have found teacher collaboration in the form of peer problem-solving teams helpful as we work to integrate students with disabilities into regular classrooms in our schools. The process provides a way to help teachers develop strategies to instruct students who do not easily fit the standard curriculum or instructional assumptions. Peer problem-solving teams have helped us promote the goals of inclusionary schooling. A commitment to collaboration is needed to create schools where mutual support in solving problems prevails.

Axelrod, S., L. Moyer and B. Berry. (1990). Why teachers do not use behaviour modification procedures. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1(2). pp. 309-320.

Canelli, A. A. and S.M. Lange. (1990). Considerations for future research in the institutionalization of school-based consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1(1), pp. 87-98.

Chalfant, J.C., M. Pysh and R. Moultrie. (1979). Teacher assistance teams: A model for within-building problem solving. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 2(3). pp. 85-96.

Conoley, J.C. and C.W. Conoley. (1988). Useful theories in school-based consultation. Remedial and Special Education, 9(6), pp. 14-20.

Friend, M. and L. Cock. (1990). Collaboration as a predictor for success in school reform. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1(1), pp. 69-86.

Giangreco, M.F., S. Edelman and R. Dennis. (1991). Common Professional Pratices that Interfere With Integrated Delivery of Related Services. 12(2). pp. 16-24.

Gutkin, T.B. and J.A. Hickman. (1990). The relationship of consultant, consultee, and organizational characteristics to consultee resistance to school-based consultation: An empirical analysis. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1(2). pp. 111-122.

Idol, L. (1990). The scientific art of classroom consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1(1), pp. 3-22.

Nevin, A., J. Thousand and P. Poulucci-Whitcomb. (1990). Collaborative consultation: Empowering public school personnel to provide heterogenous schooling for all — or, who rang that bell? Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1(1), pp. 41-67.

Pryzwansky, W.B. (1989). School consultation: Some considerations from a cognitive psychology perspective. Professional School Psychology, 4(1). pp. 1-14.

Skrtic, T.M. (1991). Behind Special Education: A critical analysis of professional culture and school organization. Denver: Love Publishing Co.

Thousand, J.S. and R.A. Villa. (1991). A futuristic view of the REI: A response to Jenkins, Pious, and Jewell. Exceptional Children, 57(6) pp. 556-562.

Thousand, J.S. and R.A. Villa. (in press,b). Collaborative teams: A powerful tool in school restructuring. In R.Villa, J. Thousand, W. Stainback and S. Stainback, (Eds.). Restructuring for Heterogeneity: An administrative handbook for creating effective schools for everyone. Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes Pub. Co.

Villa, R.A., J.S. Thousand, P. Paolucci-Whitcomb and A. Nevin. (1990). In search of new paradigms for collaborative consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1(2). pp. 279-292.

West, J.F. (1990). Educational collaboration in the restructuring of schools. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1(1), pp. 23-40.

West, J.F. and L. Idol. (1987). School consultation (part 1): An interdisciplinary perspective on theory, models, and research. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 20(7). pp. 388-494.

We have identified many important factors which contribute to the success of integration: the belief that all students are capable of learning; the day-to-day modelling of effective leadership; an in-school approach to problem solving; and the inclusion of parents in the planning process. These are contributing factors; they set the stage for integration. They do not, however, guarantee the same quality of learning and the increased social relationships which exist in classrooms where teachers deliberately plan for peer interaction and for participation of students with disabilities in regular curriculum activities.

The Importance of Friendships
Full inclusion in the integrated school depends on the recognition that supporting students to build relationships with their peers is a critical aspect of school life. Teachers who have had experience in integrating students with disabilities acknowledge that students who are accepted, liked and involved with their peers show gains in academic, social and physical development.

Students who have spent years in segregated, “handicapped only” settings have been denied opportunities to form the social relationships enjoyed by their non-handicapped peers. Depending on the nature of the student’s disabilities, relationships formed in special classes tend to be adult-child rather than child-child relationships. They are dependent relationships rather than friendships born of mutual interest, attraction, or common skills. Relationships formed in segregated settings also tend to be one-sided helping relationships that are usually not reciprocal in nature. Teachers help students, but there is little possibility for students to help teachers or peers.

While teacher-student relationships are important, educators and parents have realized the importance of student-student relationships.

Teachers in integrated settings realize that in order to compensate for the lack of opportunities for students with disabilities to form relationships with non-handicapped peers, situations must be set up in the classroom to encourage and teach disabled and non-disabled learners to interact.

The skills for working in groups, solving problems and tolerating differences can be learned by all students if they are invited to participate in classroom learning activities. We have observed that teachers have created a variety of ways to encourage such relationships.

Cooperative Learning
Cooperative learning is an effective strategy that provides opportunities for students with disabilities to participate and build relationships with their non-disabled peers. Cooperative learning involves structuring learning tasks so that students work together in small groups to achieve shared academic goals (Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson and Skon, 1981). Students are accountable and responsible for their own achievement, as well as for the performance of the other members of their group. They also practise social roles as they work to solve problems, learn new material or create projects and documents.

Incentives are built into cooperative learning activities to encourage children in the group to work together to teach each other components of the lesson. By using criterion-refenenced evaluation, teachers can modify and individualize goals to fit certain students’ abilities without jeopardizing evaluation for the group (Campbell, Campbell, Collicott, Perner and Stone, 1988).

Teachers who regularly use the principles of cooperative learning report that it is a powerful tool in teaching children to respect and get along with each other and in improving the social and academic climate of the classroom. One teacher explains:

Research has shown that cooperative learning results in higher achievement and greater retention of what is learned than do traditional competitive or individual learning situations (Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson and Skon, 1981). Other benefits, substantiated by research, include increased student persistence in learning a task, more intrinsic motivation, higher levels of self-esteem, acquisition of stronger collaborative skills, development of positive peer relationships that extend beyond cooperative learning activities, and the promotion of helping, sharing behaviours.

As one teacher realized, it is necessary to give students many opportunities throughout the day to share and explore ideas and bond together. Curriculum is naturally a common subject of discussion:

In addition to using lessons to promote the development of relationships, teachers have been creative in devising ways to weave support from other professionals into the fabric of everyday classroom activities and student routines (Giangreco, York and Rainforth, 1989).

Through problem solving with other professionals, parents and peers, teachers work towards physical and recreational goals in ways that, at the same time, encourage the student’s inclusion in the mainstream.

One teacher explained how Aidan, a student in Grade 5 who was seriously injured in a car accident, is encouraged by his peers to use his right hand to raise his weak left hand when he wants to ask a question or make a comment to the teacher or his classmates. It takes him a little longer, his teacher observes, but it is a natural way of practising the stretching motion needed to maintain muscle tone in his weak arm. Classmates nearby remind Aidan to sit up straight throughout the class by gently taping his back when he forgets and slouches in his seat. His classmates know that Aidan’s dream is to walk again and are thrilled to be able to help in any way they can. One of his friends wrote:

lf Aidan had been sent to therapy outside of the classroom for this exercise, he would have missed the opportunity for peer encouragement and interaction that being in the classroom afforded him (Giangreco, Edelman and Dennis, 1990). His non-handicapped peers would have missed an opportunity to witness first-hand Aidan’s determination and his struggle to regain his strength. Aidan provided a good role model for his peers, and the teacher provided a natural vehicle for peer relationship development — the regular classroom.

Outside the classroom, teachers, parents and other students can find ways to involve the student in as many school activities as desired. Through intramural activities, clubs and informal school groups, students with disabilities have opportunities to become an integral part of the recreational and social life of the school.

They have the chance to form and maintain valuable peer relationships with their non-handicapped schoolmates.

Peer Tutoring
Another way teachers are encouraging students to form relationships while assisting in each other’s learning is through peer tutoring. Teachers use this strategy effectively in many learning situations throughout the school day. The simplest approach is a system of peer partners who help each other in a variety of ways: reviewing rote material; preparing for a spelling test; learning math; or working together to correct each other’s assignments and edit essays. Peer partners can help each other synthesize and assimilate new material; for example, they can work together summarizing and sharing key points in a text.

Teachers also use the peer partner system to motivate and encourage students to try new things or to expand limited skills. One example we observed involved a young student named Donnie in a Grade 4 classroom. Donnie sat with a peer at a table. The peer was doing an exercise in his math notebook while Donnie manipulated some plastic blocks placed on his desk by the teacher. The peer used the blocks for assistance in solving equations while Donnie used them to develop fine motor control, and to see and touch number groups.

At first, Donnie knocked the blocks off the table and his peer partner bent and picked them up, arranging them in a pattern. Donnie ignored the blocks. The peer picked up a block and showed Donnie how to open it. He showed Donnie the small plastic toy inside. The peer encouraged Donnie to pull open the block by himself. Donnie pushed the blocks away. Donnie’s peer then took a Cheezie from a bag in his desk, showed it to Donnie and hid it inside the block. Donnie struggled to open the block and, when successful, ate the treat.

The peer then showed him two blocks. “I have two blocks now, Donnie,” he told him. “I’m going to put the Cheezie in one of them.”

“See if you can get it out.” In Donnie’s full view, the peer placed one of the treats inside one of the blocks. Donnie chose the correct block immediately, struggled to open it, and seized his prize. The game continued for several minutes. As Donnie struggled to open the block each time, the peer-carried on with his own work.

The peer then took the two blocks and, holding them out of Donnie’s sight under the desk, placed a Cheezie in one of the blocks and placed the two blocks back on the table. Donnie tried to open the blocks as the peer carried on with his work Donnie was successful and his peer gave him a smile and a thumbs-up signal. Donnie smiled broadly as he enjoyed his prize.

Cross-Age Tutoring
Some teachers successfully employ cross-age tutors — older students who assist younger students with their work. Older students may read to their young peers, listen to them read, or assist them with story writing or math. Although this technique requires more time to set up because teachers are needed to assist tutors in preparing activities and presentstion strategies, teachers remark that the result is well worth the effort. Tutoring gives older students the opportunity to analyze and think through a particular skill or activity at a deeper level than they would ordinarily. Teachers remark that students are often better than teachers at explaining an idea or procedure because young people relate so well to one another.

Cross-age tutoring also provides excellent opportunities for students who are experiencing learning difficulties themselves to support and help other schoolmates. The tutoring provides older students with opportunities to practise certain lessons and to be on the giving side of a relationship during school. Teachers using this technique remark on how it benefits the tutors’ self-esteem and how this feeling carries over into their general self-confidence.

Peer Modelling
Another powerful technique which requires less preparation than peer tutoring is peer modelling. In this situation, a student models for another classmate how to perform an activity or skill. For example, one student might show his classmate with a disability how to use a pencil sharpener, play a cassette player, or find his way to the next class. Sometimes, the teacher first needs to model the procedure for the nondisabled student. Often, however, students spontaneously initiate and devise clever ways to encourage a peer to take part in a myriad of activities.

A high school computer teacher described how a capable student voluntarily spent time in class with Todd, a nonverbal and overly timid classmate. Todd was often observed standing back from the other students with his arms held up tight amt his chest, wringing his hands. The student worked with Todd, teaching him how to use a simple computer program. As weeks passed and opportunities for exchanges between Todd and his computer partner were maximized, Todd’s classmates noticed him showing more interest in communicating with and being around other students and teachers during the day. He still stood apart from his peers often, but he now exhibited a more relaxed body posture. The speech pathologists and teachers then reviewed their efforts to encourage Todd in his attempts to speak, identifying additional strategies to build his new-found confidence. Meanwhile, the computer student was challenged by her involvement with Todd. On her own, she designed several other computer programs for him, which were later entered in the district Science Fair.

Teachers who realize the importance of peer friendships for students with disabilities capitalize on the many opportunities for interaction that naturally arise during the course of the school day.

They have learned that there is very little possibility for the formation of relationships if students are not in close proximity to one another for a reasonable length of time.

Students who merely visit classrooms for short periods of time have less chance of forming relationships than do those who spend the best part of the day with other students. Teachers have argued that students who are removed from the regular class for remediation frequently miss out on important moments of the day. They question whether what is learned outside the chlassroom is as valuable as what is missed. This has led classroom teachers to collaborate with resource room teachers on devising ways to incorporate individual instruction within the regular class structure.

Rubbing Elbows
Teachers are also finding that seating arrangements influence the opportunities for students to interact with one another. Seating a student at the side or back of the room, as often happens in order to accommodate the teacher’s assistant, does not create the same proximity as seating the student with a handicap in the midst of his peers. Having a student with a disability in a position to rub elbows with the other students makes it more difficult for the teacher and peers to inadvertently “overlook” him or her. A close seating arrangement also provides natural opportunities for neighbouring students to interact during the day.

In the case of Patrick, a Grade 3 student who was unable to talk, the teacher moved his desk from the side of the room where he sat with the teacher assistant, to the middle of the second row. She observed that students near him began to duplicate his communication gestures in order to initiate an interaction with him. When he began to respond to their initiations with smiles, squeals and gestures, the students were so excited that their initiations escalated. They then began to invite him to be partner in line as they got ready for class movement, recess and music.

They also began to run and play with him in the playground at noon and recess time. This interaction was made possible because the teacher realized that having Patrick off to the side kept him apart and special, and placed barriers between him and his classmates. The teacher also realized that having an adult between Patrick and the students also created a barrier, so she instructed the teacher assistant to move about the classroom and assist other students as well. This illustration also points out the importance of reciprocity. If Patrick had not responded in some way to the initiations of his peers, their attempts at interaction would have diminished over time.

A Means of Communicating
Teachers are now exploring ways of promoting communication among students in the classroom. Non-disabled students are learning how to use communication boards, gestures and signs, computerized devices and eye contact to help students who are unable to talk to their peers.

One teacher gave a student who uses an adaptive device an opportunity to teach her classmates about its unique characteristics. Mary, a senior high school student who has multiple handicaps, uses her eyes and a specially designed communication board to make her needs known. She made a presentation to several high school classes about the organization of her board and about how she used it to gain some control over her life. Mary became the teacher for a time and, as a result of her lesson, the students became interested in other forms of communicative devices. They also were able to see Mary from a different perspective. She was no longer a person of mystery, but another teenager with a unique way of talking to her peers. Her teacher had created a way to highlight Mary’s abilities and to show that her desire to communicate her ideas and dreams was the same as that of her fellow teens.

Assigning Tasks
Patrick’s teacher also created ways for Patrick to assist his peers in their work in order that he could reciprocate the assistance he received from them. Each student had a personal notebook which they wrote in everyday. The teacher pasted a picture of the owner on each notebook and Patrick, who could not read, could then identify the picture, match the picture to the person, and pass the notebooks out to his classmates. He was also able to lend crayons and glue and other things he had in his desk to a classmate who had learned to sign with him. Not only was Patrick able to reciprocate conventional greetings and help in the classroom, he was practising some of his individual academic goals as well, which included signing, matching and student identification. Behavioural goals such as moving quietly around the class and passing out books without pushing, prodding or hitting were also being practised and achieved.

Jane, a student in Grade 5 who could speak in short phrases but who could not read or write, was involved in a Scrabble game the teacher devised to assist students in practising spelling and vocabulary words. The teacher explained to the group that Jane was allowed to place up to five letters around an existing word on the gameboard even though she could not really spell. The student to her right would ask her what word she had created before tallying her score. In this way, Jane was involved in the vocabulary of the classroom and she was expected to learn. She was also made a vital part of the classroom culture because the curriculum became a vehicle to highlight her thoughts and interests, which she revealed in the words she chose. This set the stage for the development of friendships.

The teacher observed that Jane’s in-class relationships were carried over into the playground. Even though Jane was fairly unstable on her feet, she was invited to jump rope by the students in her class. Several of the students demonstrated for her and then took great pains to make sure that she got over the rope.

By slowing the rope down as it neared the ground, Jane could step over it without becoming twisted in it and falling down.

Jane and the students kept count of her successful steps, and Jane’s turn terminated when she failed to step cleanly over the rope. Then, much to Jane’s surprise, she was required to swing the rope for the other players. This also turned out to be an excellent form of physical therapy for Jane. The relationship among the students had been fostered in the classroom by the teacher’s skill in revealing the thoughts and interests of the students. It has also been fostered by the teacher’s trust in the student’s ability and willingness to adjust to one another after the first stages of the relationship had been modelled and encouraged.

Friendship Circles
People have found friendship circles (Snow and Forest, 1987) to be an effective way of building relationships among children or young people. To form a friendship circle, students who are interested in being involved in the life of a fellow student are brought together on a team. With the guidance of an interested and sensitive adult, these students help make decisions and plans for and with the individual. They become involved with the student on a personal basis both inside and outside the school. They brainstorm ways of including the student in their own and other social circles. They identify barriers that prevent the student from participating in a particular setting or activity and then work together to break the barriers down.

Circles meet regularly to plan outings and activities and to discuss the things they have learned about themselves and others. Just as real friendships grow, evolve and change, teachers have found that the composition and personality of friendship circles change over time. This fluidity is expected and allowed. Teachers involved in successful friendshipcircles are aware of the natural ebb and flow of affection, attention and activity. They note, however, that a core of students usually stays together for long periods of time, which attests to the permanence and mutuality of the friendships created.

Teachers and parents voice their concern that, despite inschool successes, a young person with a disability usually does not have “real friends”. As one high school teacher summarized:

Both parents and teachers express dismay that outside school hours their children and young people spend long inactive periods of time without seeing anyone outside their immediate families or the paid professionals in their lives. Isolation, loneliness and boredom are still realities for many. When people with disabilities talk about their lives and what is missing, they repeatedly point to the difficulty of building and maintaining lasting friendships. They talk about the need to feel that their lives touch others in important ways, and the need to know that their existence makes a positive difference. The physical and social barriers imposed by society, which for years separated and devalued people with disabilities, are hard to break down.

Building ongoing friendships that extend outside school and into the neighbourhood has been a challenge for teachers and families. Part of the challenge is that friendship cannot be defined, analyzed, predicted or assigned like school work.

Friendship can only be encouraged by setting up opportunities for matches to form.

Difficult as it is to define friendship, it is easy to describe why friendships are important and how they enrich our lives. They help us stretch beyond our families; they help children rehearse adult roles; they are a haven from stress and they demystify strange and inappropriate behaviour (Perske, 1988). As one youngster commented,

Friendships expand our world and our perspectives; they are attractive and generate their own energy; friendships are freely chosen and voluntary; they are mutual and reciprocal, coming and going with intensity varying over time. Friendships have their ups and downs, joys and pains, laughter and tears (Pogrobin, 1987).

Some teachers become discouraged and doubtful when searching for ways to help a student with disabilities make friends. They feel that “real” friendships cannot exist between disabled and non-disabled people and that efforts to encourage friendships are staged and phoney.

In actual fact, adults can overlook or misinterpret relationships that exist between disabled and non-disabled students. We must he careful not to impose a stereotypical image of how friendships should look and therefore devalue budding friendships that have non-traditional features. There have been some remarkable friendships between disabled and non-disabled students.

Teachers in one school were truly amazed to hear about a student’s efforts to visit his friend with a disability who was in the hospital struggling with a life-threatening condition.

The two students had spent time together in school during noon hours and they shared a few classes together. Although one of them had difficulty speaking and often engaged in echolalia (the involuntary repetition of a word or sentence just spoken by another person), the friends had obviously found other ways to communicate their feelings, interests and thoughts.

Some teachers had seen the relationship as one-sided and felt that the non-disabled student was being charitable. When it was discovered that the non-disabled student had hitchhiked fifty kilometres in the middle of a Christmas cold snap, wearing only a light jacket with a broken zipper, to see his friend in the hospital, the adults took the friendship more seriously.

Teachers who use the various strategies outlined above to encourage peer relationships know that full integration will only occur when students interact comfortably with one another both in school and in the community. Since most of the hours of a student’s day are spent in school, teachers can use curriculum and school activities as a vehicle to encourage and maintain friendship.

Proximity and reciprocity are important in setting the stage for interactions. In order for people to form relationships, they must be in the same place for a reasonable length of time.

And if a student’s gestures of friendship are repeatedly ignored, he or she may stop trying to interact. The onus is on the teacher to encourage students with disabilities to respond and to inspire non-handicapped students to persevere and search for responses which might otherwise be overlooked. Eye and head movements, position changes, smiles and gestures are sometimes the only way a person has of responding to his or her peers.

Human beings present particular personality traits and specific interests or skills which make them attractive to one another.

It is important for teachers to highlight these qualities in their daily work with students.

We have witnessed relationships form and flourish in the classroom and, in some cases, extend beyond the boundaries of the school. In order for this to happen, interaction between students and relationship building must be modelled and taught. Our experience shows that curriculum and classroom activities provide the best opportunities for the elements of peer relationships to fall naturally into place.

Bagnell, B. (1989). My experience with integration. In M. Leavitt (Ed.). Teaching All Children: Stories in the classroom. Fredericton, N.B.: Department of Education, pp.17-21.

Campbell, C., S. Campbell, J. Collicott, D. Perner and J. Stone. (1988). Individualizing instruction. Education New Brunswick, 3, pp. 17-20.

Forest, M. and E. Lusthaus. (1989). Promoting educational equality for all students: Circles and MAPS. In W. Stainback, S. Stainback and M. Forest (Eda). Educating All Students in the Mainstream of Regular Education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Co., pp. 29-42.

Giangreco, M.F., J. York and B. Rainforth. (1989). Providing related services to learners with severe handicaps in educational settings: Pursuing the least restrictive alternative. Pediatric Physical Therapy. 1(2). pp. 55-63.

Giangreco, M.F., S. Edelman and R. Dennis. (1990). Common professional practices which interfere with the integrated delivery of related services. Remedial and Special Education. 12(2). PP. 16-24.

Johnson, D., G. Maruyama, R. Johnson, D. Nelson and L. Skon. (1981). The Effects of Cooperative, Competitive and Individualistic Goal Structures on Achievement: A metanalysis. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Mclaughlin, E. (1989). Aidan and his friends. In M. Leavitt (Ed.). Teaching All Children: Stories in the classroom. Fredericton, N.B.: Department of Education, pp. 10-13.

McManus, J. (1989). Integration Experiences. In M. Leavitt (Ed). Teaching All Children: Stories in the Classroom. Fredericton, N.B.: Department of Education, pp. 31-32.

Pogrebin, L. (1987). Among Friends: Who we like, why we like them, and what do we do with them. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Perske, R. (I988). Circles of Friends. Burlington, Ontario: Welsh Publishing Company Inc.

Snow, J. and M. Forest. (1987). Circles. In M. Forest (Ed). More Education Integration. Downsview, 0nt.: The G. Allan Roeher Institute.

There’s Always Belinda. (1989). Video produced for the Ontario Association for Community Living by CSA Video Communications, Toronto, Ontario.

This is the story of Sue, a young girl with special needs who had been attending her neighbourhood school for four years. Even in a school district with a five-year history of inclusion, Sue was considered an exception because of her extremely challenging behaviours. And despite the regular classroom setting, there were concerns that her life differed too much from that of her peers.

However, Sue’s story illustrates that children with extremely challenging behaviours can be fully integrated into the regular classroom. It is an example of effective intervention strategies put in place to make a real qualitative improvement in her relationships.

In finding effective approaches for Sue we came to see that the strategies became a spark which made people re-evaluate other people and their capabilities. The strategies we chose were Supportive Peer Relations and Gentle Teaching. Both of these involved inviting children and adults to participate in the social inclusion of Sue.

Philosophy
In order for children to develop, they must be involved in relationships. Through relationships they acquire, by direct learning and adoption of social roles, the attitudes, values, roles, competencies, and ways of perceiving the world that are shared by their families, schools and communities. Children who are not involved in caring and supportive relationships tend to become increasingly alienated and disconnected from people and activities in their families, schools and societies.

Fostering peer relationships is one means of promoting meaningful interdependence. Peer relationships can provide feelings of support, belonging, acceptance and caring. They give the opportunity to acquire appropriate social roles, and they provide the sensitivity required to build and maintain meaningful relationships. They enable the internalization of values, attitudes, perspectives and goals needed for responsible decision-making and long-term friendships that will provide assistance in adult life.

In our schools and homes there has been a relative neglect of constructive child-to-child relationships. There is often an adult-centric perspective in which adults are seen as the only people who can support and nurture children who are lonely, challenging or in difficulty.

Similarly, Brendtro and Ness (1983) discussed this phenomenon in schools and the perceived monopoly by adults:

Facilitating peer relationships requires building and maintaining supportive and caring relationships in which the person is valued as a separate and unique individual, regardless of the perceived special need. Having friends who value appropriate behaviour and behave as competent role models is essential for most children, adolescents and young adults. In contrast, being isolated from peers is one of the major symptoms of psychological distress. Psychological distress can be the result of isolation (i.e., streaming students) or it can cause the isolation (i.e., students who become lonely because of a lack of social skills). Influencing the peer group may be one of the most important actions adults can take to ensure that children who are distressed have an opportunity to become successful and competent members of their peer groups.

Children with disabilities typically have not had the opportunity to experience or develop a range of social relationships with their peers:

If a group of peers does not include a child with a disability in their relationships, adults usually take responsibility for replacing the peer group. But adults are inappropriate role models. What is work for adults is normal activity for children.

The regular classroom is an important place for healthy, inclusive peer relationships to develop. Children who are disabled need support in developing relationships, and nondisabled children need support in accepting their peers who have disabilities. Teachers can play a key role in ensuring that these relationships develop.

Involving the Children
There is a reewakening interest in using students as a positive influence on the behaviour or learning of their peers. Adults are usually surprised to discover that children are capable of performing many functions that were once thought to be the exclusive province of adults. Giving youth more responsibility in our schools is an untapped resource that offers great potential for innovation. Research on instructional strategies such as cooperative learning and peer tutoring has demonstrated the advantages of making students more responsible for mutual learning.

Another means of facilitating peer interdependence and responsibility is to have students, as a group, intentionally make a commitment to help a peer with special needs. This recently developed form of structured peer involvement has come to be known as a peer support group or “circle of friends” (Perske and Perske, 1988).

Behavioural Barriers
At the time of our involvement, Sue was a twelve-year-old girl in Grade 5. She attended a junior high school in a small, rural town. Sue was fortunate in many respects. She had been in an integrated school since kindergarten and she lived at home with her family. Her teachers made efforts to identify her individual needs and to provide supports and resources so that she could prosper within her classroom.

Still, Sue’s schooling had a history of challenges. Sue was known as a person who had an inclination to hurt others by matching, kicking or hitting. She was sometimes self-abusive and, at times, engaged in self-stimulating behaviours. Sue’s behaviours prevented her from taking part in meaningful social activities and real learning situations. They also got in the way of any natural interactions that Sue might have had with her peers or with adults.

Few people understood the communicative function of Sue’s behaviour. Her outbursts or temper tantrums were seen as the behaviour of a person who was different, or as a symptom of her disobedience or lack of control. Factors such as her behaviour, and the school’s fear of injury to other students and disruption to the class, led to measures which kept her from her peers.

In an attempt to help her cope, Sue was given an aide. She was often seen with her aide, studying during class time or playing solitary games during recess or lunch. Someone was always close by keeping an eye on her. Sue was being looked after, but rarely was there any interaction between herself and her teacher or her neighbouring peers.

Having an aide for Sue was a mixed blessing. Over the short term, the aide was helping to deal with immediate concerns such as Sue’s tutoring, general welfare and behaviour. But over the long term, the aide’s presence seemed to further distance Sue from those around her.

A cyclical pattern began to emerge where Sue’s behaviour required support, than the support alienated Sue further from her peers, which escalated the intensity of her outbursts, which required tighter measures, which further alienated her, and so on. It became evident that while Sue attended her neighbourhood school with her regular peers, she was alone; her life paralleled the lives of her peers but rarely intersected with them.

Factors in the School Structure
The school environment was also a factor in her lack of friendship. The school was perceived as a place where Sue was to learn new skills and demonstrate appropriate behaviour while in a learning environment. These are important objectives for all students. However, for Sue, these skills and behaviours were being taught without the benefit of friendships to provide the impetus, motivation or relevancy needed to make them seem important or desirable to her. When children work or play with one another, they imitate each other’s behaviour and identify with friends possessing admired competencies or skills. As a result, they provide each other with powerful models of appropriate and inappropriate behaviour.

Our schools seem to play down the importance of peer relationships, which are mainly relegated to extracurricular activities. In most classrooms, students work alone, doing seatwork or listening to the teacher’s instruction. Students’ attempts to interact in groups are considered disruptive to the learning environment. Similarly, there is no instruction in the social skills necessary for interacting effectively with peers. These skills have not been considered pedagogically useful for learning.

Much of this can be attributed to the way our schools have been set up. Until quite recently schools have been institutions where skills were learned in a rigid, assembly-line fashion. The teachers role was to impart knowledge to the students. Similarly, there were clearly defined roles for other school personnel; for example, teacher’s aides are clearly distinguished from attendants.

Current educational philosophy supports the need for interaction and collaboration — not only between students but between students and school personnel as well — in order for meaningful learning to occur. According to Skrtic (1988) the school in seen as an "adhocracy" where collaboration among all staff and students results in students learning facts as well as social skills, problem solving and creative thinking.

Talking to Sue’s Class
To include Sue as a member of her class required the acceptance and efforts of her homeroom teacher, classmates and school. Sue’s teacher voiced the concern that his other students would lose out through their efforts to help Sue. He saw student involvement as something that would take away from their academic and extracurricular time. Also from a more traditional viewpoint, the need for student participation was considered unnecessary because the teacher’s aide had been hired to fulfil the school’s and Sue’s needs.

We held a class meeting as the first step in involving Sue’s peers. We began by sensitizing them to what integration is and why it is in everyone’s best interest to include students with special needs in our classrooms, schools and communities. We discussed the fact that, only seven years ago, students with needs similar to Sue’s were sent away from their families or were educated in separate classrooms or were given no education.

One student spoke up and said that she had “an uncle who was mentally handicapped — he’s older now and harder to handle. That’s why Sue needs our help now.” It quickly became apparent that Sue’s classmates already knew why they should include her.

We asked the students if they thought Sue now belonged to their class. Unanimously, they indicated that she did not, but that she was someone who spent a lot of time in the resource room. When asked how they thought they could start including Sue, one boy said, “Saying hello in the morning.”

We asked,“What sort of things do you think Sue likes to do outside in the playground?” The children said, “Climbing, piggybacking, swinging, slidingng, playing with Puppets, having other people besides her aide or teacher with her.”

We asked what things the students could do in the classroom with Sue. They said, “Learning her numbers and letters, cutting things out, crafts, picture cards, puzzles.” We questioned them on activities Sue could do with them and they replied, “Read, help her with her work, read to her, draw with her, have one of us with her each day, write on the blackboard.”

When invited to help Sue with these activities, all but two of the children volunteered to help. We stressed during the meeting that they were not to feel pressured into helping but that if they wanted to make the commitment, they should consider it to last the whole school year. We picked six students arbitrarily to help support Sue at school. Within a few days of the meeting, it was apparent that these students had commitments which sometimes took them away from Sue. If students were going to help her, it would require all the children in the class.

We worried about initiating this process because, while we were committed to the group, we were responsible for maintaining safety and order in the school. Sue was known to strike out at those around her. With the other children in Sue’s class, we discussed their ability to identify Sue’s signs of anger. The students spoke of ways to deflate a potential incident and to minimize the chances of getting hurt, and of what to do if they felt things were getting out of hand.

Most of the students admitted that they found it upsetting when Sue got out of control. Twenty-one of the twenty-five students indicated that they were concerned about her anger but didn’t want to change their commitment to Sue.

As a follow-up to our planning session, a note went to parents commending their child for supporting a student in their class. We had an ulterior motive for sending the note. We anticipated some resistance from parents, given Sue’s history within the community. Moreover, we wanted to communicate that this was something which the school valued and which was important as part of the regular curriculum. In the note, parents were asked that if they had any concerns about their child’s participation they should contact the school. Not one parent phoned to indicate that they had any concerns.

Later in the year, I asked a few students how their parents felt about them helping Sue when it was known that she could hurt others. They told me that their parents told them “to be careful” and “to just watch out.”

As part of our support to the students we felt it important to give them an opportunity to discuss on a routine basis how things were going. We usually met in the cafeteria at lunchtime for these discussions and Sue usually joined us. The talk never focused on Sue unless the students were asked direct questions about how things were going. Right from the first meeting we could see that it was intuitive for the students to include Sue but it required leadership on our part to get it started.

Advocacy and Growth Among the Students
As groups usually do, this one took on a personality of its own over the weeks. One of the interesting developments was the emergence of leaders. Kerri Ann, even at her young age, made astute observations about Sue’s program and seemed to instigate many positive changes. For example, Kerri noted that the aide or teachers didn’t seem to be giving Sue enough independence. She said that as Sue’s support group gained confidence they wanted to take more responsibility for Sue during certain classes such as gym, library or free time. They wanted to play with Sue alone in the school yard, or go to the library and read to her and see if she would reciprocate.

She asked why Sue could not take French, commenting that “all we do in French is repeat words — Sue can do that.” Her observations had an underlying truth which few adults could explain away or discount. Consequently, Sue had opportunities to participate in activities which adults would have considered irrelevant or in conflict with her program. For instance, Sue previously had to miss French so that she would have extra time to get ready to go home on the bus. Kerri felt that Sue was as able as any student to get ready in the allotted ten minutes. And, given the opportunity, Sue was able.

Another student, Scott, also became Sue’s advocate. He seemed to be more in tune with Sue’s needs than other peers. Over the year, he went from being a volunteer to being truly fond of Sue. His commitment to support Sue turned into a friendship. For Scott, the experiences around helping Sue enlarged his vision of friendship and expended his active contribution to the school community.

For some students, being in the support group provided them with a relationship which compensated for some absence in their lives. Each of us has primary relationships with parents or siblings which are a major source of nurturing, love and acceptance. Some students, because of divorce, alcohol abuse, or other situations, have had terrible experiences with some significant relationships. These students often become lonely and attention-seeking. This was the situation for some of the students in Sue’s peer group; they were eager to overcome their limited success with meaningful relationships and become involved again. This seemed to spark their interest in Sue’s group. Over time, other students found the group comfortable to be in.

The commitment made by students generally seen as loners and troublemakers surprised teachers. One teacher said, “I would never believe that this person would ever volunteer to help.”

Changes in Sue’s Life
Sue’s peers were not the only ones to change over the year. Sue’s life changed as well. She went from being alone to having a group of peers who cared about what she was doing every day and who actively participated in making her life better. Sue went from living without many meaningful social interactions to being involved in active friendships.

One student told a story about Sue sharing something she enjoyed. Sue had gone over to this particular student, put her arm around her, and directed her over to where she was listening to some music. The student said, “At the first of the year she did not want me around her. Now she actually enjoys seeing me.” Another student spoke of the changes in Sue. “She has calmed down. I knew her when she was in kindergarten. She has now learned how to treat other people.”

At the some time, there were difficulties over the year. Kevin spoke of Sue coming over to him and hitting him in the face. When we sat and talked about the incident, he shrugged and said, “I was at the wrong place at the wrong time.” I had expected this experience to frighten him away but it didn’t seem to deter him from resolving to be with Sue. We learned later from his parents that because of Kevin’s acceptance of Sue they did not contact the school about the incident. Previously, this incident would have called into question whether or not Sue would have been allowed to stay in the school. Having a peer advocate for her changed the parent’s perception of the seriousness of the incident. In turn, the parents did not demand that the school mediate the situation. The bonds of friendship brought out Sue’s positive attributes which made the student want to mediate on her behalf. If she was identified only as a hitter or a kicker the student may have wanted the school to deal with the behaviour.

We came to realize that before the students became involved, Sue’s behaviour would have resulted in students staying away from her while adults intervened. It became obvious that peers, by becoming involved, looked past her behaviour to see her as a person who had a bad temper.

As the year progressed students, instead of moving away from Sue when she was angry, drew close. When Sue was frustrated with work, they would provide encouragement. When she was angry they would stand near her. They had learned that being close helped her and, as one student joked, “If she went to hit you, she couldn’t hit as hard in close.” Consequently, it was not unusual to see a group of kids around Sue as they walked the busy corridors to their next class.

At the end of the year, we interviewed some of the students who had been with Sue. From these discussions some common themes emerged:

Peer groups are as unique as the individual students in them. There is no one way of forming groups, but here are some points worth consideration:

Total inclusion in Sue’s school meant that, at some level, everyone in her school interacted with her. Students, through the peer group, were developing friendships with Sue, but most adults were uncomfortable working directly with Sue because of her challenging behaviour. As a result, only a few people who had “ways of dealing with her” had developed a relationship with her. Given her challenging behaviour, they were perceived as having some special ability. We needed to give adults a way to develop good relationships with her.

We chose Gentle Teaching (McGee et al, 1987), which presented a set of common strategies to facilitate meaningful dialogue between Sue and those who worked with her in the school. It enabled people to work with Sue to control and redirect her challenging behaviour, which in turn improved their relationships with her.

Dr. John McGee proposed the use of Gentle Teaching as a non-aversive technique for dealing with people who exhibit challenging behaviours. He was brought to Canada by The Roeher Institute to provide alternative approaches to punishment used and accepted in the past to curtail aggressiv and self-injurious behaviour. These included the use of cattle prods, noxious substances, and physical and mechanical restraints. Gentle Teaching focuses on three main assumptions:

These assumptions are based upon the idea of bonding and friendship that is typified by trust and security. McGee sees bonding and friendship as the bases for a relationship between a person and the caregiver. It is through our relationships with others that we work past a person’s challenging behaviour. Our desire for changing a person’s behaviour is secondary to the care and respect we have to show for the individual. Developing a trusting relationship is specific to each person and the relationship is not transferable to other caregivers. Each caregiver must make his own bond with the person.

We attended a week-long workshop in Nova Scotia on Gentle Teaching and began to think that Sue could benefit from this alternative approach. It was our hope that by offering a workshop at the school, and by involving the people closely associated with Sue, we might he able to get beyond Sue’s agressive behaviour to a point where we could establish meaningful interactions with her.

Developing Techniques in a Workshop
Our workshop format was modelled after the one in Nova Scotia. A room was designated as the workshop room and for five days Sue, her mother, the teacher, the principal, the teacher’s assistants, the collaborating teacher, next year’s collaborating teacher and two school district office consultants assembled and practised together. We began each day by discussing the theory and strategies that are an integral part of Gentle Teaching. Then we planned our agenda for the day, with objectives: how to teach Sue that she was safe with us; that being with us was rewarding and that interacting with us was more enjoyable than driving us away through physical aggression.

At first, the task seemed overwhelming. We needed to convince the teachers that we had something valuable to offer them in terms of changing Sue’s situation at school. For the participants, it was difficult to imagine how people could work together when they had different responsibilities and different expectations of what Sue could do. In addition, they were asked to change the way in which they dealt with Sue. This group was not there strictly by choice; they were required to take part. They were being videotaped and assessed by their peers, a process unfamiliar and intimidating to most of them. The workshop would take a week and some people felt this was excessive and unfair to other students who also required attention. How could we justify spending so much time, energy and money on one student?

From the videotape of the first morning’s session, during which time we asked people to interact with Sue as they would normally, we were able to discern some of the typical patterns of interaction. Foremost, those who worked with Sue focused on the successful completion of academic tasks. Verbal exchanges with her included encouragement and giving directions and praise for correct responses. Eye contact was minimal and very much task-oriented. Sue, on the other hand, almost always led the activity, doing what she wanted with a given task or material, or refusing to do a task by turning from it or the person, or by escaping to a far corner of the room.

She said, “No,thank you” or “Excuse me, please” to block attempts to engage her in an activity. When these attempts failed, Sue used physical aggression to avoid unwanted interactions.

When changing from one activity to another, Sue almost always ran away from her teachers, and bringing her back meant a physical struggle. Sue would often climb on furniture to the highest point she could reach so that interaction was almost imposible or became a confrontation. She also talked to interrupt and avoid the activity. Sue’s attention span was perceived to be short, so that planned activities were usually simple, fast, and changed often.

Our first task,then, was to decide how we as a group were going to change the way we worked with Sue so as to bring about the change we wanted — her willingness to participate in a task. We made several decisions:

The main objectives were decided upon, based on all of the above strategies. Complex tasks which required a great deal of attention were simplified, as the attention required to complete these tasks precluded interaction between Sue and the person working with her. The rate and the animation of the praise given needed to be increased, to impress the message that she was safe and secure with us. The words spoken to her were to give her reason to look at us and anticipate our next action, which would keep the momentum of the interaction going. As previously mentioned, we had to arrange the classroom in a more organized fashion. Unused materials needed to be put away, the furniture needed to be arranged to inhibit her climbing, and we had to pay attention to her tendency to run out of the room.

These strategies were to enable caregivers to interact with Sue and avoid punishing her. They are not new strategies; they are time-tested approaches that have been used by caregivers for years.

The new approaches were tested and the group felt that they had accomplished what they had set out to do.

They were able to able to establish a valuing relationship with Sue and decrease the frequency of her aggressive outbursts. In addition, the amount of time spent in positive interaction after the workshop.

Some concerns and questions arose during the workshop. A few people were concerned that we were pushing Sue beyond the limits of her endurance. Initially the valuing was too animated and therefore seemed artificial. The energy required to bring about participation was too great. In addition, the group asked: how meaningful were the activities? Had we eliminated her aggression to the degree hoped for? How would we do Gentle Teaching in the classrom?

The Transition to the Classroom
We had worked with Sue in a setting separate from the classroom, using normal voices and plenty of activity and enthusiasm. Some participants thought that using Gentle Teaching in the classroom would be disruptive and intrusive. However, others argued that past behaviour-management programs, such as taking Sue to time-out, had been disruptive. Despite the doubts, most participants felt that working preventively to establish relationships would, over the long term, lessen the likelihood of disruptions, as opposed to simply reacting and trying to control her outbursts.

Some attention was paid to the setup of the classroom. If classrooms were going to be controlled environments where students sat in rows facing the teacher and were quiet most of the time, than any intervention was going to be a distraction to the class. If classrooms were places where students interacted with each other, then disruption would be less obvious.

Activities during the workshop were geared to Sue’s interests and abilities. After the workshop these or similar activities were adapted and used in the daily routine in class. The materials and methods in the training sessions were only a starting point for participation; novel and more complex materials needed to be introduced as soon as meaningful interactions were established.

Contrived activities had to be replaced by activities more academically suited and ageappropriate for the learning of particular students.

One example of how Gentle Teaching strategies could be used in natural situations was given by the methods and resource teacher, an in-school consultant to other teachers (see Chapter 8) . When Sue began self-stimulating behaviours the teacher took Sue and two of her peers and began to throw a ball around in a simple game of catch. Sue was valued and redirected from her self-stimulation. This was Gentle Teaching, although at the time the teacher did not recognize it as such. It was a preventive approach rather than a reactionary one.

There is a danger that Gentle Teaching may be seen only as a response to inappropriate behaviour if it is viewed narrowly as a behaviour modifcation technique. Gentle Teaching, however, is broader than this. It is an educational approach that should be embedded in the daily interactions between teacher and students.

In retrospect, a one-week investment in developing a new process to deal with students was not excessive, particularly considering the time and resources spent on Sue’s challenging behaviour over the years. And if the process worked for Sue, there was a possibility that it would work for other students in her school.

The school developed a cadre of people who were familiar with the process and who could teach their colleagues. It was necessary and beneficial that the principal participated in the process for its continuation in the school. Principals are the educational leaders and typically have great influence on school practices.

A follow-up meeting was planned one week after the workshop. Knowing that this was the first time Gentle Teaching was presented in an educational setting, we felt a need to regroup and discuss how things were going and to address some concerns. The teachers reported that:

Sue’s mother also pointed out that:

Although most observations reported at the meeting were positive, there were some concerns raised:

There are many questions still to be addressed, but it is an ongoing process. We have learned to examine how we do things and discuss new strategies to cope with the situations that arise over the school year. This contrasts with our expectations of last year when we thought we would somehow fix Sue. We acknowledge that she has behaviours that might change, but will not disappear; on the other hand, the supports in place make her behaviours less frightening.

If we are to make changes that support the existence of a variety of learning styles and abilities within a single classroom, we have to be prepared to change our notions about what is and is not feasible within our classrooms. Gentle Teaching is one method of dispelling the mystique that surrounds problem behaviours. We feel that this strategy is compatible with our philosophy of equity and respect for all students.

Gentle Teaching is an attitudinal stance, but is deeply rooted in good teaching techniques, which involve ensuring success with each learning task as well as full participation and involvement. It is our contention that the process of integration, the changes in methodology needed to nurture it such as inclusion, collaboration, multi-level instruction, and cooperative learning, and the Gentle Teaching philosophy are naturally supportive of one another.

The two approaches used with Sue, Supportive Peer Relationships and Gentle Teaching, have fostered the social inclusion of this most challenging youngster in the regular classroom. They have given her the opportunity for interdependence with her peers and a richer lifestyle than most children like Sue have because of their actions. It is important for her to have friends, rather than being a lonely person defined solely in terms of her behaviour. Similarly, we have increased the network of people who can work with Sue and with each other — teachers, peers and parents. In return, Sue has empowered us by increasing our competency. She has shown us that change is possible and that schools can do more to embrace children regardless of their needs.

Brendtro, L.K. and A.E. Ness. (1983). Re-Educating Troubled Youth: Environments for teaching and treatment. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Brown, L., E. Long, A. Udvari-Solner, L. Davis, P. Van Deventer, C. Ahlgren, F. Johnson, L. Gruenewald and J. Jorgenson. (1989). The Home School: Why students with severe intellectual disabilities must attend the schools of their brothers, sisters, friends, and neighbours. JASH, 14(1), pp. 1-7.

McGee, J.J., F.J. Menolascino, D.C. Hobbs and P.E. Menousek. (1987). Gentle Teaching: non-aversive approach to helping persons with mental retardation. New York: Human Services Press, Inc.

O’Connell, M. (1988, February). The Gift of Hospitability: Opening the doors of community life to people with disabilities. (Available from Mary O’Connell, Centre for Urban Affairs and Policy Research Northwestern University and Department of Rehabilitation Services, State of Illinois)

Perske, R. and M. Perske. (1988). Circles of Friends. Burlington, Ont.: Welch Publishing.

Skrtic, T.M. (1988). The organizational context of special education. In E.L. Meyen & T.M. Skrtic (Eds.). Exceptional Children and Youth: An introduction. Denver: Love Publishing Company, pp. 479-518.

A walk through Humber College on any given day reveals a noisy, animated and colourful scene. Private conversations compete with aspiring DJs on the student radio station. A preponderance of denim, T-shirts and leather set the overall fashion tone. French fries and Diet Coke provide daily sustenance to many of the 9,000 full-time day students.

Simulated hospital wards, greenhouses, computer centres, a new technology wing, music practice studios, even a morgue leave a lasting impression of the opportunities for learning.

Very much a part of this activity are students supported by CICE every year. The fact that they are there is due to the efforts of one persistent parent who strongly believe that his son and all other children had the right to continue their education once they had completed high school. He lobbied, wrote proposals, convened meetings and eventually succeeded in wounding the college to test the waters in 1984.

Today, the eighteen students are supported by three faculty members, and by students on field placement, volunteers and peer tutors. As part of the admission procedure, applicants indicate their interests and are connected with the college program best representing what they would like to learn. A person who likes children could be linked with Early Childhood Education; a sports fan might find like-minded students in the Recreation Leadership Program; an interest in wood-working could lead to the Cabinet-Making Program. There is also an Audio-Visual Technicians program and a Cosmetic Management comes. One student who uses a small computer to communicate found a natural fit in the Journalism Program; another applicant said her goal in coming to college was to work as a volunteer in a hospital; she went into Nursing.

A Place for Acceptance
These students are integrated into the complete two-year program which they follow throughout their attendance at the college. They pay regular tuition fees for which they receive student cards, library privileges and access to the athletics centre.

They are students of Humber College in every sense. They identify themselves, as do all students, by program (“I’m taking Hospitality”), and their friends are the students engaged in the same pursuit, sharing timetables and deadline pressures.

They are so proud of being part of the school that trips to the book store to purchase binders, sweatshirts, and knapsacks bearing the Humber logo are as frequent as finances will allow.

Being at a community college or university has multiple benefits to a person’s self-esteem. Colleges and universities are socially valued environments because the pursuit of higher education is regarded so positively in our society. The power of belonging to a valued place in the comunity goes far beyond the support provided by a teacher or the knowledge gained in a course. It creates a positive mood for learning and the value of the environment is transmitted to students, who often convey an entirely new sense of personal bearing.

Adult education, particularly, is by nature an accepting environment. Society has a healthy respect for the experiences that have made up a person’s life by the time they reach adulthood. The experience of life with a disability has a claim on that respect; and, while allowances are being made in adult education programs for disabilities, the challenges and expectations of the educational environment prepare students for life off-campus.

Teachers of adult education often see their profession as a continuum which incorporates all people who want to learn. The best teachers will argue that they are less interested in teaching content to students than in encouraging them to consider themselves as agents in the process of learning. The teachers impart to students that learning how to learn rather than devouring a body of text will better prepare them for life in a rapidly changing society.

More and more, teachers are using a combination of teaching strategies to accommodate students’ different learning styles. Lecture style works best for those who like to take notes or record information for review purposes; audio visual aids help theme who need to “see” the main points; group discussions are useful for those who need to exchange ideas to grasp them; and field trips or work placements are essential for those who need hands-on learning.

All these learning styles are effective for people who learn at a slower pace.

Adapting the System to the Student
Through CICE, there is considerable work done to modify and adapt the course to each student. And students are provided with support to go to class for as long as they want that support. Central to the role of the CICE faculty members is collaboration with other students and instructors so that major points of the course can be highlighted, assignments identified, and field placements arranged. The discussion then focuses on making this all happen for one particular student. For example, because Lorraine has difficulty reading and writing, it is necessary for someone to give her a copy of their class notes so they can be read onto a tape for her to review at home. A group assignment is adapted so Lorraine’s group will be evaluated not only on their presentation but on how they involve her in completing the work. Instead of a book review, Lorraine will do a film review, spoken into a tape recorder rather than written out. A field placement will be scaled to her confidence level; but it will take place on the same day, in the same setting, and under the same supervision as for everyone else.

Peer Education
Despite thorough planning, challenges arise along the way. For example, when the semester first began, a dilemma arose over how to elicit the support of students in Lorraine’s class. Should Lorraine simply start class on the same day as everyone else, leaving them to follow their own instincts about how to be involved with her? She would, after all, be with a support person whose main role would be to introduce her to other students, initiate conversation and generally model a way of interacting. The alternative was to inform the students that Lorraine would be joining them before she was introduced to the class.

That meant going in on the first day, without Lorraine, to introduce the subject of integration and to engage the students immediately. The goal was to begin a forum for discussing the issues that would inevitably arise throughout the two-year program.

Both methods were tried and experience showed that the former option — having Lorraine start with other students — was philosophically easier to live with but did not allow for discussion of the program. It left the students generally perplexed and, as a consequence, unhelpful. While the other option meant that Lorraine was being discussed without being present, it worked best for the students.

It was not altogether surprising to learn that the students, having had very little exposure to people with mental handicaps (many recalled the special class at the end of the hall or the few students who took gym with them in high school), had many questions. Their comfort level was not very high. They wanted to ask basic questions such as “How do you say Hi?” and they wanted to ask them without inhibition and without worrying that they might hurt Lorraine’s feelings. It is interesting, on the other hand, that the students themselves questioned the ethics of starting class without Lorraine.

Out of that first discussion on relations with Lorraine, a core of students came forward who were willing to meet once a month with Lorraine and someone from CICE to talk through problems, listen to her concerns and get to know one another better. Those group meeting provided an important outlet, especially for identifying potential difficulties before they became problems. Gradually, those students began to take on the responsibility of ensuring that Lorraine was getting the notes she needed and keeping her hinders organized, and they made sure that she ordered the class sweatshirt before the deadline. Sensitive to her longing to feel connected, they began to extend invitations to lunch and to an aerobics class which coincided with their spare period. And they began to delight in her growing selfassuredness and accomplishments. Nor was Lorraine the only one benefitting from these group meetings.

They were becoming a fun and important part of other students’ lives as conversations ranged from school-work to families and vacations to jobs.

Faculty’s Creative Solutions
If the students were an important group to bring on side, so too were the faculty members, and they posed an entirely different set of challenges. Many were willing to have a student in their class; for example, the Chair of the Hospitality Program felt it would be valuable for his students’ interpersonal skills, improving their ability to work with people with different backgrounds. Consequently, he advised all students that they would be evaluated, in part, on their capacity to support each other.

Other faculty members, however, claimed that, with no background in special education, they lacked the necassary expertise. Some were pleased to have a support person in class so that they could carry on with business as usual without fear of disruption; others were uncomfortable with what they saw, at first, as an intrusion.

Teachers at the college and university level who become involved with integration for the first time often look for direction from their institution in adapting and modifying curriculum. However, as is always the case, they are creative and inventive when left to their own devices. As in public and high schools, solutions to curriculum at the post-secondary level are found more through a shift in attitude — how one sees a person — than through technical approaches.

A certain teacher of advanced communications welcomed into his class a new student who had pleaded her own case before the Dean that very morning. She requested she be allowed in his class because “that’s where all my friends are”. In truth, given her eyesight and her difficulty reading, entry tests to the most basic communication courses would have served little practical purpose.

The teacher agreed to work with her and, as the term progressed, they developed the habit of spending a few minutes chatting after each class.

One afternoon, the student told him about the self-advocacy group, People First, which was protesting the following weekend against a controversial wage policy. Proposed by the previous provincial government, the policy would allow employers to pay people who had been labelled less than minimum wage. His student was certainly going to attend the rally, being an active member of the organization. The teacher was interested and engaged; when it came to the lesson on writing business letters, he suggested she write hers, with his help, to the provincial government about that very issue. She embraced the assignment whole-heartedly. Her finished product met the requisite specifications: she stated her case, and, having had access to the computer lab, presented a polished letter.

When a second student in an Effective Speaking course decided at the last minute to sing Christmas carols instead of playing the taped address which he and his peer tutor had so diligently prepared for his presentation, only his tutor squirmed. All the other students applauded his efforts, and his instructor awarded him a resounding grade of seventy-one percent with a written congratulation for knowing better than anyone else in the class “how to really get into the act of presenting”.

Support Staff
The support staff at Humber proved to be unsung heros, providing help on a regular basis. This was the case when one student, intending to take twenty dollars out of a bank machine, accidentally got the decimal point in the wrong place and ended up with significantly more money. She immediately received a lesson on making a deposit. The people at the library desk became well-acquainted with one student who, while searching for her library card in her wallet, would always fumble, dropping all the photographs of her family, her cat, and even one of herself “when she had short hair”. Reassembling her paraphernalia always took a few minutes, enough time to chat and to offer to show the photos around, again.

Cafeteria cashiers learned to slow the pace down to allow people time to count out their money. One cashier even ran a tab to accommodate a favourite student who loved the fish and chips platter but did not always have enough money to pay for it. How that till was balanced every night is still a mystery!

Parent Advocacy
Parents have been involved since the founding of the Humber program and they now play a pivotal role on the Advisory Committee. Some people question the appropriateness of involving parents, knowing how most college students are fairly independent of their families. Despite these doubts, parent support is essential, and communication between parents and faculty has become an accepted part of the daily routine.

Many parents, well on their way to burn-out after twenty or more years of advocacy and struggle, now watch their sons and daughters thrive in college. It brings them new energy and fresh resolve for facing the impending question of work. Somehow the posibilities for their children seem greater than before. They see improved self-confidence and motivation in their children. Several said this was the first time their son or daughter saw him or herself as someone who could make a contribution and have a place in society. One father, commenting on his son’s daily telephone conversation with a longstanding friend, said he could not get over the growth of his son’s vocabulary and how much more worldly he was in his conversation.

Student Involvement
Students supported by CICE certainly benefitted, and so did their peers, as is obvious in the testimonial of a human services student:

Ask students why they chose to go to college and they will invariably mention the possibility of making new friends. Some students might set a higher priority on getting a well-paying and secure job, others on getting a good education, but the social aspects are a very attractive feature of student life. Many life-long friendships trace their beginnings to meetings at concerts, lecture halls and cafeterias on campus. Other relationships fade when the college years are over but are long remembered as part of an important stage of personal growth and discovery.

As students pursue their own interests, there are endless possibilities for meeting other students with similar interests: dancing at the monthly pubs; attending poetry readings in the library; setting up the sound system for a concert or jam session; at a quiet magazine rack in the library or a music listening corner. Whole sections of the cafeteria are devoted to card games and homework; these are places where camaraderie and collaboration on assignments are encouraged. Organized opportunities to socialize also abound: at student council fund-raising barbecues, aerobathons, and morale-boating mid-winter madness escapads. The opportunities for personal development are an important part of the culture of colleges and universities.

One particular young man comes to mind. His parents withdrew him from the sheltered workshop he had been attending for a number of years and applied to Humber on his behalf.

Justifiably suspicious that he was in for something completely different, he arrived the first day with his Walkman. He kept the earphones pluged in for several weeks while he assessed his new situation. It must have been bewildering returning to school after having been in the “workplace”, and suddenly having to learn what was considered acceptable behaviour in a college setting, and having to assimilate the dress code and the constant socializing. Gradually he became more comfortable as the students got to know him. Some said “Hi”, others helped him write letters to his favourite uncle, still others talked hockey scores with him. A few insisted he improve his math skills by joining them at cards. Not immune to the flirting and sexuality so much apart of the atmosphere, his first year was replete with crushes and frustration at unrequited love.

For a time he chose to work in the parking lot with the attendant. Between accepting parking fees and waving through people with permits he and the attendant chatted about the weather, the latest politician involved in a scandal, sporting highlights and weekends. When both men left the college they saw no good reason for these conversations to end and they have been friends since.

The Transition to the Workplace
The training, skills and personal contacts that come with a quality integrated educational experience lead to greater employment opportunities. Post-secondary settings are natural places for students to make the transition from school to the workplace. Students everywhere leave high school and decide to further their education, thereby gaining some time to mature, broaden their base of experience, and make decisions about their interests before considering the issue of work.

Evaluating Success
As the Humber program moves towards stability and permanence, administrators and faculty members have expressed interest in what the students are actually learning in class; they claim to see the social value of integration, but they can’t always he certain about the educational value.

Standards for student evaluation and success will need to be developed but the challenge is to make them particular to each student and each individual program.

That raises another looming issue: grades. All students want to be graded on their work. But when support is given to some students on all their assignments and tests, and the tash themselves are tangibly altered, questions about the validity and comparability of grades inevitably arise. The instructor who gives a student sixty-five per cent on a photography assignment but who admits that he helped the student load the film and adjust the camera, gets full marks in my books for appropriate support; other people allege bias.

Perhaps evaluations could he comprised of written comments only, applauding accomplishment and pointing out areas yet to he mastered. Or they could be a numerical grade measuring the distance between where the student started from and where they have reached.

Another challenge is graduation. Eventually, the college may choose to hold a ceremony in which students graduate with their peers and receive a modified diploma indicating their participation and achievements.

There is always a sense of urgency in overcoming these obstacles for people with disabilities because so much time has already been wasted. Dr. Robert Gordon, president of Humber, reflected after six years of integration:

Today’s students become tomorrow’s neighbours, co-workers, journalists, law-makers, public servants, teachers and employers. The values inculcated in them by a truly inclusive educational environment will shape future communities. These people will advance the efforts of the community living movement in seeking opportunities for people with mental handicaps. When institutes of higher education make a welldefined commitment to becoming more inclusive, at a time when issues of equality and rights are high on Canadians’ agendas, they will ensure that their own fixture is both relevant and socially responsible.

Gordon, Dr. Robert (President, Humber College). (June 1990).
From an address to faculty and staff.

Sachs, Oliver. (1989). Seeing Voices: A journey into the world of the deaf. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Sachs, Oliver. (1982). Awakenings. (Revised edition). London: Pimdor, Pan Books Ltd.

Biklen, Douglas. (1985). Integration in school and society. In Biklen, Douglas (Ed). Achieving the Complete School: Strategies for effective mainstreaming. New York: Teachers’ College Press, Columbia University, pp. 174-186.
“Success with integration in schools depends on and also fuels integration in society at large”. This chapter suggests five principles upon which to base the social transformation which must accompany successful integration.

Booth, T. (1988). Challenging conceptions of integration. In L. Barton (Ed). The Politics of Special Educational Needs. London: Falmer Press, pp. 97-122.
The author suggests that the goals of integration are to redefine “normality” to include diversity and to support people to identify their own aspirations and opportunities. He looks critically at the different ways in which the concept of integration has been interpreted in literature. The concept of integration should prompt teachers and others to challenge the social relations and curricula of schools and link these to the ways in which inequalities are maintained.

Brown, Bill. (1990). La dolce vita: Integrated schools in Italy make it possible for everyone. entourage, 5(2&3), pp. 15-I7, 20.
In 1971, integrated schooling was mandated by Italian law for all students aged six to fourteen years. This article describes the continuing struggle with issues of labelling, time individualization and appropriate supports, after almost twenty years of experience with an integrated system.

The author notes that the importance of Italy’s experience is that “they have done it …​ They have made and continue to make systemic changes that encourage the valuing of all young people …​ that make it possible to simply stop separating people and then work on the problems as they arise.” In this way, integration is presented, not as a singular event, but as an effort that “will never be finished.”

Brown, Freda and Donna H. Lehr (Eds.). (1989). Integration for students with profound disabillities. In Persons with Profound Disabilities: Issues and practices. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
This chapter presents a rationale for the integration of students with handicaps into the regular school, listing benefits for the integated child, the family, students without disabilities, and professional staff. The authors maintain that, in the United States, integration practice lags behind federal law and that a major barrier is “philosophical inertia”.

They conclude that, “While students with the most profound disabilities may pose particular integration challenges for schools and parents, their inclusion is not less possible nor less important than that of students with milder disabilities being placed into regular public school.”

Kunc, Norman. (1984 ). Integration: Being realistic isn’t realistic. Canadian Journal for Exceptional Children, 1(1), pp. 4-8.
This article challenges the usefulness of the integration vs. segregation debate. Ideological arguments which themselves constitute barriers to integration include manipulation of the phrase “best interests of the child”, an attitude of defeatism, the “limited time and energy” argument, fear of social rejection on behalf of students with handicaps, and a “handicapped school system.”

Little, Donald M. (1988). The redefinition of special education: Special-ordinary education …​ individualized and personalized in the regular class, Education Canada, 28(1), pp. 36-43.
The author defines “special-ordinary education” as “individualized education” and notes that “teachers in the regular classroom have been making modifications and allowances for years in order to accommodate individual needs.” He changes the focus from learning problems to problems of instruction, suggesting that, with support, teachers can modify and individualize the curriculum for any student, especially if they regard every student in the class as a potential co-teacher.

Little, Donald M. (1985). A crime apinst childhood — Uniform curriculum at a uniform rate: Mainstreaming re-examined and redefined. Canadian Journal of Special Education, 2(1), pp. 91-107.
The author challenges ten often-heard objections to mainstreaming. Attitudes detrimental to mainstreaming include a tendency to think in terms of a unified prescribed curriculum and a focus on the disability rather than on the person and the person’s abilities, “hence building a case against the child, rather than for the child’s inclusion in the regular classroom.”

He further states that there is a need for regular classroom teachers to accept responsibility for all students and to accept a wider range of individual differences. The corollary to this is the provision of appropriate support, information and resources to teachers. He concludes that, “It is not that mainstreaming has been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.”

Lipsky, Dorothy K. and Alan Gartner. (1989). Beyond Separate Education: Quality education for all. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Co.
As the title implies,the chapters of this book are framed in the context of the broader school reform movement. The chapters address the question of how to create exemplary programs for all students This starting point poses a basic challenge to the conception and design of education programs in general.

The models discussed here have two major factors in common: 1) the acceptance of responsibility by the classroom teacher for a diverse group of students; and 2) an understanding of such diversity as meeting opportunity and not difficulty. Included are chapters on accommodating student diversity through the curriculum, peer relations in the classroom, teacher preparation, degrees of disability, and parental roles.

New Brunswick Department of Education. (1987). Integration Means All our Children Belong. Fredericton, NB: New Brunswick Department of Education, Student Services Branch.
This document begins with an unequivocal value position in favour of integrated education. It illustrates the positive experiences that resulted when a provincial Ministry of Education officially adopted a policy of full integration for all children in regular classrooms. Photographs are combined with the comments of teachers, students and parents.

Sailor, W., J.L. Anderson, A.T. Halvorsen, K. Doering, J. Filler and L. Goetz. (1989). The Comprehensive Local School: Regular education for all students with disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
This hook focuses on the ability of the local neighbourhood school to educate children with severe handicaps. It is based on literature reviews and on research comparing integrated to segregated educational models.

Sections are organized by age and school level — primary, elementary, secondary, transition and post-school years.

The authors maintain that all children with disabilities should be able to receive their education at their local school and that some of this education should take place in the regular classroom.

Sobsey, Richard. (1986). Emerging issues in social integration. American Association on Mental Deficiency (AAMD): Education Update, 11, p. 2
Three issues in the social integration of students with handicaps are highlighted. First, the author argues that full integration is the only acceptable route for the education system. Second, he points out the difficulties in defining and promoting the development of friendships as distinct from helper-helped relationships between children without and with handicaps. Third, he raises the issue of how students’ relationships at school carry over to their relationships outside of school.

Stainback, William and Susan Stainback. (1986). One system. one purpose: The integration of special and regular education. entourage, 1(3). pp. 12-16.
The authors maintain that operating a “dual system of education” is unfair, inefficient, and expensive. They argue for the incorporation of all the resources and services (funding, curriculum, personnel) from both regular and special education into a single unified educational system.

Stainback, Susan, William Stainback and Marsha Forest (Eds.). (1989). Educating All Students in the Mainstream off regular Education. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

This comprehensive textbook builds from a historical overview of education integration and explores the rationale behind the movement toward a merger of regular and special education. Practial strategies show how all students — whether labelled gifted, non-disabled or disabled — can excel educationally and socially within a regular classroom. Chapters are organized around key themes including educational equality in practice, strategies to promote merging systems, how to meet diverse student needs, and family and community support.

Centre for Research and Education in Human Services. (1985). Special Education Legislation: Implications for children, parents, and school boards. The case of Bill 82 in Ontario. Kitchener, Ont; CRESH.
In this policy analysis paper, education legislation in Ontario is analyzed from several perspectives including its mandate and authority, underlying values, and issues of implementation and outcomes. The paper concludes that new policy options need to be considered which are strongly grounded in the principles of the rights of the child, integration of all children, and equality of access to educational opportunity.

Forest, Marsha. (1987). Keys to integration: Common sense ideas and hard work. entourage, 2(1), pp. 16-19.
Noting that “integated settings are on the increase all across the country,” this article promotes individualized programs and the discontinuation of a special, segregated education system. Three school boards in Ontario are identified as implementors of fully integrated systems and their success is largely attributed to committed administrators. Problems with integration are characterized as ones of injustice which belong to school boards and not to individual children.

Frigon, Odette. (1988). Stopping segregation. entourage, 3(1), pp. 35-39
This article documents the experience of a francophone school board with a board-wide integration project “based on principles of justice and equality.” It had a previous history of special, segregated services. The author describes the practical steps taken tofulfil integration goals, noting that the most important step is mustering the necessary political will.

Gilbert, Francoise. (1986). Integrated education in Québec: Breaking the barriers. entourage, 1(4)., pp. 6-10.
This article briefly documents how Québec education services grew in a segregated fashion and how “experts” in special education came to be relied upon. The author describes successful but prolonged individual battles of parents to integrate their children and claims, “The time for a case-by-case approach is long gone. The Minister of Education must now consider an overall policy.”

Endicott, Orville. (1986). Education rights: Parents put on the pressure. entourage, 1(3), pp. 34-37.
Across Canada, school boards, placement committees, appeal tribunals, human rights commissions and courts are hearing cases in which parents are claiming that it is inappropriate and discriminatory to segregate school children who have mental handicap from their peers. With reference to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to particular legal cases in Canada,this article acknowledges the courage and determination of the parents involved as key factors in the struggle for educational integration.

Endicott, Orville. (1987). The Elwood Settlement Agreement: What does it mean? entourage, 2(3), pp. 36-37, 42.
This article recounts the legal struggle of one family to obtain integrated education for their son, Luke. It attributes the capitulation of the school board, before court action, to a foundation of claims under the Charter of Rights, expert testimony regarding integrated programming, the principles of Luke’s parents, and Luke himself, who “blossomed and grew” during his one year of integrated schooling.

While it did not lead to a binding judicial agreement, this case will provide valuable evidence in subsequent cases regarding education integration as a right.

Greey, Madeleine. (1991). We all belong: Welcoming children with special needs. Today’s Parent, April, pp.34-40.
Casting the issue as a civil rights battle and a fight for the right to belong, this article presents the struggles of a number of parents fighting for community integration for their children. Successful integration experiences at camp, at school and with other families are contested with experiences of exclusion.

The author notes that, while some school boards in Ontario follow a policy of full integration, only in New Brunswick is integration mandated by law and practised province-wide.

Some Canadian resources for parents (organizations, videos, and books) are listed at the end of the article.

Huber, Marc. (1990). Becky: A story about courage, human rights and a national dilemma. Homemakers’ Magazine, May, pp. 11-20. This is the story of an Ontario family’s legal battle to obtain integrated school placement for their adopted daughter. The article presents the views of those advocating Becky’s inclusion in her neighbourhood school and the opposing views of school board officials and others who believed that her needs would best be met in a segregated school with special staff and resources.

The author notes that although “the integration of disabled people is accepted in principle in today’s society, entrenched in the Charter of rights and Freedoms, and championed by human rights organizations,” it is not always practised.

McCallum, S. Dulcie. (1987). A giant step for all kids. entourage, 2(3),pp. 38-39. This article describes the case of Elwood et. cl. versus the Halifax-County Bedford District School Board. One family, through legal counsel, achieved integrated class placement for their son, Luke. The author outlines the main terms of the Settlement Agreement which addressed all parental concerns and forestalled a court action based on the Charter of Rights. The enthusiasm of Luke’s classmates and their parents for his integrated placement reflects growing community support for educational integration.

Biklen, Douglas, and Steven J. Taylor. (1985). School district administrators: Leadership strategies. In Biklen Douglas (Ed.). Achieving the Complete School: Strategies for effective mainstreaming. New York: Teachers’ College Press, Columbia University. pp. 104-149.
This chapter suggests effective strategies which can be employed by principals, superintendents, and school board personnel to promote integration. In order to act, the administrator must identify decision- makers and mobilize leadership within the system.

Of particular interest is a section on eleven barriers to integration (such as attitudinal, jurisdictional, administrative, political) and the promising practices which address these barriers.

Reidiger, Edwin, Alex Hillyard and Richard Sobsey. (1986). Integration of handicapped children: Administrative strategies. Canadian Journal for Exceptional Children, 2(3). pp. 90-96.
One of the keys to a successful integration program is a strong administrative commitment to integration together with effectively mobilized support at the classroom level. This article offers ten important considerations for school principals who are planning for integration.

Stainback, G.H., W.C. Stainback and S.B. Stainback. (1988). Superintendents’ attitudes toward integration. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 23, pp. 92-95.
This is a survey of attitudes of superintendents of schools toward educating students labelled as severely or profoundly handicapped in regular neighbourhood schools. Of those surveyed, 34 per cent were uncertain of their attitude, 15.5 per cent held negative views, and 50.5 per cent had positive views.

Tanguay, S. (1985). Mainstreaming: Some issues for school boards. Toronto: Canadian Education Association.
Based on a cross-Canada survey, this paper discuses many of the issues facing school boards in developing and maintaining integrated programs. Respondents noted trends toward services based on specific needs rather than on category of handicap, and toward full rather than partial integration. Major concerns about integration centred around issues of teacher preparation, teacher confidence, and the provision of adequate support services to teachers.

Wilson, William C. (1989). Administrative strategies for integration. In Gaylord-Ross, R. (Ed.). Integration Strategies for Students with Handicaps. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., pp. 299-319.
This author describes a new integration, namely, the integration of the special education service system into a new, total education service system. He summarizes the legal basis for school integration in the United States and makes a distinction between following the spirit and following the letter of the law. Eight key administrative strategies are outlined for facilitating a high quality education system for all students, regardless of the presence or severity of handicap.

Csapo, M. and D. Baine. (1985). Teachers of students with severe handicaps. Canadian Journal of Exceptional Children, 1, pp. 130-135.
The authors describe the demands that deinstitutionalization has placed on regular and special education teachers and administrators. They also present the results of a recent Canada-wide survey of programs which prepare teachers and others to work with students who have severe and multiple handicaps.

Darvill, C.E. (1989). Teacher attitudes to mainstreaming. Canadian Journal of Special Education, 5(1), pp. 1-14.
This author suggests that, while teacher attitudes are one of the most powerful factors affecting the success of mainstreaming, much of the existing research in this area is conflicting or inconclusive. More work is needed around the implications of labels used for students with handicaps, and around mainstreaming practices, instruments for measuring attitudes, and the degree to which reseach on attitudes can be generalized.

Hill, J.L. (1988). Integration in Canada: Implications for the certification of regular education teachers (RETS). Canadian Journal of Special Education, 4, pp. 123-131.
The author presents the results of a survey of deputy ministers of education and directors of special education across Canada regarding certification requirements for teachers to work with children with special needs. Two jurisdictions required completion of a course in special education by regular teachers. No province or territory required practicum experience with students with special needs.

Since regular teachers increasingly provide educational programs to children with more diverse needs, this article points up possible training and certification implications based on the trend toward education integration in Canada.

Hummel, Jeffrey W., Donald Dworet and Mariam Walsh. (1986). Exceptional students in regular classrooms: Teacher attitudes and teacher in-service needs. Canadian Journal for Exceptional Children, 2(1), pp. 14-17.
Based on a survey of teachers in two southern Ontario school boards, as well as on the conclusions of other related research studies, this author calls for an increase in the variety and intensity of in-service education options for teachers. Quality in-service education can facilitate teacher confidence, sense of support, and knowledge regarding the classroom integration of exceptional students.

Lilly, Stephen M. (1989). Teacher preparation. In Lipsky, Dorothy K. and Alan Gartner. Beyond Separate Education: Quality education for all. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., pp. 143-157.
American teacher preparation programs continue to be linked to specific handicaps and based on assumptions of student deficit rather than teacher ability. This chapter describes one vision for the future in which “special” teacher preparation programs will disappear and one system will prepare all teachers.

The author sees this structural change in teacher education as a difficult but inevitable and exciting development which has already begun and which will parallel the growth of student integration in the schools.

Powers, M.D. (1983). Mainstreaming and the in-service education of teachers. Exceptional Children, 49, pp. 432-439.
This article asserts the importance of in-service training for regular classroom teachers as an important component for successful mainstreaming. It also points out the need for more data collection and research on this topic. Guidelines are presented for in-service training methods, format, content, needs assessment, goals and objectives, scheduling, evaluation, school administration and instructional materials.

Reynolds, M.C. and J .W. Birch. (1988). Adaptive Mainstreaming: A primer for teachers and principals. White Plains, NY: Longman. Techniques are presented for responding to the needs of a wide range of children with handicaps in the regular classroom. Sections address assessment, teaching and teamwork, cognitive development, language and speech, sensory and physical handicaps and severe and profound disabilities. The authors encourage a non-categorical approach to the provision of special education services in an integrated environment.

Salend, S.J. (1984). Factors contributing to the development of successful mainstreaming programs. Exceptional Children, 50, pp. 409-416.
The success of mainstreaming programs can be enhanced by attention to: criteria for mainstreaming; preparing students with and without handicaps; promoting communication among educators; evaluating student progress; and providing in-service training.

Searl, Standford J., Dianne L. Ferguson and Doug Biklen. (1985). The front line …​ teachers. In Biklen, Douglas (Ed.). Achieving the Complete School: Strategies for effective mainstreaming. New York: Teachers’ College Press, Columbia University, pp. 52-103.

Teachers can play a critical role in making integration work if they have support from administrators, teachers and parents. They also need practial strategies and principles with which to work.

This chapter outlines three basic principles which can provide the foundation for successful integration: 1) a commitment to integration as a value; 2) use of a functional curriculum model; and 3) community referenced instruction.

Stainback, William and Susan Stainhack. (1989).Facilitating merger through personnel preparation. In Stainback, Susan, William Stainback and Marsha Forest (Eds). Educating all Students in the Mainstream of Regular Education. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
By integrating personnel, programs and resources in special and regular education departments, colleges and universities can set the stage for a unified regular education system for elentary and secondary schools. This chapter suggests steps for doing it, including a “common professional core of courses for all educators” and “community referenced curricular content.”

Stainback. S.B. and W.C. Stainback. (1983). Preparing regular classroom teachers for the integration of severely handicapped students: An experimental study. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 18, pp. 204-209.
Thirty-seven teachers read and discussed information related to the integration of students with severe handicaps into regular schools. The results of this study indicate that teachers’ attitudes and behavioural intentions regarding this issue can be significantly influenced by such a program of reading and discussion.

Whitehouse, Carlene. (1988). Integration — a personal perspective. New Brunswick Teacher’s Association News, 30(10), pp. 12-13.
This article is written by a teacher who, with no special training, integrated Susan, a student with handicaps, into her Grade 5 classroom. She documents her initial fears and worries about her ability to meet Susan’s various needs, and about the increased work load and the possible impact on the academic progress of other students. Yet what originally seemed a daunting task evolves into a mutual learning process for all. The author learns to involve Susan in the general program, make small adaptations to the curriculum, and allow and encourage natural interactions with peers.

Wang, Margaret C., Eva D. Vaughan and Joan A. Dytman (1985). Staff development: A key ingredient of effective mainstreaming. Teaching Exceptional Children, 17(2), pp. 112-121.
An Adaptive Learning Environments Model (ALEM) was implemented in five schools of a large urban school system as a full-time mainstreaming program. It was designed for students with mild handicaps who had previously been served in self-contained special education programs. While many general education teachers had expected problems in dealing with students with mental handicaps, difficulties were rare. Staff development was identified by participating teachers as a key factor in the program’s success.

The authors call for renegotiation of the roles of both general and special education staff. They see general education teachers acting as the primary instructors for all students and special education teachers providing consultation and special instruction as needed in the classroom.

Winner, M. (1984). Mainstreaming the handicapped child: Attitudes of teachers and non-teachers. Canadian Journal for Exceptional Children, 1(1), pp. 23-26.*
An attitude survey reveals that regular classroom teachers question their own competence to teach a child with special needs. They also fear increased time demands and worry about dilution of the academic content of their programs. This article calls for a continued focus on staff development on integration issues, since the regular classroom teacher “is the indispensable professional who will carry the primary responsibility for integrating the exceptional child.”

Baker, C. and G. Baker. (1982) Suggestions on how to more effectively mainstream special education students. Special Education in Canada, 57(3). pp. 16-18.
Ideas to assist teachers in facilitating integration address placement in the classroom, preparation of the regular teacher, preparation of all the students, and follow-up.

Berres, Michael S. and Peter Knoblock (Eds.). (1986). Program Models for Mainstreaming: Integrating students with moderate to revere disabilities. Rockville, MD: Aspen Publishers. This hook begins with the assumption that integrating children with moderate to severe disabilities depends more upon the attitudes and problem-solving skills of the educators than on the skills of the students. The first section focuses on the values and philosophy of integration and discusses models for change within the school system. The second section describes integration efforts in school systems across the U.S.. These include accounts of innovative practices, successes, failures and the particular challenges presented by different disabilities.

Biklen, Douglas (Ed.). (1985). Achieving the Complete School: Strategies for effective mainstreaming. New York: Teachers’ College Press, Columbia University.
This highly readable text focuses on specific strategies that people employ to promote successful integration. When does integration work well, why, and how? Specific chapters address the roles of the principal, teachers, school administrators and parents in contributing to successful integration.

Bishop, V. E. (1986). Identifying the components of success in mainstreaming. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 80, pp. 939-946.
The author collected opinions of teachers, students, parents and principals concerning the most important factors in successful mainstreaming for students with visual handicap. Factors identified included peer acceptance and interaction, flexibility of the teacher, academic achievement, positive self-image, independence and inner motivation in the student, family acceptance, available school support personnel and adequate supplies and equipment.

Booth, T. and P. Potts (Eds.). (l983). Integrating Special Education. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
This text presents viewpoints on how integration should be implemented in Great Britain. Methods and issues include cooperative teaching, the use of itinerant remedial teachers, resource bases within ordinary schools, out-of-class activities, administrative changes, behaviour modification, and support services. While contributors differ somewhat in their strategies, all start from the position that educational integration is a proper and viable goal.

Brady, Michael P. and Philip L. Gunter (Eds.). (1985). Integrating Moderately and Severely Handicapped Learners: Strategies that work. Springfield, ILL: Charles C. Thomas.
This practical guide does not ask, “Does integration work?” or “Who can be integrated?” Instead it addresses the question, “How can we make integration efforts successful?” It places educational integration within the larger context of overall community inclusion.

Sections cover strategies for administration, service delivery, and planning and implmentation of individualized plans. Included are how-to ideas and checklists of ways to involve students with severe handicaps in regular programs.

The authors conclude that “Integrated school experiences can be provided for all severely handicapped students across a variety of school settings.”

Forest, Marsha (Ed.). (1984). Education/Integration: A collection of readings on the integration of children with mental handicaps into regular school systems. Downsview, Ont.: National Institute on Mental Retardation.
Twelve short and readable articles reflect on the philosophical underpinnings of integrated education. They relate the philosophy to implementation, and describe a variety of real-life examples of integration in action in Canadian classrooms.

Forest, Marsha (Ed.). (1987). More Education/Integration: A further collection of readings on the integration of children with mental handicaps into regular school systems. Downsview, Ont.: The G. Allan Roeher Institute.
Twenty-three articles cover a wide variety of education and integration topics including: the philosophy and characteristics of an integrated system, a variety of Canadian program examples, roles of teachers and the importance of peers and friends.

Gaylord-Ross R. (Ed.). (1989). Integration Strategies for Students with Handicaps. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Emphasizing actual teaching techniques, this book is of interest to teachers, administrators, and parents. Section I includes seven chapters about specific disabilities and integration. Section II focuses on innovative techniques and Section III outlines changes needed in the education system.

The forms of integration described and advocated for cannot be achieved by special education alone. “It will be necessary for ‘regular’ teachers to join in the process of creating new and more inclusive programs that encompass literally all students.”

Hodgson, A., L. Clunies-Ross and S. Hegarty. (1984). Learning Together: Teaching pupils with special educational needs in the ordinary school. Windsor, Berks., ENG: NFER-Nelson.
Educational integation in Britain is prompting the need for curriculum modification to meet a range of learning needs in the ordinary classroom. This book addresses modifications to the academic curriculum, staffing issues, and teaching strategies including classroom organization, monitoring pupils’ progress and the use of adult and peer tutors.

Homer, R.H., L.H. Meyer and H.D. Fredericks (Eds.). (1986). Education of learners with Severe Handicaps: Exemplary service strategies. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Based on values of normalization and integration, chapters in this volume offer technological innovations to assist effective teaching in the integrated classroom. Sections present five exemplary service models, three major advances in curriculum development, and four specific instructional procedures.

This text has immediate practical relevance for teachers, administrators, parents and service providers.

Larivee, B. (1985). Effective Teaching for Successful Mainstreaming. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Teacher effectiveness in fostering achievement and personal and social adjustment of integrated studants with mild handicaps is shown to be part of overall teacher effectiveness in the classroom.

O’Brien, John and Marsha Forest. (1989). Action for Inclusion: How to improve schools by welcoming children with special needs into regular classrooms. Toronto: Frontier College Press.
An action-oriented manual, this text is based on a strong ideological commitment to the unconditional inclusion of all children in the regular classroom and the provision of appropriate individualized supports.

Common misunderstandinsg, goals and practical step for integration are outlined in five sections: 1) the family’s expectations; 2) enlisting the help of the neighbourhood school principal; 3) enrolling the teacher; 4) involving classmates; and 5) the making of action plans (MAPs). The placement of an integration consultant or facilitator in the school is advocated.

Snell, Martha E. and Stanley J. Eichner. (1989). Integration for students with profound disabilities. In Brown, Fredda and Donna H. Lehr. Persons with Profound Disabilities: Issues and practices. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., pp. 109-138.
The chapter discusses the rationale for integration in terms of the benefits for all concerned: students with severe and profound disabilities (including those with multiple handicaps and medically fragile conditions), their families, students without disabilities and professional staff. Sections also focus on strategies for obtaining integrated programs and barriers to their implementation.

Stainback, S.B. and W.C. Stainbeck. (1988). Educating students with severe disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 21, pp. 16-19.
The authors provide an overview of strategies for integrating students with severe disabilities into regular classes. Strategies include: designating a support facilitator; developing networks; encouraging respect for all students; and using special education resources in regular, integrated classrooms.

Stainback, S.B. and W.C. Stainback. (1985). Integration of Students with Severe Handicaps into Regular Schools. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
This introduction for classroom teachers provides information on how to educate all students about individual differences and how to promote interaction between students with and without handicaps. Two chapters focus on teaching students with severe handicaps the social and related skills needed to facilitate integration. The authors make positive sugestions about how to promote the integration of students with severe handicaps into regular school programs and activities.

Stainback, W.C., S.B. Stainback, L. Courtnage and T. Jaben. (1985). Facilitating mainstreaming by modifiving the mainstreaming. Exceptional Children, 52, pp. 144-152.
This article eyamines some of the problems in the current organizational structure of schools that hinder regular classroom teachers from being able to adapt their instruction to meet diverse student needs. They suggest a framework for finding a solution.

Taylor, S.J. (1982). From segregation to integration: Strategies for integrating seveely handicapped students in normal school and community settings. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 7(3). pp. 42-49.
Practical strategies to facilitate integration are presented: dispersal of students; planned interaction; provision of program support; and support for regular teachers. The author also underlines the need for staff integration, parental support, and positive attitudes.

Thousand, Jacqueline, S.T. Fox, R. Reid, J. Godek, W. Williams and W. Fox. (1886). The Homecoming Model: Educating students who present intensive educational challenges within regular education environments. University of Vermont: Center for Developmental Disabilities.
This integration model is based on a plan to bring students “home” from special education programs and prevent others from ever being placed in them. Based on the concept of individualized education for all, this model enabled Vermont school districts to integrate students who present some of the most intensive educational challenges within regular classrooms. Participating teachers felt they had more say, were more comfortable and bad better access to special education consultation than expected.

This resource includes many “how-to” strategies relating to administrative commitment, building the staff team, using consultative support, addressing common fears, and specific classroom-level integration strategies. A set of six appendices includes illustrative daily schedules and class activity guides.

Thousand, J. and R.A. Villa. (1988). Enhancing Success in Heterogenous Classrooms and Schools. Burlington, YT: University of Vermont, Center for Developmental Disabilities.
Certain practices appear to be associated with successful schooling of students in heterogenous (mixed ability) groupings. These include: outcome-based instructional models; creative use of peers; multi-age groupings and in-service training which consciously promotes common conceptual frameworks, kowledge and language among school staff.

York, Jennifer and Terri Vandercook. (1990). Strategies for achieving an integrated education for middle school students with severe disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 11(5). pp. 6-16.
This article places integration issues in the context of overall school reform by asking the critical question, “Are schools organized in a way to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse student population?”

The authors promote a change from a self-contained special education classroom model of service delivery to a more integrated approach in which special education is a service and support provided in general education environments. To achieve overall change, integration should adhere to natural proportions, identify and use natural supports, use a participation approach and demonstrate success locally. School-level strategists should identify all collaborators, communicate with all members of the school community, and share space.

York, J.,T. Vandercook, C. Macdonald and C. Wolff. (Eds.). (1989). Strategies for Full Inclusion. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.
This is a compilation of seven papers related to designing and implementing integration in education.

Topics include the McGill Action Planning System (MAPS) for developing and implementing a vision of integrated education for a student; the process of creating an individual education plan(IEP) and developing instructional prgrams for use in an integrated classroom, and advantages and disadvantages of having an extra staff person present in the classroom.

One paper outlines four learning opportunities available to students with handicaps in integrated regular classes: 1) learning to interact with peers; 2) learning to participate in typical routines; 3) learning lifelong skills; and 4) learning about subjects not related to functional life skills.

Forest, Marsha. (1986). Education integration. entourage, 1(1), pp. 19-23.
These are the stories of two children, one in Grade 2 and one in Grade 8, who are in fully integrated, individualized programs in schools in Hamilton, Ontario. The cooperative roles of the regular classroom teacher and special education resource teachers and aides are discussed. Forest maintains that the key issue in integration implementation is the “desire to do so” and not the need for money, resources or special equipment.

Forest, Marsha. (1986). Just one of the kids. entourage, 1(2), pp. 20-23.
Two children with severe handicaps are successfully integrated into a primary classroom. Their teacher describes her own learning process that led her to conclude that “their needs were the needs of all children” and “my own fear was the major problem.”

Forest, Marsha. (1987). Start with the right attitude. entourage, 2(2). pp. 11-13.
Although nine-year-old Sabrina was labelled autistic and severely to profoundly retarded, she experienced remarkable progress in an individualized program within a regular Grade 4/5 classroom. A major concern of staff was the possible rejection of Sabrina because of her anti-social behaviour. However, they found that a consistent approach and the natural acceptance of her peers led to significant growth. This article supports the view that school systems can and will change as they see integration working.

Forest, Marsha and Mary Mayer. (1987). Education Waterloo-style. entourage, 2(4). pp. 20-25.
This article documents the experience of one school board in Ontario which made a policy commitment to “move all children into their neighbourhood schools with appropriate services.” Four schools — two elementary and two secondary — initially served as models for the entire system. The experiences of two students and their teacher/integration facilitator are described. The authors pose the question, “If one board can do it why can’t they all?”

Giangreco, M.F. and M. Meyer. (1988). Expanding service delivery options in regular schools and classrooms for students with severe disabilities. In J.L. Graden, J.E. Sims and M.J. Curtis (Eds.). Alternative Educational Delivery Systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students. Kent, OH: National Association of School Psychologists, pp. 21-47.
This chapter presents an overview of the principles and practices of integrated educational programs for students with severe disabilities. “Most promising practices” in general and innovative programs in Canada and the United States are identified. The ways in which the school psychologist can help to support integation are discussed.

Penner, Irma and Peter Penner. (1987). Friends forever. entourage, 2(8), pp. 32-35.
The positive experience of partial integration in Grade 7 led the parents of Yvonne Penner to request a totally integrated Grade 8 program at her St.John’s, Newfoundland school. This article describes Yvonne’s accomplishments in communication skills, interpersonal relationships, and educational goals.

Her parents conclude, “We commend the school board for taking the courageous step of total intqration and not falling into the readiness trap. Children are always ready — they just need the appropriate supports.”

Pivato, Emma and Sandra Chomicki. (1986). The G.R.I.T. kids start school. entourage, 1(3), pp. 6-10.
This article follows five children whose preschool years included intensive developmental programming in their own homes as part of the Gateway Residential Intensive Training (G.R.I.T.) program in Edmonton, Alberta. The children, who have severe handicaps, are successfully integrated into regular primary school classes. The article notes that, “As long as adequate supports are provided, the viability of such an educational option is no longer in question.”

Affleck, James Q., S. Madge, A. Adams and S. Lowenbraun. (1988). Integrated classroom versus resource model: Academic viability and effectiveness. Exceptional Children, 54(4), pp. 339-348.
The integrated classroom model described in this article has eight mildly handicapped students (labelled as learning disabled, mildly mentally retarded, and seriously behaviourally disabled) in a class of twenty-four.

Such integrated classrooms are shown to be more cost-effective than resource room programs while they also enable students to achieve similar academic results. This article gives evidence that providing special education in a regular classroom setting is an attractive and achievable option to the resource room withdrawal model.

Jenkins, Joseph R. and Amy Heinen. (1989). Students’ preferences for service delivery: Pull-out, in-class, or integrated models. Exceptional Chilldren, 55(6), pp. 516-523.
This study attempted to fill a gap in literature by investigating students’ perceptions and preferences about where and from whom they receive special help. Children with mild handicaps in Grades 2, 4 and 5 were interviewed. The fact that students had different levels of knowledge and experiences of different models makes the results complicated. The authors conclude that most students prefer to obtain additional help within the general education classroom from their classroom teacher or from other non-specialists who are familiar with them and their classroom curriculum.

Lowenbraun, Sheila, Sally Madge and James Affleck. (1990). Parental satisfaction with integrated class placements of special education and general education students. Remedial and Special Education, 11(4), pp. 37-40.
This survey compared satisfaction of parents of special education students and parents of general education students whose children were all placed in integrated elementary classrooms. Both groups of parents were equally satisfied with the integrated classroom model.

Parents who had previously experienced a resource room approach indicated that they were satisfied with both integrated placement or resource room placement for academic progress but were significantly more satisfied with the integration option for their child’s selfesteem and opportunity to make friends.

Madge, Sally, James Affleck and Sheila Lowenbraun. (1990). Social effects of integrated classrooms and resource room/regular class placements on elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(7), pp. 439-445.
This study tentatively concludes that children served by an integrated classroom model have a better opportunity to blend succesfully into the classroom than children who go out to a resource room.

Wang,Margaret C.and Jack W. Birch.(184). comparison of a full-time mainstraiming program and a resource room approach. Exceptional Children, 51(1), pp. 33-40.
This is a report of a study comparing the effects of a full-time mainstreaming approach for handicapped students with a resource room approach for similar students. Results suggest that the full-time mainstreaming approach, known as the Adaptive Learning Environments Model, exceeds the resource room approach in attaining desirable classroom processes, and in enhancing student attitudes and achievement in basic skills.

This article supports the feasibility of restructuring regular education programs to much more adequately serve students with diverse learning characteristics and needs. Many of the students in question are currently served by compensatory and special education pull-out programs.

Dreimanus, M., D. Sobsey, S. Gray, B. Hamaha. B. Uditsky and D. Wells. (1990). Integration and Individuals with Moderate to Profound Intellectual Impairments: An annotated bibliography. Edmonton: University of Alberta Severe Disabilities Program.
Four hundred and forty-six books, reports and journal articles are reviewed and arranged by topic. The ratio of empirical research studies supporting integation to research opposing it is more than eighteen to one. But the ratio of position papers supporting integration to research opposing it is only 1.6 to one. The authors interpret this to mean that integrating practices are proving successful but that attitudes generally lag behind research in this area.

Twenty-seven Canadian articles are reviewed; thirty-two articles are listed under the topic of elementary school integration. Of these, one is cross-listed.

Howarth, Mary. (1983). A Search of the Literature on Mainstreaming. Toronto: Federation of Women Teachers’ Associations of Ontario.
This comprehensive review was motivated by “concern for the extent to which mainstreaming is being done in Ontario, the way in which it is being done, and the acceptance of the underlying philosophical assumptions.” Resources are well organized into sections including reasons for mainstreaming, models of mainstreaming, legislative bases and teacher inservice training. The author presents seventy-three research conclusions and notes, “If there is one overwhelming conclusion it must be that mainstreaming is being poorly done in many cases.”

This review reveals the emphasis in literature on categorizing handicaps and maintaining different environments for different degrees of integration. It is a useful compilation of resources with high Canadian content, giving an overview of attitudes and degrees of implmentation of mainstreaming at the time it was compiled.

Jenkinson, J.C. (1987). School and disability: Research and practice in integration. Australian and Education Review, 26.
A broad review of literature on integration issues, this study attempts to identify various approaches and the factors that lead to success. It contains a number of descriptive studies of integration programs as well as a review of American and Australian research and practice. The book contains an extensive critique of research aimed at solving the integration-segregation debate. Problems in the application of traditional and alternative research methodologies are also discussed. An extensive bibliography of research and policy literature is included.

Vandercook, Terri, Jennifer York and Patricia Mutuszik. (1988). Integrated Education for Learners with Severe Disabilities: Print and media resources. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.
This selected list of resources focuses on the educational needs of students with particularly challenging handicaps. Broader than many bibliographies, this list includes journal articles, books and book chapters, manuals, reports, papers, newsletters and audio- and videotapes. A source and a content summary is provided for each item.

entourage is a quarterly bilingual magazine that looks at how people with mental handicaps can be supported by the community to live, learn, work, and have fun in the community. entourage includes the most current information on issues and upcoming events, and provides the most comprehensive way of keeping in touch with what’s happening in the lives of individuals with a mental handicap.

The Language of Pain: Perspectives on Challenging Behaviour, 1988

Community Living 2000, 1987

Income Insecurity: The Disability Income System in Canada, 1988

Righting Wrongs: Disability, Your Ombudsperson and You, 1989

Poor Places: Disability-Related Residential and Support Services, 1990

Vulnerable: Sexual Abuse and People With An Intellectual Handicap, 1988

Making Friends: Developing Relationships Between People With Disabilities and Other Members Of The Community, 1990

Service Brokerage: Individual Empowerment and Social Service Accountability, 1990

Literacy and Labels: A Look at Literacy Policy and People With Mental Handicaps, 1990

The Power to Choose: An Examination of Service Brokerage and Individualized Funding as Implemented by the Community Living Society, 1990

For more information, please contact:

The Roeher Institute
Kinsmen Building, York University Campus
4700 Keele Street, North York, Ontario M3J 1P3
Telephone: (416) 661-9611
Fax: (416) 661-5701

Home 05f5e113