Running head: INCLUSION: HOW IT CAME TO BE

Inclusion: How it Came to Be in Canada France Goulard University of Calgary I never cease to be amazed at the ins and outs of this issue, Good work, 47/50

INCLUSION: HOW IT CAME TO BE

Inclusion: How it Came to Be in Canada This paper discusses the Historical Foundations of Canadian Education and how it eventually led to the Inclusion model (of ---)? . An understanding of its development and influential components is reviewed in order to fully grasp the reasons why the educational system is the way it is in todays society. A brief overview of the societal changes and religious beliefs is also discussed in order to make sense of the early beginnings of education to modern day society. Furthermore, a look at inclusion; why it has been chosen as the method of choice, why it is going strong in our Canadian systems and its future implications will be discussed. In Canada, back in the early settlement days, the pioneers were interested in all societal activities, including school (Vanderven, 1997). Each settlement depended on the co-operation of every citizen in order to survive economically. Therefore, having a school back then was seen as economic status and stability (Vanderven, 1997). Eventually, with the financial co-operation between numbers of settlements, higher education was provided. In the 1600-1800s, such cooperation among citizens was made possible, by the fact that there was a general acceptance and extensive involvement of the church and Judaeo-Christian values (Vanderven, 1997). Canada has always been considered as a Christian nation because the citizens accepted Christian values and morality as the standard for societal behaviour. Eventually, with the help of Egerton Ryerson, it became the governments responsibility to provide its citizens with a good education based on the principles of Judaeo-Christian morality (Vanderven, 1997). Public schools started being established in the late 1600s. In Lower Canada (now Qubec province), these schools were under the control of the Roman Catholic Church, as

INCLUSION: HOW IT CAME TO BE

the people were predominantly Roman Catholic. In a settlement, the priests were often the only literate persons. In Upper Canada (now Ontario), the prevailing religion was Protestant; therefore, the early public schools were Protestant schools. Eventually, this arrangement became enshrined in the unwritten Canadian constitution, the British North American Act (1867), and remains so this day (Vanderven, 1997). Since the Pprotestant churches did not have the dominating interest in education as demonstrated by the Roman Catholic Church, the Protestant school system changed overtime into the secular system we know today (Vanderven, 1997). (Good point - neglect left a door open?) Education, in most countries, is by law the responsibility of the state. In Canada, this responsibility is given to the provincial government. Since the Confederation, founded in 1867, there has been consultation among Ministries of Education from the ten provinces and three territories. Although, However, ? there is no federal Ministry of Education which decrees what ought to happen in the schools across the country. Each province and territory has their own agenda and authority over the education system and school laws. Furthermore, the responsibility and control of each school is delegated to regional school boards. Each District School Board is responsible for the establishment of the schools and the support services in their respective regions. A hierarchical system has been developed from the Minister of Education and followed across Canada, where each Board has appointed a Director of Education who oversees the schools on behalf of the Board, right down to the classroom teacher. It is generally accepted as an appropriate and efficient way to provide (almost?) all Canadian citizens with a good education (Vanderven, 1997). (new parag?) Therefore, the Canadian public education is government-controlled and government funded. The history of Canadas educational system shows that Canadian society has always considered that the state has the ultimate responsibility for education (Vanderven, 1997).

INCLUSION: HOW IT CAME TO BE

The following is a list of educational trends that led to todays inclusive classroom (Andrews & Lupart, 2000).: Early History: Exclusion College of Qubec was the first educational institute in Canada, established by the? Jesuits in 1640. Elitist orientation, education reserved for privileged classes. Handicapped individuals were scorned and excluded from society in general. During this time, children with disabilities werent even considered or thought of education-w wise. (rephrase?) The 1800s: Institutionalization In this era, separate residential schools provided care primarily for visibly handicapped students with serious sensory defects. This was done on a recommended basis of a physician. Children with other exceptional needs were forbidden of any type of education. 1900-1950: Segregation Continual efforts made by Egerton Ryerson and John Barret McBann, Canadian educational reformers, led to a large-scale movement toward publicly supported schooling. Special schools and classes were formed, as well as residential schools increased and became larger. There remained considerable pressure to keep special-needs students out of regular classes despite these reforms. 1950s and 1960s: Categorization Professional and parental associations pushed to improve educational provisions for handicapped students and to bring service into the mainstream of regular education. In this decade, increased numbers and categories of special classes were offered, particularly for high-incidence exceptional learners. Low-incidence students remained in residential schools. 1970s: Integration

INCLUSION: HOW IT CAME TO BE

A shift in public and professional attitudes to promote education for handicapped students in the least restrictive environment and alternative placements are (were? Is past tense appropriate in these paragraphs? Maybe not?) developed. Moderate and severe handicapped students are served within the public school and teacher-training programs are provided to ensure that prospective educators better understand the needs of exceptional students. 1980s: Mainstreaming Schools are increasingly pressured to succeed in the mainstream process of placing specialneeds students into the regular classroom by their communities and by society in general. There is emphasis on serving the needs of high incidence exceptional students in the regular classroom. Physical, social, instructional needs are met in the least restrictive environment. 1990s: Inclusion This required the merging of special education and regular education into a unified education system by dismantling the dual system of special and regular education. The approach is student-centered and individual learning is the focus. Realignment of school resources is necessary in order to provide maximum support for teachers to assure proper development of all students. Effective teaching practices, collaborative consultation, and organizational restructuring is incorporated into the general education practice. 2000 to present: Inclusion still going strong Inclusion is still the focus of the educational systems in Canada, and many different types of ministerial incentives are produced in order to facilitate inclusion in the classroom. Recently, Alberta Education started a new initiative, which will help schools develop better inclusive techniques. Research in Regards to Inclusion

INCLUSION: HOW IT CAME TO BE

A body of research now exists on the consequences of educating children with disabilities in classrooms alongside children without disabilities. This research has shown positive effects for children with disabilities in areas such as reaching individualized education program (IEP) goals? (Hunt, Goetz, & Anderson, 1986), improving communication and social skills (Jenkins, Odom, & Speltz, 1989), increasing positive peer interactions (Lord & Hopkins, 1986), many educational outcomes (Slavin, 1990), and postschool adjustment (Piuma, 1989). Positive effects on children without disabilities include the development of positive attitudes and perceptions of persons with disabilities (Voeltz, 1982), and the enhancement of social status with nondisabled peers (Sasso & Rude, 1988). Strong parent involvement was first given serious consideration in Bronfenbrenner's (1974) review of early childhood programs. He concluded that strategies for early intervention that included parents were more effective in improving the child's performance than those that did not include parent involvement. Bronfenbrenner's (1977 & 1979) later writings emphasized the ecologies in which young children live, a perspective that eventually led to his theory of viewing families as systems within other systems. Bronfenbrenner viewed the microsystem as "a complex of interrelations within the child's immediate setting," which includes not only the child's interactions with his or her parents, peers, and teachers, but also the "connections between other persons present in the setting, the nature of these links, and their indirect influence on the developing person through their effect on those who deal with him firsthand" (1979, p. 7). Bronfenbrenner's ecological perspective influenced the way in which early intervention programs viewed families, sparking the development of models of effective relationships and interactions between families and service providers (Bailey & Simeonsson, 1988; Dunst, 1985). Inclusion: controversies and proven studies

INCLUSION: HOW IT CAME TO BE

Since inclusion started, there has been controversy on whether or not inclusion helps the children more than the pull-out segregated? program. There have been many different experiments that have studied the effects of students performances in inclusion programs and in pull out programs. In one specific study done in Iowa by the Council for Exceptional Children, students with a specific learning disability were sent to two different middle schools to participate in an 8th grade classroom (Roach, 1995). The two schools differed in only one way, and that was one was an inclusive school, the Enterprise, and one was a regular mainstream school, the Voyager. The results of this study state that: students with LD served in inclusive classrooms earned significantly higher grades in all four areas of academic instruction (Roach, 1995). Not only have children excelled excessively in academics in inclusive classrooms, but children have also scored noticeably higher on standardized tests and have increased school attendance. The Centre for Studies of Inclusive Education reports that only inclusion has the potential to reduce fear and to build friendship, respect and understanding (Bennett, Lee & Lueke, 2000). It has also been proven that pull-out segregated? programs increase the acceptance of segregation, and instill fear in the children (Roach, 1995). Recent studies have shown that children enjoy being in an inclusive classroom better more? than they enjoy being in a pull-out? program. According to Ritter (1999), one advantage of inclusive schools is that the school is able to provide social as well as instructional support. Children who have participated in both inclusive programs and in pull-out programs have shown that they have more self confidence, friendships, teacher support, better self esteem, and higher academic expectations of themselves when they are in inclusive classrooms (Ritter, 1999). The new confidence that the students gained in the classroom also showed in social situations. As a result of this new confidence in social situations, new friendships were forged between children

INCLUSION: HOW IT CAME TO BE

with disabilities and non-disabled children, and many existing friendships were strengthened by the increased amount of time spent with other children (Bennett, Lee & Lueke, 2000). The support of the teachers is a very important part of all inclusion classrooms. Inclusion teachers are known to exemplify themselves in teaching, and caring for the children. This increased support by the teachers results in the children trusting and believing in their teachers and in themselves (Marchant, 1995). Teachers and Parents Thoughts on Inclusion Most existing research on attitudes and resources involves survey data. Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) identified 28 reports published between 1958 and 1995 that provided original data related to teacher attitudes toward mainstreaming/inclusion. Using research synthesis procedures, Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) concluded that while approximately two thirds of the 10,560 teachers surveyed supported the concept of inclusion, only one fourth to one third of these teachers reported that they had sufficient time, training, or material/personnel resources to actually implement inclusion successfully. (big problem - so economically is it sensible to train ALL teachers to be able to do inclusive, or to give that extra training to a subset of teachers, segregate? I had never thought about it that way) Fewer studies have been conducted on the attitudes of parents and their perspectives with respect to successful inclusion (Ryndak, Downing, Jacqueline & Morrison, 1995). In general, interviews with parents of children ages 5-20 years with moderate to severe disabilities (Ryndak et al., 1995; Turnbull, Winton, Blacher, & Salkind, 1982; Winton, 1986), and parents of children both with and without disabilities (Reichart et al., 1989), some of whom were in inclusive settings and some of whom were not, indicated that inclusive classrooms produced several positive benefits, but also required particular staff attitudes and qualifications. Similarly, focus group research (York

INCLUSION: HOW IT CAME TO BE & Tundidor, 1995) indicated that positive attitudes and cooperation among staff and trained

professionals facilitate inclusion success, and that additional in- service training, extra time for collaboration, and increased parent involvement are priorities for change. With respect to barriers to successful inclusion, professionals described curricular types of issues whereas parents focused on negative attitudes of professional staff (York & Tundidor, 1995). The findings suggest that attitudes toward inclusion, confidence in skills, and the ability to access resources may affect the success of the inclusion process and that teachers who were educated many years ago may have less positive attitudes about inclusion. These results indicate the need for ongoing training for general educators, training that includes disability awareness, information on the benefits of inclusion, and factors that promote successful inclusion (Slavin, 1990). This suggestion is consistent with teachers' interview comments on their desire for course work, workshops, in-services, and conferences (Werts, Wolery, Snyder & Caldwell, 1996). The need for ongoing training is also supported by the survey data, which showed the positive relationship between the extent of training in working with children with disabilities and attitudes toward the concept of inclusion, perceived feasibility of inclusion and, to an even greater extent and as noted in previous research (Gemmell-Crosby & Hanzlik, 1994), confidence in the ability to implement inclusion. Both parents and teachers reported the need for a commitment on the part of all parties involved in the inclusion process (Gemmell-Crosby & Hanzlik, 1994). While parents emphasized commitment as reflected by effective teaming, teachers focused on commitment from administrators in terms of funding and release time (Gemmell-Crosby & Hanzlik, 1994). Additional requirements for successful inclusion identified by teachers included training, availability of support staff, assistance in modifying activities/classroom, additional planning time,

INCLUSION: HOW IT CAME TO BE

10

and smaller class size (Werts et al., 1996). The Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) analysis of 28 studies conducted over a period of 35 years showed that the majority of teachers thought that they did not have sufficient training, access to material or personnel resources, time, or appropriate class size to successfully implement inclusion. If these are indeed the key aspects to successful inclusion, as supported by the present study as well as previous research (Werts et al., 1996; York & Tundidor, 1995), then administrators have an empirical basis from which to develop guidelines for providing supports to those teachers expected to create and maintain successful inclusive classrooms. Implications for Practice While there are many obvious research needs in inclusion, there are also several specific implications for practice that can be derived from findings (Mackay, 2006). Most of these implications relate directly to strategies that can be implemented to produce successful inclusion experiences for children, their parents, and their teachers. Additional planning time for teachers is one of the most important strategies for enhancing the inclusion experience. This time can be used for meeting with other professionals who work with the child, meeting with parents, being available for phone calls from parents to discuss issues, or writing notes to parents. Working as a team is essential for successful inclusion, and planning time supports this goal. In some settings, an inclusion facilitator has been successfully used (Mackay, 2006). The inclusion facilitator is an individual (e.g., teacher, therapist, administrator) with the resources and skills to support the child in the regular classroom, including supplying personnel, providing essential materials, adapting lessons, or taking the child out of the classroom for special instruction. The inclusion facilitator is skilled in teaming, collaborating, communicating, and

INCLUSION: HOW IT CAME TO BE

11

using teaching strategies and conducts weekly or biweekly discussions among those who work with the child about current concerns and strategies for addressing them. The facilitator also has authority to assign a team member to be responsible for follow-up. The inclusion facilitator has ongoing conversations with parents and ensures they are included in the team meetings. If the parents cannot attend the meeting, minutes are sent home with a notebook parents can write in and return to the inclusion facilitator. Any concerns written in the notebook can be brought up at the next inclusion facilitation team meeting. This individual can also serve as the case manager for the IEP and ensure goals are met. This method allows parents many opportunities to discuss issues prior to the formal IEP meeting. The inclusion facilitation team ensures that issues and concerns are dealt with in a timely fashion. (new parag?) The use of an inclusion facilitator is one way to ensure parents are involved in ongoing planning for the child with special needs. Parents need to be included as respected and equal members of the team. Improved communication with parents will positively affect the inclusion experience and the subsequent development of social, academic, and developmental skills of the child (Crawford, 2004). Since we know training and expertise are related to confidence in carrying out inclusion, it is essential to identify the collaboration, cooperation, and communication skills needed by administrators and teachers (Bricker, 1995). Administrators need to realize the important leadership role they play in making inclusion successful. Administrators can utilize creative scheduling to allow time for inclusion facilitation and obtain release time for teachers and others to meet. Administrators can also offer resources for additional instructional assistants and the provision of in-service programs by consultants or university personnel. Reducing class size is another way administrators can support teachers in making the inclusion experience successful, as they are more able to cater to the needs of their students (Crawford, 2004).

INCLUSION: HOW IT CAME TO BE

12

Teachers are the key to the implementation of inclusion (Crawford & Porter, 2004). They often need to learn strategies and skills for working successfully in inclusion settings. The ability to communicate effectively and understand the rationale for inclusion are essential (Crawford & Porter, 2004). Teachers need support through specific case consultation and they need to develop a comfort level for collaborating with other professionals and parents. Teachers and administrators need to reach out to parents of all income levels and recognize the barriers that exist for some parents in becoming involved, (e.g., transportation, timing of meetings, child care). Encouraging interaction among parents who have experiences to share with one another is one-way teachers can help parents mobilize resources (Porter, 2008). Although training can be provided in many formats like workshops, often teachers prefer a case consultation, an on-site method in which an individual child is discussed (Crawford, 2004). Inclusion: The Future Porter (2008) sees inclusion as one of the sustaining pillars of public education in 21 21st? century Canada. Canadian schools must reflect our commitment to democratic values, to welcoming diversity in our communities, and to inclusion as a key aspect of our society (Porter, 2008). He further stated that educating all our children, and do it well, needs the insurance that every school is both effective and inclusive. Human Rights Commissions throughout Canada have identified special education as a critical issue (Crawford, 2004). Commissions in Ontario and New Brunswick have established guidelines for accommodating students with disabilities in the education system. Seven other commissions have also identified this as a priority area that continues to result in many complaints each year. It will undoubtedly be the focus of future deliberations by human rights commissions (Porter, 2008).

INCLUSION: HOW IT CAME TO BE

13

The UN Convention sets out a bold and progressive vision of education rights for children with disabilities and articulates inclusion as an essential element in that vision (United Nations, 2006). Canadians can provide the world with a practical demonstration that inclusion can work to the benefit of society in general (United Nations, 2006). To do so, a clear target must be made and full collaboration is needed in order to deliver nothing less to our children (Porter, 2008). Discussion By looking back from the early years when the word "school" was just a thought, a lot has changed in the educational system. Not only de do we offer inclusion style teaching and have accepted students with diverse learning needs, but other things like, racism, sexism, and different types of religions also have evolved and are now all accepted in Canadas educational systems. It is sometimes hard to believe that certain events occurred throughout the course of history, but again, it is interesting to see the evolution in regards to discrimination in general. As inclusion becomes increasingly widespread, it is essential to study ways to make the experience more meaningful and successful for parents, teachers, and children with special needs. Specifically, we should focus on lower class sizes, better awareness and resources, a positive attitude, and a strong commitment in order to make inclusion a success. Moreover, attention to collaboration, cooperation, and communication amongst all involved will enhance the effects of inclusion. Changes in curriculums and government funding will also need to be reviewed and/or addressed. (new parag?) Teachers need to realize that they are no longer teaching a curriculum to a class full of students, they are suppose to be teaching the students according to their individual learning needs. This means that teaching today is no longer curriculum- based, but rather student- based. This type of teaching needs to be addressed in teachers colleges throughout the provinces. It seems that too many teachers (young and old) are not prepared for the reality of their classroom.

INCLUSION: HOW IT CAME TO BE

14

They are taught one thing and told to do another. This is unacceptable and it could lead to a failed inclusive system and bring a lot of negativity towards the school systems. Each provincial government should be aware of this possibility and should focus on how to make it successful by examining the reality of the current classrooms. Better preparing the teachers and proportional class sizes due to the uniqueness of every students needs are key. Another important consideration to keep in mind is the quality of education for students without special needs. Are they stimulated enough and getting the attention that they too deserve? Studies show that kids with special needs are benefiting from the inclusive system, especially socially, but what about those without? (critical pt.) More studies need to be conducted on this matter to assess the impact on the education of students without special needs. It would be interesting to know how people in the next century will look upon the current views and ways of teaching. Most of all, how it will be in the future: better or worseonly time will tell!

INCLUSION: HOW IT CAME TO BE

15

References Andrews, J. & Lupart, J. (2000). The Inclusive Classroom: Educating Exceptional Children, 2nd ed. Nelson Thomson Learning, Scarborough, Ontario. Allen, R., Bennett, T, & DeLuca, D. A. (1994). Just a mother in a dream world: The impact of full inclusion on families. Manuscript submitted for publication. Bailey, D. B., & Simeonsson, R. J. (1988). Family assessment in early intervention. Merrill Columbus, Ohio. Bennett, T, DeLuca, D. A., & Allen, R. (1996). Families with children with disabilities: Sources of support across the lifecycle. Journal of Social Work in Education, 18, 31-44. Bennett, T-, Lee, H., & Lueke, B. (2000). Expectations and concerns: What mothers and fathers say about inclusion. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and other Developmental Disabilities. Bricker, D. (1995). The challenge of inclusion. Journal of Early Intervention, 19, 179-194. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). Is early intervention effective? Teachers College Report, 76, 279303. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513-531. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Crawford, C. (2005). Scoping inclusive education for Canadian students with intellectual and

INCLUSION: HOW IT CAME TO BE other disabilities, The Roeher Institute, Toronto, Ontario. Crawford, C. (2004). Towards a mutual framework of expectations on inclusive education: discussion document, The Roeher Institute, Toronto, Ontario.

16

Crawford, C. & Porter, G. (2004). Supporting Teachers: A Foundation for Advancing Inclusive Education. The Roeher Institute, Toronto, Ontario. Gemmell-Crosby, S., & Hanzlik, J. R. (1994). Preschool teacher's perceptions of including children with disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, 29, 279-290. Hunt, P., Goetz, L., & Anderson, J. (1986). The quality of IEP objectives associated with placement on integrated versus segregated school sites. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11, 125-130. Lord, C., & Hopkins, J. M. (1986). The social behavior of autistic children with younger and same-age non-handicapped peers. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 16, 249-262. MacKay, W. (2006). Report on Inclusive Education. Ministry of Education, Province of New Brunswick, http://www.gnb.ca/0000/publications/mackay/mackay-e.asp. Marchant, C. (1995). Teachers' views of integrated preschools. Journal of Early Intervention, 19, 61-73. Petr, C. G., & Barney, D. D. (1993). Reasonable efforts for children with disabilities: The parent's perspective. Social Work, 38, 247-254. Piuma, E (1989). A benefit-cost analysis: The economic impact of integrated and segregated educational service delivery models on the employment of individuals with severe disabilities. San Francisco: San Francisco state University, National Institute on

INCLUSION: HOW IT CAME TO BE Disability and Rehabilitation Research.

17

Porter, G. (2008). Making Canadian schools inclusive: A call to action. Canadian Education Association, (48)2, 62-66. Reichart, D. C., Lynch, E. C., Anderson, B. C., Svobodny, L. A., DiCola, J. M., & Mercury, M. G. (1989). Parental perspectives on integrated preschool opportunities for children with handicaps and children without handicaps. Journal of early Intervention, 13, 6-13. Roach, V (December, 1995). Supporting inclusion: Beyond the rhetoric. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 295-299. Ryndak, D. L., Downing, J. E., Jacqueline, L. R., & Morrison, A.P. (1995). Parents' perceptions after inclusion of their children with moderate or severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 147-157. Sasso, G., & Rude, H. A. (1988). The social effects of integration on nonhandicapped children. Mental Retardation, 23, 18-23. Scruggs T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59-74. Slavin, R. E. (1990). General education under the Regular Education Initiative: How must it change? Remedial and Special Education, 11(3), 40-50. Turnbull, A. P, Winton, P., Blacher, J., & Salkind, N. (1982). Mainstreaming in the kindergarten classroom: Perspectives of parents of handicapped and nonhandicapped children. Journal of the Division for Early Childhood, 6, 14-20, Vanderven, T.M.P. (1997). Schooling: whose responsibility is it? Clarion, (46) 10. United Nations (2006) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Passed by 76th Plenary Session of the General Assembly.

INCLUSION: HOW IT CAME TO BE Voeltz, L. M. (1982). Effects of structured interactions with severely handicapped peers on children's attitudes. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 380-390.

18

Werts, M. G., Wolery, M., Snyder, E. D., & Caldwell, N. K. (1996). Teachers' perceptions of the supports critical to the success of inclusion programs. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 21(1), 9-21. Winton, P. J. (1986). The consequences of mainstreaming for families of young handicapped children. In C. J. Meisel (Ed.), Mainstreaming handicapped children: Outcomes, controversies and new directions (pp. 129-148). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. York, J., & Tundidor, H. (1995). Issues raised in the name of inclusion: Perspectives of educators, parents, and students. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 31-44.