Advertisement

Prospects

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 299–309 | Cite as

Organization of schooling: Achieving access and quality through inclusion

  • Gordon Porter
Open File Special needs education: School perspectives

Conclusion

Michael Fullan, Dean of Education at the University of Toronto and an acknowledged expert on educational change, reform and improvement, has noted that reform in special education ‘represents just about all the issues involved in bringing about educational reform.’ complexity and leadership are particularly difficult challenges. Fullan has noted that, ‘the solutions to inclusion are not easily achieved. It is complex both in the nature and degree of change required to identify and implement solutions that work. Given what change requires—persistence, coordination, follow-up, conflict resolution, and the like—leadership at all levels is required...’ (Fullan, 1991b).

Organizational support for inclusive education must be in place at the provincial/state level, the regional/school district level, and at the school level. These structures, programmes and policies must deliver the support needed by classroom teachers and their students. We have set out specific ways that this can be done, consistent with an inclusive policy framework. The commitment to equity, as well as access and quality, requires continuing development by building on these approaches. In so doing, we can achieve better results for students with special needs while simultaneously creating more effective schools for all students.

Keywords

Special Education School Level Conflict Resolution Organizational Support District Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Chalfant, J.; Pysh, M.; Moultrie, R. 1979. Teacher assistant teams: a model for within-building problem solving.Learning disabilities quarterly (Overland Park, KS), vol. 2, no. 3, p. 85–96.Google Scholar
  2. Collicott, J. 1991. Implementing multi-level instruction: strategies for classroom teachers.In: Porter, G.L.; Richler, D., eds.Changing Canadian schools: perspectives on disability and inclusion, p. 191–218. Downsview, Ont., G. Allan Roeher Institute.Google Scholar
  3. Fullan, M. 1991a.The new meaning of educational change. Toronto, OISE Press; New York, Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  4. — 1991b. Preface.In: Porter, G.L.; Richler, D., eds., op. cit. p. i-ii.Google Scholar
  5. Gartner, A.; Lipsky, D. 1987. Beyond special education: toward a quality system for all students.Harvard education review (Cambridge, MA), vol. 57, no. 4, November, p. 367–95.Google Scholar
  6. Little, D. 1985. A crime against childhood—uniform curriculum at a uniform rate: main-streaming re-examined and redefined.Canadian journal of special education (Vancouver, B.C.), vol. 2, no. 1, p. 91–107.Google Scholar
  7. Perner, D. 1991. Leading the way: the role of school administrators in integration.In: Porter, G.L.; Richler, D., eds., op. cit., p. 65–78.Google Scholar
  8. Porter, G.L. 1986. School integration: districts 28 & 29.Education New Brunswick. Fredericton, New Brunswick, New Brunswick Department of Education.Google Scholar
  9. — 1991. The methods and resource teacher: a collaborative consultant model.In: Porter, G.L.; Richler, D., eds., op.cit.. p. 107–54.Google Scholar
  10. — 1994. Video:Teachers helping teachers: problem solving teams that work. Downsview, Ont., G. Allen Roeher Institute & School District 12.Google Scholar
  11. Porter, G.L.; Richler, D. 1990. Changing special education practice: law, advocacy and innovation.Canadian journal of community mental health (Waterloo, Ont.), vol. 9, no. 2, p. 65–78.Google Scholar
  12. Porter, G.L.; Collicott, J. 1992. New Brunswick school districts 28 & 29: mandates and strategies that promote inclusionary schooling.In: Villa, R., et al., eds.Restructuring for caring and effective education: an administrative guide to creating heterogeneous schools, p. 187–200. Baltimore, Brookes Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  13. Porter, G.L., et al. 1991. Problem solving teams: a thirty-minute peer-helping model.In: Porter, G.L.; Richler, D., eds., op. cit.. p.219–37.Google Scholar
  14. Province of New Brunswick. 1986.Bill 85: an act to amend the schools act. June, 4th session, 50th legislature.Google Scholar
  15. Purkey, W. 1984.Inviting school success: a self-concept approach to learning and teaching. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA, Wadsworth Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  16. Reynolds, M.; Wang, M.; Walberg, H. 1987. The necessary restructuring of special and regular education.Exceptional children (Reston, VA), vol. 53, no. 5, February, p. 391–96.Google Scholar
  17. School District 12. 1985.Special educational services: statement of philosophy, goals, and objectives. Woodstock, New Brunswick, School District 12.Google Scholar
  18. Schulz, J.B.; Turnbull, A.P. 1984.Mainstreaming handicapped students. Newton, MA, Allyn & Bacon Inc.Google Scholar
  19. Skrtic, T. 1991a. The special education paradox: equity as the way to excellence.Harvard educational review (Cambridge, MA), vol. 61, no. 2, May, p. 148–206.Google Scholar
  20. — 1991b.Behind special education: a critical analysis of professional culture and school organization. Denver, Love Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Stainback, W.; Stainback, S. 1984. A rationale for the merger of special and regular education.Exceptional children (Reston, VA), vol. 51, no. 2, October, p. 102–11.Google Scholar
  22. Will, M. 1986. Educating children with learning problems: a shared responsibility.Exceptional children (Reston, VA), vol. 52, no. 5, February, p. 411–15.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© UNESCO 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gordon Porter
    • 1
  1. 1.(Canada)

Personalised recommendations