Showing posts with label Yude Henteleff. Show all posts

Dear Honourable Ministers: Conor Has Voted Again for Flexible, Meaningful Inclusion, Alternative Learning Arrangements


Conor, anxious to get to Leo Hayes High School, to the resource center with other challenged kids for socialization, and to his individual learning area for his ABA based instruction, watches the clock this morning. Conor votes YES for flexible inclusion with meaningful access to learning.


Minutes before departure Conor, on his own initiative, brings Dad his sneakers to make sure I don't forget to drive him to school on time. 

Honourable Jody Carr Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development
Honourable Dorothy Shephard Minister of Healthy and Inclusive Communities

Dear Honourable Ministers:

I am forwarding the above composite picture of my son Conor, seated in the kitchen watching the clock at 7:30 am this morning.  Conor, now 16 years old, has severe Autistic Disorder and is assessed with profound developmental delays.  He was not placed on a "time out" chair for having behaved badly.  He was sitting there of his own choice because he was, as he is every day, anxious to get to school at Leo Hayes High School, an experience he truly loves and one which he misses during the summer months.  

I encouraged Conor to engage in other activities instead of just sitting on the chair and he did so. At precisely 7:55 though Conor, again on his own initiative, brought me a pair of my sneakers and handed them to me,  as a polite reminder to Dad to get ready to take him to school. To the far left of the picture is a red object. It is his school back pack including his lunch pack which he packs the night before and placed in the fridge.  In the morning, on his own initiative, he places the lunch pack inside the back pack and places them near the exit door to ensure that it is with him when Dad drives him to school in the morning.  

With these actions Conor indicates clearly what a positive experience his flexible inclusive education at Leo Hayes HS is for him.  Conor does not, at our request receive his instruction in a regular classroom. Some autistic children can prosper in a regular classroom and some, like Conor, require instruction outside the regular classroom in a quieter space where he is not overwhelmed by noise and other distractions. 

Conor started his schooling in a regular classroom and came home every day with self inflicted bite marks  on his hands and wrists. (self injurious behavior is a recognized condition commonly associated with autism disorders). Once removed the biting ceased and Conor received his instruction in an individualized area in grade school, middle school and high school.  His instruction has been provided by education assistants/teacher aides trained at the excellent UNB-CEL Autism Intervention Training program.  

Conor's socialization has NOT been impaired by these arrangements.  Throughout school he has, in consultation with us, his parents, been involved in various outings and activities within his abilities including some specified gym activities, swimming (his favorite), outings like apple picking (another favorite) and last year he even attended a play put on at Fredericton's playhouse. Other students have ALWAYS greeted Conor warmly at every level of school. Some have even sought him out at our home in order to say hello to him outside of school. At Tim Horton restaurants Conor has been greeted by staff who are were students at school and knew him through Best Buddies. I underline these facts because it is important to realize that full regular mainstream inclusion is NOT necessary to ensure a full social learning experience for children with severe challenges like my son.  

One of the greatest socialization assets for Conor has been the Resource Center at the Leo Hayes High School. The RC is well staffed with trained experienced personnel that know how to manage children with extra needs in as stress free a manner as possible.  It also provides a variety of tools and sharing of information directly by people who are actually working directly with challenged children.  Stigmatization does not occur by placing challenged children in a resource center for parts of the day.  Stigmatization and outright harm occurs by pretending that all children regardless of cognitive level and regardless of disability based sensory and behavioral challenges,  must receive instruction in the same area as their chronological "peers". 

I have made these statements again on Conor's behalf, as I have made them throughout his education because of the constant threat posed to the flexible mode of inclusion that has benefited him in his education. The ideologically based every child in the regular classroom model to which this current administration and its most trusted advisers subscribe would be detrimental and harmful to my son if inflicted upon him, if his ABA based learning in an alternative area or if his socialization, security and happiness in the Leo Hayes High School are targeted for elimination.

Conor demonstrates the success of the current flexible model of inclusion, of the ABA instruction he has received outside the regular classroom, of the security and opportunity for socialization that the Leo Hayes High School Resource Center provides.  Please do not ignore Conor's story while making decisions affecting his future and the future of other children who need accommodation outside the regular classroom.

Although I am a lawyer by profession I try to avoid making legal arguments in education discussion since they can unfortunately lead to confrontation when cooperation and understanding are so badly needed to ensure proper education and development of children.  Having said that I will provide you, with respect, to two links to documents summarizing leading precedents in Canadian jurisdiction concerning the need meaningful access to education of children with disabilities written by Yude Henteleff QC a distinguished lawyer and Order of Canada member who has represented many disability organizations in Canada. Without getting too detailed I believe these documents can be summarized by saying that case law has established that an ideological insistence on regular classroom placement of all children regardless of disability considerations, and without providing alternative arrangements to accommodate their disability based challenges can constitute unlawful discrimination:




I would ask you foremost though to simply look at these pictures of Conor and take my word as his parent, as a long time autism advocate and representative of the Autism Society New Brunswick during the MacKay and Ministerial Committee inclusive education reviews (and current acting ASNB President). Not all children, and certainly not ALL autistic children function well in the regular classroom.   The ASNB position that children should be educated in a manner consistent with an evidence based determination of their best interests is consisted with the policies of the Canadian Learning Disabilities Association. It is also consistent with the first section of the PNB definition of Inclusive Education that resulted from the Ministerial Committee review of inclusive education:

"Inclusive Education

I. Vision

An evolving and systemic model of inclusive education where all children reach their full learning potential and decisions are based on the individual needs of the student and  founded on evidence." (underlining added - HLD)


I ask both of you Honourable Ministers to be faithful to the above definition of inclusive education fashioned after years of consultation conducted by Ministers of the Lord and Graham governments and examined the evidence of my son and other children with needs that require education outside the regular classroom.  Please continue the option for individualized education outside the regular classroom for those like my son who require that arrangement.  And please do not eliminate valuable, proven resources like the Leo Hayes High School Resource Center that have contributed so much in the way of socialization, security and friendship for my son and others with similar needs.

Respectfully,

Harold L Doherty
Fredericton NB

Posted in , , , , , , , , , , |

Meaningful Access: Yude Henteleff (2012) Critiques Full Inclusive Education as a Non Evidence Based, Discriminatory Philosophy and Recommends A New Paradigm


The image above is the cover page of the paper MEANINGFUL ACCESS, INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF A WIDE RANGE OF PLACEMENTS, AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF INCLUSIVITY IN EDUCATION by Yude M. Henteleff C.M., Q.C., LL.D. (Hon.). The paper is available in PDF format on the Atlantic Human Rights Centre web site by clicking on the title. 

I had the privilege of meeting Mr. Henteleff at the recent Atlantic Human Rights Centre inclusive education conference in Fredericton at which he presented this paper.  His earlier work on this subject provided a thorough analysis of Canadian jurisprudence, including Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, concerning the accommodation of students with special needs in inclusive education.  His earlier work was the road map I followed in trying to chart a path for my severely autistic, developmentally delayed son toward achieving a meaningful  education in the extreme inclusion Province of New Brunswick.  

Mr. Henteleff's latest work updates that road map and should be mandatory reading for anyone involved in the education of students in New Brunswick schools. I absolutely recommend it for parents and their legal counsel should legal proceedings be necessary to ensure the protection of their children's best interests in New Brunswick school. 

I was able to thank Mr. Henteleff face to face for his contribution to my son's positive education experience during the AHRC inclusive education conference in Fredericton. I would like to acknowledge that contribution again publicly in this commentary and say Thank You Mr. Henteleff.

I will not summarize Mr. Henteleff's entire paper in this comment.  Following though are some statements which he stated in his paper he strongly supports and principles derived from high legal authority in Canada and the United States. 


I humbly agree with the statements Mr Henteleff supports and with his interpretation of relevant legal authorities and the principles derived from them.  I have, in my own way, articulated these principles during my participation in the Mackay, Ministerial Committee and Porter Aucoin inclusive education reviews in New Brunswick and in more recent media appearances. 

These comments reflect the fact that full inclusion is a philosophy that requires regular classroom placement for all students regardless of their individual situations. As such full inclusion philosophical education practice discriminates by failing to provide an evidence based an evidence based determination of each student's best interests with respect to the place of learning.  It is a simplistic philosophy with an egalitarian feel good tone that makes "true believers" of otherwise learned educators.  

Following are some of the brief introductory comments by Yude Henteleff which highlight the problems with full inclusion, philosophy based education practices:

R. v. The Board of Education for the Region of York

This is a decision of the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal File #10. It was appealed to the High Court of Justice 63 O.R. (2d) 767 and to the Ontario Court of Appeal 69 O.R. (2d) 543 on issues unrelated to the issue of best interests. Accordingly, the decision by the Ontario Special Education Tribunal as to placement remains. 

The Tribunal in respect to segregation v. integration and the child's best interests found as follows: It is the firm opinion of this Tribunal that the wholesale integration of exceptional pupils into regular classes, solely on the basis of philosophical principle, untempered by due and informed consideration of each individual situation, is directly counter to the best interests of all pupils. [My emphasis] 

In The Journal Focus on Exceptional Children2, the authors, James A Kaufman and Patricia Pullan, explored a number of widely held myths about children with disabilities and special education. One of the myths they explored is the devotion to the ideology of full inclusion. They stated that the myth is appealing because of the simplicity (that is one placement for all students) and egalitarianism (students are not physically separated from the mainstream) so they are assumed to be integrated and treated equally. They stated that the consequences of this myth include the placement of students with disabilities in general education classrooms in which neither they nor their classmates can be well-served, and the abandonment of pull-out programs such as special classes in schools that were in fact the least restrictive environment most appropriate for such students.

Henteleff provides a thorough analysis of the relevant jurisprudence to support the critique of full inclusion practices.  He also goes beyond criticism and sets out the principles, all supported by the case law, and supported by education authorities and proposes a new paradigm for inclusive education, a paradigm which supports the legal requirements of meaningful access for all students including special needs students:

In order to assure that the best interests of SSN are met in its school system, provincial governments must establish a legal framework within its School Act for the application of the concept of meaningful access to educational services that incorporates the strands of Canadian jurisprudence to date including the international considerations which are relevant in the Canadian context. 

Meaningful access to educational services is the compilation of principles enunciated in the legal decisions, namely the paramountcy of education, the best interest of the child principle, and the right to necessary resources (to enable access) to the point of undue hardship. Such a context specific and substantive legal framework would be in line with the evolving Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence of Berg, Eaton, Eldridge, Grismer, and Via Rail, and in light of US case law previously referred to, which has interpreted the concept of "meaningful access" in the education context. Accordingly, it is critical that provincial governments establish a clear framework for the application of the legal concept of meaningful access to educational services and that the objective to achieve inclusivity in the school system must incorporate the right to meaningful access. 

Meaningful access to educational services is achieved when SSN receive an education in a most enabling environment. A most enabling environment is one that: is based on correctly identified needs; is implemented by appropriately trained persons in a timely fashion, with input from caregivers and where appropriate the student; is carried out in an environment best suited to that student's needs, socially, physically, emotionally, mentally, behaviourally and cognitively;  provides those resources that reasonably enhances the student's ability to make the fullest use of the programs provided by the school system to all students;  and provides a range of placement options, each being particularly suited to meet the child's identified best interests.


Each strand as noted has the force of law. The foregoing strands collectively comprise meaningful access incorporating the fundamental principles emerging from the court decisions noted. Meaningful access, as above defined, is a legal paradigm that is context specific and which provides substantive remedy in accordance with the Charter and therefore positive outcome for all SSN.

It is critical that the School Act incorporates the right to meaningful access as above noted as an integral part of inclusion, so as to assure that all students with special needs receive the services they are entitled to in the most enabling environment and in a timely fashion. This will in turn assure that the social contract with every SSN, namely the receipt of all those resources that facilitate the fullest access possible to education services is fulfilled.

In the best interests of students with special needs, nothing less will do.

Posted in , , , , |

Building a Bigger Tent Is A Badly Needed Critical Analysis of New Brunswick Inclusive Education Policies and the Porter Aucoin Report


New Brunswick Legislature Fredericton 
Photo By Harold L Doherty June 17, 2012


The New Brunswick government needs to do a critical analysis of the Porter Aucoin inclusive education report. Porter Aucoin is not an arms length objective review of NB inclusion practice and policy. Too many ties between Alward-Carr government and Porter-Auocoin-NBACL-CACL. Paul Bennett and Yude Henteleff are two excellent external critics whose views should be considered carefully by NB government in setting inclusion policies if the 2009 NB government policy defining inclusion as evidence based on the best interests of the individual child is to mean anything. Yude Henteleff's 2004 paper on flexible, evidence based inclusion recommendations consistent with Canadian jurisprudence is already posted and his presentation to Atlantic Human Rights Centre inclusive education review June 14-16-2012 at the Crowne Plaza in Fredericton will be posted on this site when it is made available to participants.

Building a Bigger Tent Serving all special needs students better in New Brunswick’s inclusive education system  by Dr. Paul W. Bennett, June 2012  is an arms length analysis that has been made available free of charge to New Brunswick. From the Building a Bigger Tent summary on the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS) Facebook page:

"Many research findings in New Brunswick’s 2012 report Strengthening Inclusion, Strengthening Schools raise serious questions about whether the existing ‘full inclusion’ model can ever serve the diverse and complex needs of today’s students. There is a place – and perhaps a need – for specialized learning programs where provincial education authorities build a bigger tent. 


....


It’s time for New Brunswick to embrace 21st century education. Bennett recommends a provincial review of New Brunswick’s current model of special education delivery, and ultimately the development of a new continuum of service, including self-contained classes and special education alternative schools."

New Brunswick education policy is important to all New Brunswickers.  It is of particular importance to students with special needs who require accommodation within our education system, including those students for whom the mainstream classroom is not an appropriate or even a safe learning environment. The contributions of serious analysts like Yude Henteleff and Paul Bennett should not be ignored in  designing policies to address the complex and demanding challenges facing special needs students in our education system.

Posted in , , , , , , , , , |

Rational, Flexible Inclusion: The Fully Inclusive Classroom Is Only One Of The Right Ways To Meet The Best Interests Of The Special Needs Child (Henteleff, 2004)

Attached hereto is a PNG copy as well as a PDF copy link to "The Fully Inclusive Classroom Is Only One Of The Right Ways To Meet The Best Interests Of The Special Needs Child"(2004) by Yude M. Henteleff, C.M. Q.C., L.L.D. (Hon).  Mr. Henteleff outlines succinctly and compellingly the legal basis for a rational, flexible model of inclusive education, one which will permit children with special needs, including severely autistic and developmentally delayed children like my son to participate in a safe, meaningful and rewarding education.  Here in New Brunswick the Porter-Aucoin report is pushing us Back To The Future, back to the simplistic and fundamentally flawed mid 1980's approach of forcing all children, regardless of their needs and challenges, to receive their education in the mainstream classroom.  The CACL and NBACL are now imposing their simplistic "vision" on schools in New Brunswick contrary to the 2009 NB policy defining inclusive education as being evidenced based and based on the best interests of each individual child. 

Dr. Henteleff's 2004 paper represents an articulate, sophisticated analysis by one of Canada's most distinguished lawyers who has represented many disability groups including autism groups and learning disability association groups over a long and distinguished career. Unfortunately, our current NB Premier David Alward and Education Minister Jody Carr are faithful followers of Gordon Porter's   simplistic inclusion "vision".  Hopefully future NB governments will just walk away from that "vision".  The Henteleff critique, first presented to the CACL in 2004 and maintained on their web site until recently provides a rational, flexible alternative for future NB administrations.  Mr. Henteleff also presented a new submission at the Atlantic Human Rights Centre inclusive education conference.  It will be made available to participants after the conference and I will post it on this site.  

Many thanks to Mr. Henteleff.  And thanks to my friend Claire who was kind enough to provide me with access to a copy of the attached paper.
















Posted in , |

Autism and Education: The Full Inclusion Mainstream Classroom For All Standard Discriminates Against Some Autistic Children

Extreme Full Inclusion Model of Education in Canada
 and New Brunswick has Discriminated Against
 Some Children With Autism Disorders

Imposing a standard, namely that the inclusive classroom meets all needs, is a perception not based on reality and is stereotypical. In other words, the standard takes the position that one environment meets the needs of all special needs children. By its very nature, such a standard is discriminatory, as was made clear by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Meiorin, Grismer, Law and Mercier decisions.



Presented by Yude M. Henteleff, C.M., Q.C.
to the
C.A.C.L. NATIONAL SUMMIT ON INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
NOVEMBER 24, 2004

The above document by Yude Hentelleff  QC should be mandatory reading for Educators and Human Rights Commission and Tribunal  members across Canada.  Unfortunately that does not appear to be the case particularly in New Brunswick where the extreme full mainstream classroom inclusion model has been pushed relentlessly by Gordon Porter, the New Brunswick Association for Community Living and senior officials in the Department of Education.  

Meanwhile some children, including some autistic children, for whom the mainstream classroom is not the right learning environment are forced into situations where they injure themselves, or others, in order to get out of an environment which is not the right option for them; an environment that overwhelms and harms therm.  My son, fortunately, has been accommodated in a separate learning environment for his primary ABA based instruction in our neighborhood schools with time spent in common areas of the school for other activities where he does get to interact with other students.  Conor was removed from the mainstream classroom, at our request, after he came home every day with bite marks on his hands and wrists.  He has been well accommodated by our schools and our school district. Other students for whom the mainstream classroom is not the right option have not always been so fortunate. 

Posted in , , , , , , |

Search

Swedish Greys - a WordPress theme from Nordic Themepark. Converted by LiteThemes.com.