|
Updated: June 4, 1998 |
It is out of extreme frustration and anger that we originally put this web site together. It's difficult to have those feelings when we look at our son's face, knowing that, so far, everything has been such a positive experience for him and us in his schooling this year, and could continue provide the resources are maintained.
Carson has been fully integrated in his local school since kindergarten. His progress has been very positive, some might say astounding, given his delays related to down syndrome. We have always been optomistic about his potential, knowing that as long as the supports are there we can meet the challenges and he can develop to his full potential, what ever that may be.
His reading, printing, math are all developing extremely well. His socialization in his class and during free
time has also been successful. We feel that this is largely due to the fact that he has always had the required
supports, and hence the opportunity to participate as an equal member of his school and his community. His friends
in school are from his every day peer group. Many of his after-school buddies that he plays with at floor hockey
and at Cub Scout meetings are from his class. His best friend is from his class. None of these children possess
any physical or mental challenges, but they are his peers and friends because of his day-to-day contact with them
in the classroom. Carson's social and psychological well being directly affects his self asteem - which in turn
benefits his academic development. Remove or alter significantly any of the supports in place, which allow him
to participate as an equal, and the immediate and long term impact would be obvious. The mere thought of disturbing
this equation and potentially removing him from these activities shouldn't even be in question!
Our concern is the immediate effect that opening segregated classrooms, while reducing funding for in-class special
education assistants (SEA's), potentially has. If we might speculate, and ask the following questions:
- WHAT IF next year he no longer has an aid, his new teacher for grade 4 may be overwhelmed by the demands that
the new class may have?
- WHAT IF a child in his class has undiagnosed behaviour issues or emotional issues that don't directly receive
supports as they are not easily recognized by the current system (some families have been waiting for over 2 years
just for the assessment process)?
- And WHAT IF the teacher sees an opportunity to reduce the demands on his/her time by suggesting that
Carson would be better served in a segregated setting in another school?
- Would our wants and concerns be observed when the teacher can indicate that he/she has 29 other children to think about?
We fear the answers to these questions are obvious.
Inclusion benefits ALL children in our son's class, his community and ultimately, society. The costs today are
insignificant when compared to the long term benefits that this philosophy of inclusion can provide. Beaureaucrats
and politicians have to look beyond the immediate fiscal concerns that they seem so focused on, and think of the
potential legacy that can be theirs. Inclusion works, it is right and we can all
be the beneficiaries of this concept.
VPSI - Vancouver Parents for Successful Inclusion:
Presentation on 1997, April 9 to the Vancouver School Board, Finance Committee
We are not here to get mad or to argue finances. We are here to persuade you that the proposal to establish 6 segregated classes has implications that go far beyond budget cuts and should be removed from the table. As parents we have been led to believe that this province, and particularly this school district supports the vision of having all children attend their neighbourhood schools. If you decide to establish these classes, you will be sending a very clear signal that this vision is now being reversed.
CONCERN
Our concern is that this recommendation is based solely on budgetary concerns, has no educational foundation and seems to be a profound philosophical shift that horrifies and scares us.
PHILOSOPHICAL ABOUT FACE
For the past 10 years, Student Services has moved steadily and powerfully towards including all elementary children at their neighbourhood schools. Recently, the Student Services Review recognized this "inclusionary or unified approach".
As the Review stated: "The reviewers see the Vancouver School District as a district in transition - in transition from a separate, special education system to an inclusionary or unified system. ... The move to a more unified system needs to continue."
Your own beliefs as stated in the 1995/6 annual report are strongly supportive of inclusion:
"We believe in fostering a sense of community
We believe in equitable treatment for all individuals regardless of race, culture, gender, religion, socio-economic status, sexual orientation or physical or mental ability"
and most telling of all, you said that you:
"believe that a school should be able to receive all the neighbourhood children who choose to attend"
The Ministry Policy Manual for Special Education frequently refers to the importance of including children of all abilities in the regular classroom. In fact it supports inclusion as a first choice.
"Students with special needs should only be placed in settings other than a neighbourhood school classroom with age and grade peers when the school board has made all reasonable efforts to integrate the student ..."
The arbitrary establishment of 6 segregated classes does not suggest that all efforts will have been made.
The policy manual continues "If alternatives to neighbourhood school classes are necessary ... then placement in alternative settings should be done as part of a plan that is regularly reviewed and updated ... with" and this has to be emphasized, "a view to returning these students to neighbourhood school classrooms as soon as it is feasible."
It is clear that segregated classes are never to be considered a permanent solution to any problem.
NO DEMAND EXISTS
We have been told by yourselves, Student Services, and through the media, that the move to set up these classes has been made at the request of parents. We challenge the truthfulness of this statement. We have been informed that there are no wait list for the existing, elementary segregated classes. We know that the inclusion of low incidence children at the elementary level, is, of all inclusion, the most successful. So who are these 70 to 80 children who are desperately waiting for these classes?
INCLUSION WORKS
We accept that there should be a continuum of services available to children with special needs, but we believe that all children should be given the opportunity to experience inclusion. We know that Inclusion works. Our children learn best when surrounded by their regular peers, they learn appropriate behaviour, they learn communication skills, they learn when to laugh and many of them learn to read and write. The S.E.A.s who support them, support other students as well and add immeasurably to the quality of the classroom. Other children and parents learn that our children are part of society, they are not a separate group to be hidden away. They learn to care for our children and to accept them and they grow in the learning.
CONCLUSION
Lastly we would like to challenge two statements in the overview of the 1997/1998 budget proposals dated April 3, 1997. It is claimed that: "the plan is congruent with recommendations in the Review... of Student Services".
There is no congruency, however, between the recommendations and the establishment of segregated classes. As we have pointed out the Review emphasized that the inclusionary vision of the past needs to continue. The other claim is that:
" the plan has minimal impact on the classroom".
Our children are a part of that classroom and your proposed budgets cuts eliminate their option of participating in a regular classroom. The impact for them would be enormous.
In conclusion we beg you to remove from the table the proposal for an Alternative Service Delivery Model for Elementary Students with Low Incidence Special Needs. If you do allow it to stand you are sending a signal to the community that the board promises segregation and this will substantially undermine all efforts to include all children in the classroom. Inclusion is a top-down policy, it works best when the leaders hold it as their vision. As we have shown, segregation contradicts your own stated beliefs, denies the conclusion of the Student Services Review and violates Ministry Policy.
We urge you to hold fast to your stated vision of inclusion.