A year ago, a Nova Scotia Inclusive Education Commission headed by Dr. Sarah Shea of the IWK Children’s Hospital broke new ground in proposing a robust $70-million, 5-year plan to re-engineer inclusive education. The new model known as Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) attracted immediate and widespread support from classroom teachers, parents of learning-challenged students, and advocacy groups, including Autism Nova Scotia.
Today there are clear signs that the implementation of Nova Scotia Inclusive Education reform is going off-the-rails and the whole venture in danger of being turned to different purposes. Three critical implementation pieces have been dropped and the whole project is now under completely new management.
Education Minister Zach Churchill and his recently appointed Deputy Minister Catherine Montreuil have already abandoned three first stage recommendations: establishing an independent Institute for Inclusive Education (NSEII), appointing an Executive Director to spearhead the initiative; and commencing independent Canadian research into evidence-based MTSS practices.
Much of what is going inside Nova Scotia’s Education Department is now carried out behind closed doors and completely outside public view. Piecing together the puzzle requires the investigative skills of a Detective William Murdoch. Sleuthing in and around the Department does provide a few clues.
A January 2019 Provincial Advisory Council on Education (PACE) agenda featured a peculiar item under the heading “Inclusive Education Policy.” Assembled members of the appointed body, chaired by former HRSB chair, Gin Yee, were assembled to engage in an ‘interactive exercise’ focusing on “Dr. Gordon Porter’s work.” The published meeting minutes made no reference whatsoever to that discussion.
Seven months after Nova Scotia embraced the plan to build a Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), the surfacing of Dr. Porter was downright strange on two counts. Canada’s leading champion of all-inclusive classrooms, New Brunswicker Porter, is well-known for advocating an approach at odds with the government’s stated policy. Not only that, but in October 2018, Education Minister Churchill had named Porter as the lead consultant responsible for overseeing implementation.
If there was any doubt as to where Dr. Porter stands on inclusion, that vanished on February 15, 2018 when he published a very revealing commentary in his house organ publication, the Inclusive Education Canada newsletter.
When a Toronto Globe and Mail feature story on an autistic Ontario boy, Grayson Kahn, pointed out that his ‘inclusive classroom’ had failed him, Porter took great exception to the piece because it called into question the appropriateness of the all-inclusive model for everyone. “Classrooms, inclusive or not, do not fail students,” he wrote. “The responsibility for success or failure lies with officials of the Education Ministries and the leaders of the school districts who set the policies, allocate resources and are responsible to ensure accountability to both parents and taxpayers.”
After thirty years of fighting to rid the system of alternative settings and specialized support programs, he was not about to change, even when confronted with the current challenges of class composition posed by the dramatically rising numbers of students with complex needs and sometimes unmanageable behavioural disorders in today’s classrooms.
Porter and his Inclusive Education Canada allies, well entrenched in New Brunswick, continue put all their faith in the all-inclusive classroom. Most, if not all, of their public advocacy seeks to demonstrate how every child can thrive in a regular classroom. The whole idea of providing alternative placements, ranging from one-on-one intensive support to specialized programs is an anathema to Porter and his allies. Instead of addressing the need for viable, properly-resourced multi-tiered levels of support, they promote provincial policy aligned with the international Zero Project, aimed at enforcing inclusion for all, including those, like Grayson, with complex needs and severe learning difficulties.
Defenders of the New Brunswick model, shaped and built by Porter, remain blind to the realities of today’s complex classrooms. Sending children regularly to “time-out rooms” or home as “exclusions” for days-on-end come to be accepted as expedients to keep, intact, the semblance of inclusive classrooms.
Further detective work reveals that Porter is not without an ally on the PACE. The sole education faculty appointee on that essentially faceless appointed body is Professor Chris Gilham of St. Francis-Xavier University, trained at the University of Alberta and closely aligned with Porter’s thinking.
Gilham’s research and teaching are steeped in the Inclusive Education Canada philosophy. He’s a public advocate of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), an educational framework designed initially for Special Needs children that aims to increase “access to learning for all students” by removing all school-level barriers, physical, cognitive, intellectual and organizational.
Classifying and coding Special Education students, Gilham and co-author John Williamson claimed in a 2017 academic article, is part of the “bounty system” which provides funding on the basis of designated, documented exceptionalities. It is clear, from his writings, that he’s opposed to the “bifurcation of students” into a “value-laden, deficit-oriented, gross categories” aligned with their particular learning needs.
Inclusion of all students is now virtually universally accepted, but the Nova Scotia Inclusion Commission, to its credit, recognized that it does not necessarily mean inclusion in one particular setting, but rather in the one best suited to the child along a continuum of services from regular classroom to specialized support programs. The Students First report pointed Nova Scotia in that direction and challenged us to build an entirely new model significantly different than that to be found in New Brunswick.
Reaching every student and building a pyramid of tiered supports were the Nova Scotia plan’s overarching goals, not endlessly seeking ways to integrate students into one universal, one-size-fits-all classroom and concealing the actual numbers of students on alternative or part-time schedules. It’s time to urge Minister Churchill and his Department find their bearings and return to the True North of MTSS as charted by Dr. Shea and the Inclusive Education Commission.
What is happening to the implementation of the new Nova Scotia model for inclusive education? Do the decisions to drop three first-stage implementation recommendations signal a change in direction? Why did Nova Scotia’s government hire Dr. Gordon Porter to review implementation? Will Dr. Porter’s upcoming review report confirm the change in direction?
Educhatter 
Very sad to see Nova Scotia following the failed Gordon Porter belief based, non evidence based model. As a New Brunswick parent of a now 23 year old son with autism, intellectual disability and epilepsy I took all necessary steps in grade 2 to remove him from Gordon Porter’s “inclusive” classroom where he was overwhelmed and self injured including biting his hands EVERY DAY. Once placed in a separate room with an ABA/autism trained aide the biting stopped. The evidence was crystal clear. His accommodation outside the Gordon Porter Inclusive classroom was ensured for the rest of his school days by a Human Rights complaint. The Porter classroom is a purely belief based system and it blames those students with disabilities who are overwhelmed and become self injurious or aggressive and ignore the possibility that the mainstream classroom is not appropriate for all. … Some theatre chains and even some grocery stores are adapting and providing special showings or times for persons with autism to enjoy their services.
Here’s a problem with placing “managerial oversight” with the Education Dept.’s Director of Special Services- that same department was responsible for the oversight of the previous inclusion model and its implementation. Pre-Freeman Panel Report, that department and its head said that there were no significant deficiencies in the model. The then-director also stated that they were doing precisely what best practices had indicated should be done. That was not at all true, as the conclusions in the Disrupting the Status Quo – Report revealed. Further, it is also accurate to state that the proper monitoring, assessment and evaluation of program implementation was not robust despite the head of the Special Services Division saying that they were.
Last point, it is true that the Commission on Inclusion DID NOT establish the state of differentiated instruction in Nova Scotia schools. There can be no meaningful inclusion without such instruction. The Commission had said in June of 2017 that such an assessment would be made; they never made it, so there is no benchmark from which to measure any movement toward a better system. Where’s the starting point for any future comparing and assessing of program effectiveness and efficacy? There is no starting point!
Paul Bennett is right to focus on where the needed , direct , appropriate instruction is to take place. It really matters that the appropriate instruction be given; right now, the differentiated, direct instruction isn’t happening. Kids with special needs are still under the pre-2014 program and its shoddy implementation. As for meaningful oversight? that cannot be left to the same people who were supposed to be offering it in the past. Independent oversight is a must.
Here’s one positive that I took from Mr. Porter’s work- he is calling for more educators to provide the needed direct instruction (including resource teachers, guidance,…). However, there is no mention of the school level administration as part of that cohort. The vice-principal and the principal should also be assigned teaching duties; what is needed going forward is (a) all hands on deck and (b) oversight that will deliver rigorous assessment and evaluation and robust monitoring- none of which exists today!
S. Adamson, retired educator