Informed Alternatives To The Extreme Inclusion Theme of the UNB Law Equality in Education Symposium

L: Yude  M. Henteleff, C.M., Q.C., L.L.D. (Hon.)     R: Harold L. Doherty 
at the Atlantic Human Rights Centre Inclusion Conference
Crowne Plaza Fredericton-Lord Beaverbrook, June 14, 2012 

In the picture above I had the privilege of standing with Yude M. Henteleff C.M., Q.C., L.L.D. (Hon) at the 2012 Atlantic Human Rights Centre Inclusion Conference Crowne Plaza Fredericton-Lord Beaverbrook.  I thought of Mr. Henteleff as I listened to the speakers at the Equality in Education Symposium on the legal implications of the Moore decision conducted at the UNB Law School.

Although I am a graduate of the UNB Law School, was a speaker at the Atlantic Human Rights Centre Inclusion Conference 5 years ago, participated as the Autism Society New Brunswick representative, and offered a dissenting perspective on inclusion practices in NB, during the MacKay, Ministerial Committee and Porter-Aucoin (NBACL) Inclusion reviews, have written extensively as a dissident critic of Gordon Porter's & NBACL.s extreme everybody in the mainstream classroom philosophy which NB civil servants imbibed for 3 decades and were expressly soaked in by the previous government in an invitees only secretive Inclusion Review at the infamous "Larry's Gulch" , I was not invited to speak at the UNB Law Equality in Education Symposium.

Meeting of Senior Department of Education Officials With Gordon Porter And Other Advocates of Extreme Everyone In the Mainstream Classroom Inclusion June 20, 21, 2012
Information from CANADALAND web site.

I found out about the UNB Law Equality in Education Symposium the morning it was starting and went hastily to offer some questions to the speakers who were primarily on board with NB's extreme inclusion philosophy and listened as the occasional speaker spoke of the accommodation of students like my son who require instruction outside the mainstream classroom using the pejorative term of "segregation".

I offered a detailed description to a speaker who appeared via skype or some such similar program of the harm my son suffered in one of the mainstream classrooms and the lack of such harm and the benefit to him of an alternate learning environment that respected his specific severe autism and cognitive challenges. He referred to my son's experience as anecdotal which technically it is but it is also amply substantiated by school records, evidence spanning his entire school career.

One speaker did address one of the most significant cases in Canadian Jurisprudence in terms of disabilities and education. Lawyer and former Minister of Education Kelly Lamrock gave an excellent presentation on the Moore decision of the Supreme Court of Canada: Moore v. British Columbia (Education),2012 SCC 61, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 360 which was delivered very diplomatically but spoke of a positive right to a meaningful education of students with disabilities.

Another speaker that the UNB Law School might have considered though would have been Mr. Yude Henteleff above who has long been a distinguished advocate for the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada. The Learning Disabilities Association of Canada participated as an intervener in that case. with Mr. Henteleff participating as the volunteer lead counsel on their behalf at each stage of the proceeding. He has delivered an excellent presentation on the decision in the Moore case:

THE MOORE DECISION:MEANINGFUL ACCESS INCLUDING A RANGE OF PLACEMENTS - AN INTEGRAL PARTOF THE RIGHT TO EQUAL ACCESS IN EDUCATION 

I encourage everyone interested in inclusion and disabilities, including UNB Law Students, Professors and contracted Lecturers and in particular anyone who is interested in looking past NB's borders where the Porter-NBACL extreme all in the classroom philosophy is accepted as gospel to read Mr. Henteleff's analysis of the Moore decision. In the event that they choose not to I offer this very important excerpt:

"By imposing one standard, namely that the fully inclusive classroom meets all needs, academically, physically, socially, emotionally, behaviourally and cognitively of all students with special needs, is the perception that one size fits all. That is not borne out by research or by case law. Such a standard is therefore discriminatory, as was made clear by the SCC in its decisions in Kapp23 Eaton24 , Meiorin25, Grismer26, Mercier27 and most recently Moore28 .  

One of the more comprehensive studies on Inclusion in Canada was conducted by Professor A. Wayne MacKay, Professor of Law of Dalhousie University on behalf of the Government of New Brunswick, titled "Inclusive Education: A Review of programming and Services in New Brunswick" publication date March 15, 200629 . He makes it very clear that flexibility, not simply adherence to dogma, is important in dealing with this issue. He also makes it very clear that a one-size-fits-all approach does not belong in an inclusive education system and that a broad definition of inclusion is an important foundation to any initiative taken in that regard. At pp. 5, 6, 20, 22 and 39 of his report, he makes it clear that integration of every student with special needs in the mainstream classroom is not a universal remedy. "

Ideally I would like to see the UNB Law Equality in Education Symposium continued with a second symposium which brought perspectives other than the extreme beliefs which has been sold as THE ONLY inclusion in NB education circles for years. Such a symposium would be well served to invite Mr. Yenteleff as lead or featured presenter.

In the alternative I hereby humbly offer myself to address any interested staff, speakers or members of the public at a speakers hour if they would accept me as a humble but well informed individual capable of, and willing, to challenge with solid information the monolithic belief system that inclusion means inclusion for all in the mainstream classroom. Far from being inclusive it is exclusive and discriminates against those whose needs may require a learning environment and methods of instruction outside the mainstream classroom.

In any event I sincerely hope that all interested parties read the paper by Yude Henteleff from which I have quoted above and the legal authorities Moore, Eaton and others that he cites therein. I also state that although I was disappointed with the lack of diverse perpective I am glad that the subject of inclusion, education and disabilities was raised for discussion by the UNB Law School.