A road less traveled: creating a community where each belongs.

We must choose to travel one of 2 roads. We can't be in the middle. We have called these choices: THE ROAD TO EXCLUSION or THE ROAD TO INCLUSION. The roads lead to radically different outcomes. Society is at a choice point--the road we choose has little to do with finances or law; it has everything to do with values and leadership. (Pearpoint & Forest, 1992, p. 1).

Inclusion provides a heterogeneous mix within the general education classroom that benefits students, parents, and the community. It helps to eliminate ignorance, increase awareness of differences, and foster tolerance and acceptance of others. It demonstrates a true belief in the value of people, helping to eradicate the prejudice that can permeate society (Stainback, Stainback, & Stefanich, 1996). Despite these benefits, the philosophy and practice of full inclusion continues to be debated among educators (Sexton, Kelley, & Aldridge, 1998).

The Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board (HWCDSB) is an award-winning model of how true inclusion is achieved. Hamilton is a working-class city set on the western end of Lake Ontario, not far from Toronto, Niagara Falls, and Buffalo, in gently rolling land broken by the Niagara Escarpment. Stelco, a steel producer, is the major employer for Hamilton's 671,700 inhabitants. Hamilton's children are served by two school Boards--HWCDSB, with its approximately 30,000 students, and Hamilton-Wentworth District Public Board, with about 41,000 students. The Public Board has chosen to remain with the more traditional special education model and to provide segregated special education placements for many of its students.

The inclusion path the HWCDSB has taken has been long, and even arduous at times, but the rewards they have reaped have been ten-fold. The author will explore HWCDSB's inclusive approach, focusing on its philosophical underpinning, administrators and educators, collaborative strategies, and teacher attitudes. Jim Hansen, now retired, served as chair of the committee that propelled HWCDSB along the path to an inclusive community. His writings and interviews provided much of the source material for this exploration. Mary Galarneau, the current principal of programmes, special education, also was interviewed.

To truly understand the significance of the HWCDSB's culture of inclusion, one must first understand some of the history of special education in Canada.

Special Education in Canada

There are two main differences between the U.S. and Canadian special education systems. First, Canada does not have a federal law, such as the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), that protects the rights of students with special needs, although the Charter of Rights and Freedom does provide some protection. Education systems are governed provincially/territorially, which means each province or territory has its own education legislation. Ontario, the province in which HWCDSB is located and the most populous in Canada, does not have legislation to protect the rights of students with exceptionalities with the breadth of the American mandates. Its Bill 82, however, ensures that all children with exceptionalities have "appropriate" special education programs and services available to them (Wilson, 1983). While there has been a move in the province to introduce legislation similar to IDEA, it is not yet in place. The Ontario Ministry of Education has defined an IEP (Individual Education Plan) process, through which a written educational plan is developed for each individual student with special needs. These efforts are comparatively recent, however, considering the time frame during which HWCDSB developed its philosophy.

The second difference between the U.S. and Canadian special education systems is that Canada's original constitution allowed for two separate but equal school systems, public and Catholic, in Ontario (what was then called Upper Canada). Consequently, the Catholic school boards, such as HWCDSB, are not the same as the private parochial system in the United States; rather, these are publicly funded systems that fall under the same provincial jurisdiction as the public systems.

As in the United States, the 1960s were a time of change in Ontario, with human rights and equity issues at the forefront. The provincial report on education commonly known as "Hall-Dennis" (Ontario Department of Education, 1968) referred to the "inflexible programs, outdated curricula, unrealistic regulations, regimented organization and mistaken aims of education" (p. 10) in Ontario and helped serve as a catalyst for HWCDSB's creation of a Special Services Committee. One of the two areas this committee examined was special education.

Development of an Inclusive Philosophy

The HWCDSB believed that every child belonged in school and had the potential to grow; this was the beginning of a philosophical base upon which the Board continues to stand. Hansen (2001a), chairman of the Special Services Committee, suggests that "the most significant contribution of the Special Services Committee Report was the recognition of the need for and the delineation of a philosophy as a basis for action" (p. 8). The philosophy developed was one of education, not special education.

The original philosophy stated:

Each person is endowed with the dignity of a person. Each person has equal value despite differences in ability. Each person has a right to grow and indeed each person can grow. The limits of individual growth are unknown and should not be circumscribed. No person is static, each is ever in the process of becoming. Each person is unique and irrepeatable--Man and woman is [sic] ever in the process of becoming. (Hansen, 2001a, p. 8)

Working from this philosophy, the Board adopted the principle that "all children should be considered exceptional" (HWCDSB, 1969, p. 16).

The HWCDSB has, over the past 30 years, fine-tuned its procedures and policies to ensure a successful inclusive experience for each child through to the completion of high school. Currently, almost 30,000 students attend school in the HWCDSB, with approximately 13 percent identified as exceptional. This includes over 300 students with developmental delays and over 100 students with autism/pervasive development disorder (PDD). Originally, services "provided for students with special needs ... were designed to provide `care and security' for the students rather than education" (Hansen, 2001b, p. 7). The change from this custodial view to an inclusive approach was supported by visionary leadership, emerging literature on the benefits of inclusion, and supportive trustees. In addition, Hamilton's large immigrant base from European, Asian, African, and Southern Hemisphere countries valued diversity and equality in schools, and extended the net of diversity to all groups, including those with disabilities. This type of leadership in diversity and equality was first evidenced in the 1860s when Hamilton moved to include black students in all its schools.

HWCDSB believes in educating one child at a time, viewing special education "as a state of mind; it [is] good teaching, it [is] not a programme, not a curriculum, it [is] all programmes and all curriculum" (Hansen, 2001b, p. 21). In a recent interview, Hansen stated that HWCDSB has "been consistent in our philosophy.... Every time we deviated, we knew it and we would back up. I say very clearly ... you may compromise but you may not compromise on presence or respect."

Administrators and Educators

The best way to live the philosophy is to employ staff who support it. When asked, "What would happen if a teacher in the Board did not want to teach a child with a disability?" Hansen responded, "It's okay with me-go teach somewhere else." In her interview, Mary Galarneau commented on how fortunate she and her colleagues have been to have "senior administrators along the way [who] have allowed [us] to take risks ... to maybe make mistakes and to grow within that." Every effort has been made to ensure that administrators have had experience with special education, "that they have lived there, they have been there, they have done that." Hansen (2001b) states that "the principal is the key to the deliverance of a good education for each pupil" (p. 18).

Principal and staff consider the whole child in their planning and recognize the importance of experiences before school entry. In keeping with this philosophy, HWCDSB has implemented early and ongoing identification of children's learning needs. This involves a variety of strategies, including completion of a preschool history form, a home visit by the kindergarten teacher, teacher observations, and ongoing communication between home and school. The preschool history form is completed by all students entering school for the first time, or by those who have not completed a similar form at their previous school. When a child changes schools, her or his Ontario Student Record (OSR) is sent to the new school. This record contains information such as testing results, report cards, and background information chronicling the student's education history. What is particularly noteworthy about the preschool form is the Board's effort to provide "implications for teachers" (see Table 1), which call the teacher's attention to the uniqueness of each child and the impact of the whole child on his or her school experience. Some implications, such as acknowledging birthdays, may need to be modified, depending on the child's religion or preference.

For children who already have been identified as having special needs, intake meetings are arranged through teams of Special Education Resource Teachers to make as smooth a transition as possible. School Resource Teams are set up to encourage a collaborative approach for school-based issues and concerns. Members of this team include the principal, vice-principal, the language resource teacher, the special education resource teacher (every school has at least one), representatives from all divisions, the public health nurse, and centrally located support staff from Instructional Services.

HWCDSB suggests that this team meet once a week. These before-school, lunchtime, or after-school meetings are planned and conducted on teachers' personal time. With these types of meetings, team collaboration, as identified in the 1969 Special Services Committee Report, is essential to the success of including all children.

Other Collaborative Strategies

If there is one thing, beyond acceptance of all students in the regular classrooms of community schools, that makes HWCDSB function differently and successfully, it is emphasis on collaboration among all players. They truly believe the oft-heard motto of those who advocate for inclusion, "Together we are better." Particular examples of such collaboration are School Resource Teams (as described above), MAPs, and the Circle of Friends.

MAPs. MAPs (Making Action Plans) was developed in Canada by Marsha Forest of Toronto's Centre of Inclusive Education and Community and Evelyn Lusthaus of McGill University, Montreal. It is an eight-step planning process for a student's education, using guiding questions and including input from parents, siblings, the teacher, support staff, community resource personnel, peers, and even the student being considered. The eight steps are:

1. What's a MAP? (To introduce and review the process.)

2. What is a person's history or story? (To ensure that all understand the student's history and are drawn into it.)

3. What are your dreams? (To share a vision of a desired future that calls for a plan of action.)

4. What are your nightmares? (To lay out the fears of the student and family about what might happen if a collaborative plan of action is not developed.)

5. Who is the person? (Positive statements about the student contributed by all those gathered. The student chooses three favorite words that he/she believes describes him/her best.)

6. What are the person's strengths, gifts, and talents? (Contributions from all are gathered that show the student as a completely rounded person and that develop a concept of giftedness.)

7. What does the person need? (What it will take, in terms of people and resources, to make the dream come true?)

8. What is the plan of action? (What are the specific actions contributed by the group, and who will carry them out, and when?) (Falvey, Forest, Pearpoint, & Rosenberg, 2000)

MAPs encourages an open and honest approach by its members in determining the best program for the student. All come together and, under the guidance of a facilitator, share the student's history, dreams, and fears, as well as the student's strengths, weaknesses, and needs. As the MAPs process develops, a plan for both the short term and the long term unfolds, and all involved learn how they can contribute to its success.

Lelia's MAPs Process. A MAPs planning process was held for Lelia in anticipation of her senior high school years. An adolescent woman with a history of Down syndrome, visual impairment, and diabetes, Lelia and her family had struggled with fear, disappointment, and rejection since she was born. However, she has a loving family, a number of friends and acquaintances (partly through the Circle of Friends support system described below), and teachers who have wanted to help her succeed as much as possible.

Lelia dreamed of marrying her friend Manesh, having a family, having more friends, and having a career in music. Her parents shared this dream of marriage, family, friends, and productive work, but feared that Lelia would end up in an institution unless she was supported and moved forward in high school. Lelia feared she would never have her own home or a job, and that she would not make more friends.

The discussion moved on to who Lelia was (caring, loving, friendly, a wonderful smile) and her strengths (love of family, friends, and children; wild about music; hardworking; honest). When it came to discussing what Lelia needed to succeed, the responses came easily. It was agreed that central to Lelia's success would be strengthening her knowledge, teaching her how to care for children, offering peer tutor support in English and math, and providing some type of work experience. The final action plan called for Lelia's high school to offer a cooperative education program supplemented by music, English, and math classes. The teachers agreed that her cooperative education placement should be with a local preschool or early school years program. Lelia's friends offered to organize a peer tutoring support group. Her parents agreed to enroll Lelia in a baby-sitting course. Everyone agreed that she should experience music in school, home, and community settings.

The Circle of Friends. Another effective strategy is the Circle of Friends (or, Circle of Support). To understand the Circle of Friends, one must envision four circles extending out from the child: a circle of intimacy, a circle of friendship, a circle of participation, and a circle of exchange (Forest, Pearpoint, & O'Brien, 2000). Those with exceptionalities frequently lack people, other than the immediate family, in the innermost circle, the circle of intimacy. Often, the only people in the other circles are paid professionals on the outermost edge (Pearpoint, 1994). The goal of Circle of Friends is to improve the quality of a person's life by filling in the inner circles with friends and supports. Circle of Friends is not a program, but rather a strategy for building community. It is a proactive approach that involves searching out peers, schoolmates, and community members who can make a difference.

Palminder's Circle of Friends. Palminder was in grade five when she transferred to HWCDSB and was included in a regular class for the first time. She was just beginning to look after herself, show respect for her own belongings and those of others, master simple addition and subtraction, gain in word recognition, and understand concepts related to money. Quick to strike out physically at peers with little or no apparent reason, Palminder's aggressiveness became a focus of attention. The Ontario School Record indicated that Palminder had been socially isolated in her previous special education class and school.

When the Circle of Friends was suggested to Palminder's class, a number of girls immediately volunteered to support Palminder socially and behaviorally. They sat near her in class and did not react negatively when Palminder became aggressive; rather, they tried to calm her down, tried their best to set good examples and encourage her, and maintained contact with her out of school.

By the end of the year, Palminder's aggressiveness, although still present, had been reduced significantly. The primary strategy developed by the Circle of Friends group was to walk away from her when she acted aggressively and refuse to interact with her until she was friendly. Palminder began to take the initiative in making friendly contacts with peers, and her Circle of Friends helped widen her group of friends and acquaintances. Her parents reported that, for the first time, Palminder was receiving phone calls from friends, girls were dropping over to watch television with her, and she was being invited to birthday parties. During an interview, her mother broke into tears and exclaimed, "She's changed! She's beginning to be just a little girl"; five friends attended Palminder's 11th birthday party, the first to which anyone outside the family had come.

Collaborative strategies such as Resource Teams, MAPs, and Circle of Friends highlight an essential element brought to education by HWCDSB personnel, students, and parents. All believe that a positive attitude about the ability and potential of students and teachers is necessary for the development of a culture of successful inclusion. As Kirk (1998) argues, the attitude of the general educator is pivotal to the success of inclusion.

Teachers' Attitudes Toward Inclusion

What are educators' attitudes towards inclusion? The research literature around inclusive education and inclusion indicate that general educators have concerns about inclusion. Scruggs and Mastropieri's (1996) review of research on teachers' perceptions of inclusion/ mainstreaming for the years 1958 to 1995 indicated that the majority of general education classroom teachers support the idea of inclusion as related to students with special needs. The percentage of teachers supporting full inclusion dropped significantly, however, as the degree of severity increased. Bunch, Lupart, and Brown (1997) found similar concerns among Canadian teachers related to inclusion. However, this study also reported that teachers found many benefits to inclusion as well, such as equity, a school community that reflects the diversity of the larger community, and academic and social gains for both regular students and included students. It is of interest to note that HWCDSB teachers were among the study participants. Although they shared the same concerns about inclusive education as did participants from other Boards across Canada, those concerns, however, did not prevent them from practicing inclusion.

Hansen (2001b) identifies several attitudinal blocks to inclusion. Fear is the first block. Parents want to protect their children; teachers fear that they will not know what to do; administrations fear failing the needs of the parents and students; and children, like adults, fear the unknown (Hansen, 2001b). Many teachers believe that they lack sufficient preparation to work with students with exceptionalities. They believe they cannot include students with challenges successfully until they have additional knowledge and thus are "ready." Unfortunately, as Galarneau states in her interview, "the ideal of `ready' may never come.... Make sure our teachers are ready and our parents are ready. Make sure everybody is ready. And that won't happen." Members of Galarneau's Board have decided to manage their concerns in order to work toward inclusion. They believe that the general educator's basic preparation, as well as collaboration with other teachers, parents, and resource personnel, will be sufficient to help them make accommodations for students' various needs and learning styles.

Prejudice is another block to inclusion. Although each child identified with an exceptionality is unique and manifests that exceptionality differently, stereotypes are applied. Hansen (2001b) identifies statements that, although often heard and accepted with regard to those with disabilities, clearly would be considered prejudicial when applied to other students. For example, one often reads and hears such statements:

* Disabled children have disruptive behaviors.

* Teachers should have the right not to work with students with disabilities.

* Disabled children should be with other disabled children.

Suppose, instead, we made the following statements:

* Blond children have disruptive behaviors.

* Teachers should not have to work with black children.

* Immigrant children, children of color, and aboriginal children should be with their own kind.

Would we allow people to express such blatant discrimination without a rebuke? If not, Hansen asks, then why do we allow offensive and insensitive statements regarding children with exceptionalities?

In HWCDSB, all students attend regular classrooms in their community schools, with very few exceptions. All teachers teach all students. Parents are team members with teachers and other professional staff. Peers support peers. Challenges are something to be solved, not used as reasons for separating students from each other. Equity is the norm and the school is a community for all, regardless of type or degree of disability.

The community involved in inclusion is wide-reaching. From an ecological systems perspective, it involves the school, the family, the neighborhood, the town, and the government (Bronfenbrenner, 1989). As the Hall-Dennis report states, "Society has splintered the child [with an exceptionality] off from the rest of the gang, segmented him [or her] by walls and in spirit into special classes ..." (Ontario Department of Education, 1968, p. 101). The HWCDSB's goal is to remove these walls and celebrate the whole child.

How Does Education in HWCDSB Differ From That in Other School Systems?

HWCDSB's primary strategy is to have all students attend regular classrooms of community schools. This strategy may not sound earthshaking until one considers that the great majority of school systems in North America adhere to the special education model of deliberately placing students in segregated settings outside their communities. Large numbers of students are bused to segregated settings in other communities at huge costs. These children do not have the opportunity to meet their neighborhood peers in the community of the local school. This segregation strategy makes them strangers in their own communities. In HWCDSB, all students attend neighborhood schools in the company of their peers, helping to build a community.

A second fundamental strategy is to recognize every student's strengths. The typical special education model derives from the medical model, with its focus on identifying a person's deficits that need diagnosis and fixing. If teachers highlight deficits, however, they risk losing sight of the child and all that is positive about the child. In a recent interview, Mary Galarneau queried,

What are we saying to parents? We are repeating to them each year, one more time, the negative aspects of their child. Each year as we prepare those [funding] packages we are telling them "just one more time." And the same thing with the new standards with the IEP. We have to put on there where the child is functioning. Not that I think people should be dishonest with parents, because I do not believe that for a minute, either. But do we need to continue to remind them each time that they have a 14-year-old functioning like a 5-year-old?

HWCDSB prefers to recognize each student's positive aspects and to build on those traits in an environment in which everyone can see how everyone else learns every day.

HWCDSB also believes that teachers, and not tests, reveal the most about children's learning. A common aspect of the traditional special education model is reliance on standardized tests, including tests of intelligence. The result is a label that follows the student from that point forward and defines him/her to teachers and peers. Although some aspects of intelligence tests do have value and may be used to obtain information valuable for teaching, HWCDSB forbids their use without permission, believing that teachers do not need labels to help students (Hansen, 2001b). Instead, careful classroom observation and collaboration with parents and colleagues can answer almost all questions about a child's learning process. The result is a distinctly child-centred educational practice.

Too often in education the controlling variable for placement is academic or achievement level. If the student does not behave or achieve as do average students of the same age, then the student is not allowed to attend a regular class with age-appropriate peers. HWCDSB finds a more appropriate controlling variable is the need to be with other students of one's age. With this approach, all will learn together about each other and about how to function in a community.

The goal of the HWCDSB is to have all students in age-appropriate general education classrooms in their neighborhood schools. Consequently, it is critical that they have access to available community resources. Local hospitals, for example, provide inservices on certain conditions such as PDD, and also provide augmentative devices and contacts with other health support professionals. Collaboration with such associations as the Association for Community Living and Recreation Integration Hamilton is encouraged. Along with community volunteers in the classrooms, local high school students may complete cooperative placements in the elementary setting. They assist teachers and students in regular classrooms and receive high school credit for their work. For many, this is their first opportunity to form relationships with people with disabilities, and to obtain insight into how teachers and schools function. For some, the experience inspires them to choose a career in education. For others, it leads to new understandings of community and the value of difference. Most other school systems do not believe that using older cooperative education students, including those with disabilities, as models will result in motivating students to achieve higher levels. HWCDSB considers that giving high school students the opportunity to work with younger students with disabilities has been a worthwhile venture.

HWCDSB is not inflexible in applying its model. As a school community, two classes are offered that, because of their location, are identified as not fitting well with the inclusive model. These classes are a primary class for students with severe language deficits and a junior level specific learning disabilities class. Since few students are viewed as needing the level of support available in these classes, HWCDSB offers only one of each of these classes. Therefore, students who need these services attend a school other than their neighborhood school. Even then, however, these children are fully included in a general education class, where they receive the needed assessment and services. These "special" classes are seen as a temporary measure for assessing those students who have significant learning needs, so that when they return to their community schools, usually within a year, they arrive with the appropriate background.

Conclusion

In working with the families and peers of students with exceptionalities, HWCDSB has several collaborative strategies, such as MAPs and Circle of Friends. Everyone's input is valued as a key resource in planning what is best for the children. For the past 30 years, going to school in this education system is unlike going to school in almost every other school system in North America. It is an experience in equity and community for all, regardless of the type of difference.

The HWCDSB decided, over 30 years ago, that "each child with challenging needs requires a sense of belonging, reasonable and realistic success and concern for his or her dignity as a person.... All children[,] regardless of special talents or challenging needs, can grow[,] and they can grow best by attending their neighbourhood schools along with their brothers and sisters" (Browne, 1997, p. 1). Since adopting this philosophy, the HWCDSB has continued to refine its policies and procedures so that each child, regardless of his or her needs, can be educated in the community school in an age-appropriate general education classroom. It is time others follow this example and provide all students, since all are exceptional in some way, the educational experiences they deserve and to which they are entitled.

Table 1

Sample of the Preschool History Form

School: St. Mary's
Child's Name: *Emily Tran
First name child prefers to be called (if different
  from above):--

Date of Birth January 4, 1993
Gender: F X M --
Address: 155 Main Street
Telephone: [phone]
Form Completed by: Peter Tran
Relation to child: Father
Date form completed: September 9, 2001

Mother's Name: Andrea DiSalvo
Occupation: Oncologist

Father's Name: Peter Tran
Occupation: unemployed

Are both parents residing with the child?
Yes X No

    If No, who has custody of the child?

    Does the non-custodial parent have access to
    the child?
    Yes No

    Has a copy of the appropriate court order(s)
    regarding custody and access been forwarded
    to the school principal?
    Yes No

    (If No, please forward a copy to the principal)

IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHERS

The name of the child should be respected by the
teacher. Every attempt should be made to use the
proper spelling and pronunciation to conserve a
child's heritage and foster self-esteem.

The birth date of the child should be noted, since
children born in January and February are almost a
year older than those born in November and December.
Birth date may account for some developmental
differences. The birth date of each child should
be acknowledged by the class in a simple manner.

The teacher may be able to draw on parents'
occupations for discussion with the child or for
resources for classroom experiences.

The names of the parents or guardians should be
noted, since last names may not be the same as
those of the child. If a guardian or single parent
is indicated, then the teacher should be sensitive
to the absence of the mother and/or father in the
home. Class discussions should include alternate
family arrangements.

In reviewing court orders, the teacher should
meet with the school administration to establish
procedures for access to the child and the sharing
of information. Should confusion/uncertainty
exist regarding custody/access, the school social
worker should be consulted. Separated parents
need to be advised that without proper court
documentation, the school is obliged to honour
each parent's wishes.

References

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. Annals of Child Development, 6, 187-249.

Browne, B. (1997, August). New principals and vice-principals inservice: Special education. Paper presented at in-service for new principals and vice-principals, Hamilton, ON.

Bunch, G., Lupart, J., & Brown, M. (1997). Resistance and acceptance: Educator attitudes toward inclusion of students in regular classrooms. Toronto: Faculty of Education, York University.

Falvey, M. A., Forest, M., Pearpoint, J., & Rosenberg, R. L. (2000). All my life's a circle: Using the tools: Circles, MAPS & PATHS. Toronto: Inclusion Press.

Forest, M., Pearpoint, J., & O'Brien, J. (2000, July). Circle of friends: Not a program. Inclusion News 2000. Toronto: Inclusion Press, p. 14.

Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board. (1969). Special services committee report. Hamilton, Ontario: Author.

Hansen, J. (2001a). Each belongs: Part 1. Unpublished manuscript.

Hansen, J. (2001b). Each belongs: Part 2. Unpublished manuscript.

Kirk, R. H. (1998). The link between university course work and preservice teachers' attitudes toward students with special learning needs. College Student Journal, 32(1), 153-60.

Ontario Department of Education. (1968). The report of the provincial committee on aims and objectives of education in the schools of Ontario [Hall-Dennis]. Toronto: Author.

Pearpoint, J. (1994). From behind the piano: The building of Judith Snow's unique circle of friends. Toronto: Inclusion Press.

Pearpoint, J., & Forest, M. (1992). Two roads: Exclusion or inclusion? In J. Pearpoint, M. Forest, & J. Snow (Eds.), The inclusion papers: Strategies to make inclusion work (pp. 1-2). Toronto: Inclusion Press.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 59-74.

Sexton, D., Kelley, M., & Aldridge, J. (1998). Continuing tensions in education. Childhood Education, 74, 258-261.

Stainback, W., Stainback, S., & Stefanich, G. (1996, Spring). Learning together in inclusive classrooms: What about the curriculum? Teaching Exceptional Children, 14-19.

Wilson, A. K. (1983). A consumer's guide to Bill 82: Special education in Ontario. Toronto: OISE Press.

Author's note: Grants from the Faculty of Education and Faculty of Graduate Studies at York University made this article possible. Special thanks go to Gary Bunch for the suggestion and comments, to Nancy Adams for her help, and to the administration at the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic School Board for their input. All of the children's names mentioned here are pseudonyms. The author may be contacted at 4700 Keele St., Ross Building N837C, Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3, Canada.

Isabel Killoran is Assistant Professor, Faculty of Education, York University, Toronto, Canada.