Special Needs Resource Roles: A Cross-Jurisdictional Comparison

This paper compares selected aspects of school-based special needs resource teacher role in Northern Ireland and in Ontario, Canada. Particular attention is given to how clearly role is defined for practitioners within their respective jurisdictions. Practitioners' major objectives in role are discussed and way in which both groups of participants spend most of their time is presented. Key factors that may be impacting on role in both jurisdictions are also identified. The findings discussed here are pan of a larger study comparing resource role in these two jurisdictions. The major study involved a series of personal interviews with special needs resource teachers in both jurisdictions (n=30), and follow up questionnaires (n=150). Educational policy makers in both Ontario, Canada and Northern Ireland advocate that special needs students be educated in mainstream classes. Indeed, according to Ainscow (1997), the idea of inclusive education is gaining ground in many parts of world (p.3). Stainback and Stainback (1992) also support notion of `Schools as Inclusive Communities', while being careful to point out that appropriate educational experiences and support in integrated settings (p.29) are key elements in special needs students being successful in mainstream. The skills and attitudes of regular teachers are also vitally important when it comes to successfully `including' special needs students (Giangreco, Dennis, Cloninger, Edelman & Schattman, 1993). Background The education systems in both Northern Ireland and Ontario have developed a specific role focused on support of special needs students in mainstream classrooms. In Ontario, these individuals are known under a variety of titles, most frequently involving some reference to `Resource Teacher'. Although title may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (e.g. Academic Resource Teacher; Special Education Resource Teacher), intent of role is relatively consistent. A model for resource teacher role emerged in Ontario in early 1980s in response to legislation dealing with education of special needs students. The model evolved from much of resource teacher literature in United States and was clearly articulated in Ontario by Wilson (1984), in publication `Opening Door--A Key to Resource Models'. It became generally accepted in school boards across Ontario as preferred approach to supporting special needs students in regular classrooms. This new role required resource teacher to have not only assessment and programming skills required for working directly with students but also to have skills involving consulting and collaborating with other teachers. Special Education in Northern Ireland also experienced some major changes in 1980s following Warnock Report (1978). The notion of `a whole school approach' to special educational needs gained support in England, and Northern Ireland was able to look to this as a future model. This concept offered exciting alternative to more traditional forms of provision found in ordinary schools (Dessent, 1987). The Code of Practice on Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs (DfE, 1994),- implemented in Northern Ireland in 1998- requires that all schools designate a member of staff with responsibility for coordinating special needs within school. The emergence of Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator (SENCO) in England was a key development in addressing need for support in ordinary schools. In spite of some issues around lack of clarity, definition, and training (Bines, 1988; Dyson, 1990), SENCO role became established in Northern Ireland. The SENCO is expected to work closely with teachers as they strive to meet special needs of students in their classes. The Code sets out responsibilities of SENCO, however, Dyson and Gains (1995), stated that Code imposes an enormous-perhaps overwhelming burden on co-ordinators (p. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.