CANADIAN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATIONS AND THE INCLUSIVE MOVEMENT FOR STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the1980s Canadian teachers ‘ associations became deeply immersed in the reform movement that called for the inclusion of students with special needs into general classrooms. Associations raised issues surrounding inclusive schooling, particularly in regard to the conditions of teaching and learning. As inclusion evolved into a dominant paradigm for schooling, the associations assumed more positive and conciliatory stances. To illustrate the manner in which Canadian teachers ‘ associations confronted the inclusive schooling policy, this paper discusses common overlapping elements found in their collective dialogue surrounding three major themes –- implementation, funding and supports, and professional development. It considers initial association responses and gradual shifts in stances by many associations as they increasingly supported inclusive schooling and assimilated its concepts under the banners of teacher professionalism and social justice. The 1980s heralded a remarkable commitment to inclusive schooling for students with special needs. The philosophical assumptions and discourses that underlay the inclusive movement focused on social justice, civil rights, and equity, and differed fundamentally from traditional conceptions of exceptionality and special education. Government intervention was intense and sustained: many jurisdictions acted to form statutory and operational frameworks to define and facilitate special services within an inclusive framework. The ensuing legislation and policies diminished the line between general and special education and broadened the responsibilities of general classroom teachers. However, meaningful reform cannot be achieved without ownership by the teachers who are called upon to implement the changes and by the associations that represent their collective
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".