Sheila Bennett

Partnering for Change: An Innovative School-Based Occupational Therapy Service Delivery Model for Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder

Background. Developmental coordination disorder (DCD) is a common, chronic health condition that is poorly recognized and understood in school settings. Without appropriate support, children with DCD are at increased risk of depression, decreased fitness, and obesity. Evidence shows that occupational therapy intervention needs to shift from remediation of impairment to chronic disease management. Purpose. This paper describes Partnering for Change (P4C), an innovative, empirically derived school health service delivery model for children with DCD. Key Issues. The model emphasizes the partnership of the occupational therapist with educators and parents to change the life and daily environment of a child. The P4C partnership focuses on capacity building through collaboration and coaching in context. The model uses a tiered approach which includes whole class instruction, dynamic performance analysis, and monitoring response to intervention. Implications. P4C is a model that responds to the needs of this population, addresses issues identified in research, and provides a continuum of services designed to build capacity.

A View from the North: Special Education in Canada.

that in the United States—is solely controlled by each of the 10 provinces and three territories. This variance in policy and practice has resulted in both similarities and differences in the ways students receive special education services across Canada: • Similarities include the use of individual education plans (IEPs), a collaborative approach to problem-solving, and an emphasis on inclusion. • Differences focus on special education teacher training requirements, definitions of exceptionalities, and funding models. This article describes special education in Canada and explores current issues of concern: a shrinking teacher population, fiscal restraint, and access to special education services in remote areas. Geographical and Historical Perspectives Canada is a country of approximately 31 million people spread out from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific. Politically, it is divided into 10 provinces and three territories, with each jurisdiction having control over a number of governmental programs and policies. As we mentioned previously, this control extends to educational policies. Historically, special education in Canada began in the mid-1800s, with the emergence of specialized schools for students with visual impairments (Weber & Bennett, 1999). With a quickly growing population spread out over a huge geographic area, these centers, by necessity, were located in those areas with the largest populations. Over the next 150 years, an education system in Canada would emerge in the form of what is currently accepted as the norm, with the delivery of special education services being an integral part of the educational landscape. Probably because of the vast spaces involved in the country, a system emerged where control over educational policymaking rests with each province and territory. Unlike the United States, there is no federal Department of Education. The federal government, housed in Ottawa, Ontario, does not pass legislation mandating educational policy that must be adhered to by provinces or territories. The financing, curriculum, and delivery of special education programs and services, as well as all other aspects of providing a compulsory education program, come under the control of the provincial/territorial legislative assembly and may differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (Winzer, 1996). In each province and territory, it is the Ministry or Department of Education that administers the Education Act for that province or territory. The head of the Ministry or Department is an elected member of the provincial/territorial parliament, appointed by the premier of that province or territory, and is known as the “Minister of Education.” All provinces have locally elected school boards, which, though having some local educational autonomy, must adhere to the provinces’ education acts, regulations, and the dictates of the Minister of Education.

Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms: Efficacy and Beliefs of Canadian Preservice Teachers.

This study provides a Canada-wide snapshot of the self-efficacy and beliefs of 1490 preservice teachers in relation to inclusive teaching using the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practice and the Beliefs about Learning and Teaching Questionnaire. At the time of data collection, these preservice teachers were in the final stages of their teacher education programmes. Based on the results of surveys in 11 Faculties of Education, men have higher self-efficacy than women for managing behaviour in the classroom, elementary preservice teachers have higher self-efficacy in collaboration than those teaching in secondary schools, those enrolled in the 1-year post-degree programme show lower self-efficacy than those enrolled in programmes of other durations, and those who have experience with people with special education needs show higher self-efficacy than those who do not. Differences illustrated that women were more inclusive than men, 1-year post-degree preservice teachers were less inclusive than others, and those who have experience with people with special education needs are more inclusive than those who do not. Recommendations for teacher education and limitations surrounding the practical significance of the findings are discussed.

Examining Learner Engagement Strategies: Australian and Canadian Teachers' Self-Report.

The Learning and Engagement Questionnaire (LEQ) measures instructional and environmental variables associated with learner engagement. The present study sought to determine the suitability of the LEQ to measure learner engagement with a sample of Canadian teachers and to further investigate the factorial structure in comparison with the Australian context. Canadian teachers (N = 739) from Kindergarten to Grade 12 responded to the LEQ in ways that are explained by two factors identified as “Instructional Cycle” and “Student-Directed Learning.” The previously reported factor structure of the LEQ identified five factors in the Australian study: “Goal Directed Learning,” “Task Selection,” “Intensive Teaching,” “Teacher Responsiveness,” and “Planning and Learning Environment.” There is a discussion of the cross- cultural differences between the Australian and Canadian participant groups and their dominant pedagogical approaches. The LEQ has the potential to raise teachers’ awareness of the strategies they can use to facilitate inclusive practice through differentiated student engagement.

The six “P” model: principles of coaching for inclusion coaches

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify a set of principles that are necessary to overcome the challenges that inclusion coaches encounter with teachers as they transition into an inclusive service delivery model. Design/methodology/approach Online written reflections of 13 inclusion coaches (K-12) who were a part of a larger, mixed-methods research design are the primary data source. For the two years of the project, the inclusion coaches provided bi-annual reflections, each with 7-11 entries. The reflections were downloaded, coded, collapsed, and thematically presented as the inclusion coaches’ perspectives for supporting teachers’ inclusive classroom practices. Findings The findings are presented as six principles for the process of coaching teachers for inclusion: pre-requisite: teachers’ receptivity; process: from building trust to collaborating and reflecting; precipice: tension between knowledge and beliefs; promotion: administrative support; proof: evidence of change, impact, and capacity building; and promise: future of the role. Practical implications These six principles of coaching for inclusion offer considerations, conditions, and guides for inclusion coaches that are striving for fully inclusive classrooms in their jurisdictions. With a view to future practice, the six principles are reiterative as they should be revisited each time a coaching interaction is initiated in a school site and with a classroom teacher. Originality/value As a conclusion, a conceptual model is offered. This spiraling staircase displays the conditions that exist prior to coaching and during coaching interactions and considerations for coaching sustainability.

Recommended practices to organize and deliver school-based services for children with disabilities: A scoping review

BACKGROUND Inclusive educational environments can have a positive effect on the general health and well-being of children with disabilities. However, their level of academic success and participation remains limited. Considering scarce resources and high needs, identifying efficient methods for providing interdisciplinary services is critical. This scoping review, therefore, aims to (a) synthesize current evidence about principles for organizing and delivering interdisciplinary school-based support services for students with disabilities and (b) ascertain useful strategies for implementation of principles in the school setting. METHODS Scholarly and grey literature in rehabilitation and education were reviewed collaboratively with school-based stakeholders. A search of five databases identified 13,141 references and resulted in 56 relevant articles published from 1998 to 2017. Information (e.g., principles to organize services and strategies for implementation) was extracted, and thematic analysis was used to summarize findings. RESULTS Within the documents retained, 65% were scientific and 35% were grey. Services primarily targeted students with behavioral issues, followed by those with cognitive and learning disabilities with a focus on improving social-emotional functioning and academic performance. Thematic analysis revealed 10 common principles to guide service organization (e.g., collaborative interventions and support for teachers) and seven implementation strategies (e.g., training and coordination) for employing these principles. CONCLUSIONS Findings can guide rehabilitation professionals, educators, and policy makers in restructuring well-coordinated collaborative services involving training and capacity-building of school-based service providers. Such knowledge can contribute to the improved provision of care and, consequently, promote childrens school participation and inclusion.