please follow the instructions below in the attachments below 

Instructions

A case study critical analysis helps the learner establish a link between

the content of the case and the theories associated with it. As you

analyze the case information details and issues, the recommendations

and strategies to be followed will emerge. Your assignment is to be of a

critical and analytical nature supported by evidence and facts by the

scholarly article related to the central issue of your

case.

2. Introduction-

3. Body

4. Conclusion

5. References-

Introduction

Mary is a high school student who has shown interest in becoming a newspaper reporter in the future.

She has demonstrated her determination in pursuit of the career by completing a two -day shadow

exercise for a community newspaper. Mary also undertook a nine -week nonpaid reporting experience

with a newspaper reporter. Indeed, her actions convinced her handlers, including parents, career

mentors, and the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team, that she is interested and possesses the

skills to become a newspaper reporter. Mary’s case reflects two education theories, namely; the interest

theory and the theory of motivation or the expectancy -value theory. This article explores the link

between Mary’s case and the two theories and provides recommendations and strategies to as sist her

to realize her career goal.

Body

The arguments in the interest theory of education would best explain Mary’s trajectory towards

becoming a newspaper reporter. According to the theory, the ability to help learners find meaning and

value for courses is the route for realizing and maintaining their motivation (Harackiewicz, Smith, &

Priniski, 2016). Mary’s school has invoked the interest theory of education concepts to motivate her

towards attaining her career objectives. For instance, the school al lowed her to enroll in a two -day

shadowing reporter exercise regarding a community newspaper. Alternatively, the theory posits that

when students develop value -related beliefs, they tend to work harder, show greater interest, persist

longer, and perform better in their respective courses leading to future careers (Tibbetts, Harackiewicz,

Canning, & Hyde, 2014). Accordingly, students with greater involvement, exemplary identification with

career choices, and better positive attitudes towards tasks are those that see value in their

specializations like Mary. Thus, the interest theory of education encourages learning stakeholders such

as teachers, parents, and IEP to help learners in the best possible ways to achieve the career objectives.

The theory of motivation is also relevant in explaining Mary’s case as she pursues a future career in

newspaper reporting. Proponents of the theory argue that individuals opt for challenging tasks if they

value them and believe that they can succeed in the same (Harackiewicz et al. 2016). Mary’s actions in

her pursuit of a newspaper reporting career show her motivation, belief that she can prosper in it, and

values the career as her future specialization. For instance, her motivation manifests through her resolve

to undertake a 9-week nonpaid attachment with a reporter despite her tender age. Furthermore, the

theory of motivation explains the expectancy -value concept that could motivate Mary towards achieving

her career goals. As such, Harackiewicz et al. (2016) argue that self -belief and value of the task trigger

interest in the course and career choices among learners. The interests comprise the intrinsic value,

which is the enjoyment people derive from performing tasks. Under interests, there exists also the

attainment value which is the personal importance of excellently on tasks, and the utility value which

details the relevancy or the usefulness of tasks on learners’ current and future career goals. Additionally,

the theory of motivation maintains that intrinsic value exace rbates situational interest which activates

persistence. Thus, Mary’s determination originates from the individual interests that convince her

family, her supervisor, the community newspaper reporter, and her En glish teacher that she has the

interest and skills to become a reporter.

Conclusion

Mary has demonstrated that she is a hardworking student working hard towards her future career as a

newspaper reporter. Two theories namely, the interest theory of education and the theory of

motivation explain her case. The former stipulates that helping learners to realize the value of their

courses ignites their motivation while the latter argues that human beings choose challenging tasks if

they value them and believe that they can succeed in their pursuit. As a result, Mary requires counseling

on the value of her courses to rekindle her motivation in pursuing a career in newspaper reporting. Also,

Mary’s support system such as the family, the English teacher, the faculty supervisor, and the career

mentors should make her feel that although her course ch allenging, it is valuable and she possesses all

the skills and interests to succeed in its pursuit. Therefore, the two theories corresponding to Mary’s

case are the interest theory of education and the theory of motivation.

Winzer & Mazurek: Inclusive schooling for students with disabilities

International Dialogues on Education, 2019, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 43-

51

ISSN 2198-59

44

43

Margaret Winzer & Kas Mazurek (Canada)

Inclusive Schooling for Students with

Disabilities: Redefining Dialogues of Diversity

and Disability in the Canadian (Alberta) Agenda

Abstract: Inclusive education for students with disabilities is beset by foundational problems often related to

conflicting definitions. UNESCO, a lead agency, speaks to accommodating diversity; a parallel conversation is

preoccupied with disability. This paper is situated at the intersection of diversity, disability, and inclusive

schooling. It focuses on the present tendency to conflate disability with diversity to conform with UNESCO’s

version of inclusive schooling. As a case study, we use the Canadian province of Alberta where a recent set of

proposals aimed at reforming special education rebranded disability as diversity and promised inclusive

schooling as a solution to mounting diversity in the schools.

We explicitly argue that Alberta’s sustained muddle of intent related to inclusive schooling arises, at least in

part, from efforts to follow UNESCO’s broad prescriptions and assimilate disability into diversity. Misassump-

tions about the uniqueness of disability relative to other forms of diversity and difference have spilled over to

blanket disability and diminish the importance of schooling for those disabled in the political space. Implicit-

ly, the data are generalizable to other countries pursuing an inclusive agenda, particularly those in Europe.

Key words: diversity, disability, inclusive schooling, province of Alberta

* * *

摘要 (Margaret Winzer & Kas Mazurek: 残疾学生的全纳教育：加拿大[阿尔伯塔省]议程中关于多样性和

残疾对话的新定义）： 残疾学生的全纳教育通常受制于与矛盾的定义有关的一些基本问题。领头机构

联合国教科文组织支持多样性并与残疾进行平行对话。本文处在多样性，残疾和融合教育的交界处。它

着眼于当前将残疾与多样性结合起来的趋势，以符合联合国教科文组织关于融合式学校教育的模式。作

为案例研究，我们列举加拿大的阿尔伯塔省，在那里的一系列特殊教育改革提案中 提出了残疾作为多样

性的说法，并承诺融合教育可以解决学校日益增长的多样性。我们明确指出，阿尔伯塔省与全纳教育有

关的持续性困惑至少部分是由于遵循联合国教科文组织的一般规则，并将残疾纳入多样性的努力。与其

他形式的多样性和差异相比，对残疾的独特性的误解已扩大到一般残疾，并降低了在政治舞台上为残疾

人提供学校教育的重要性。数据可隐式地推广到追求包容性议程的其他国家，特别是欧洲国家。

关键词：多样性，残疾，全纳教育，阿尔伯塔省

摘要 (Margaret Winzer & Kas Mazurek: 殘疾學生的全納教育：加拿大[阿爾伯塔省]議程中關於多樣性和

殘疾對話的新定義）： 殘疾學生的全納教育通常受制於與矛盾的定義有關的一些基本問題。領頭機構

聯合國教科文組織支持多樣性並與殘疾進行平行對話。本文處在多樣性，殘疾和融合教育的交界處。它

著眼於當前將殘疾與多樣性結合起來的趨勢，以符合聯合國教科文組織關於融合式學校教育的模式。作

為案例研究，我們列舉加拿大的阿爾伯塔省，在那裡的一系列特殊教育改革提案中 提出了殘疾作為多樣

性的說法，並承諾融合教育可以解決學校日益增長的多樣性。我們明確指出，阿爾伯塔省與全納教育有

關的持續性困惑至少部分是由於遵循聯合國教科文組織的一般規則，並將殘疾納入多樣性的努力。與其

他形式的多樣性和差異相比，對殘疾的獨特性的誤解已擴大到一般殘疾，並降低了在政治舞台上為殘疾

人提供學校教育的重要性。數據可隱式地推廣到追求包容性議程的其他國家，特別是歐洲國家。

關鍵詞：多樣性，殘疾，全納教育，阿爾伯塔省

* * *

Winzer & Mazurek: Inclusive schooling for students with disabilities
International Dialogues on Education, 2019, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 43-51

ISSN 2198-5944

44

Zusammenfassung (Margaret Winzer & Kas Mazurek: Inklusive Beschulung für SchülerInnen mit Behinde-

rungen: Neudefinition des Dialogs über Vielfalt und Behinderung in der kanadischen [Alberta] Agenda): In-

klusive Bildung für Schüler mit Behinderungen wird von grundlegenden Problemen heimgesucht, die oft mit

widersprüchlichen Definitionen zusammenhängen. Die UNESCO, eine Lead-Agentur, spricht sich für die Be-

rücksichtigung der Vielfalt aus; ein paralleles Gespräch beschäftigt sich mit Behinderungen. Dieses Papier be-

findet sich an der Schnittstelle von Vielfalt, Behinderung und integrativer Schulbildung. Es konzentriert sich

auf die gegenwärtige Tendenz, Behinderung mit Vielfalt zu verbinden, um der UNESCO-Version der integrati-

ven Schulbildung zu entsprechen. Als Fallstudie verwenden wir die kanadische Provinz Alberta, wo eine Reihe

von Vorschlägen zur Reform der Sonderpädagogik die Behinderung in Vielfalt umbenannt und eine integra-

tive Schulbildung als Lösung für die wachsende Vielfalt in den Schulen versprochen haben.

Wir argumentieren ausdrücklich, dass Albertas anhaltende Absichtslosigkeit im Zusammenhang mit integra-

tiver Schulbildung zumindest teilweise auf Bemühungen zurückzuführen ist, den allgemeinen Vorschriften

der UNESCO zu folgen und Behinderungen in Vielfalt zu integrieren. Missverständnisse über die Einzigartig-

keit von Behinderungen im Vergleich zu anderen Formen von Vielfalt und Differenz haben sich auf eine all-

gemeine Behinderung ausgeweitet und verringern die Bedeutung der Schulbildung für Menschen mit Behin-

derungen im politischen Raum. Implizit sind die Daten verallgemeinerbar für andere Länder, die eine integ-

rative Agenda verfolgen, insbesondere für diejenigen in Europa.

Schlüsselwörter: Vielfalt, Behinderung, inklusive Schulbildung, Provinz Alberta

* * *

Аннотация (Маргрет Винцер, Кас Мазурек: Инклюзивное обучение для учеников с ограниченными

возможностями: к вопросу о трансформациях в дискуссии о многообразии и детях с нарушениями

здоровья – на примере проекта в канадской провинции Альберта): Инклюзивное образование для

детей с ограниченными возможностями связано со многими принципиальными вопросами,

которые, в свою очередь, порождают достаточно противоречивые определения этого

явления. ЮНЕСКО, коммуникационное агентство Lead выступают за то, чтобы концепт

«многообразие» учитывался на всех уровнях; параллельно развертывается дискурс о нарушениях

здоровья. Проблема находится на стыке концептуальных областей «Многообразие», «Нарушения

здоровья» и «Интегративное образование». В данной работе обозначается тенденция совместить

две концептуальные области – как это находит свое отражение в положениях ЮНЕСКО

относительно интегративного школьного образования и как это влияет на целевую группу

«школьники», а также приоритеты, направления, ежедневный практический опыт реализации

данной концепции.

В качестве примера рассматривается канадская провинция Альберта, в которой было сделано

сразу несколько предложений по реформе специальной педагогики; словосочетание «нарушения

здоровья» было заменено на «разные возможности», а интегративное школьное образование стало

рассматриваться как способ решить насущные вопросы, связанные с увеличением количества

«особых» детей в школах.

Мы настаиваем на той точке зрения, что выбранный в Альберте подход к интегративному

образованию в определенной степени объясняется желанием следовать общепринятым

предписаниям ЮНЕСКО и стремлением подвести вопросы нарушения здоровья к концепции

многообразия. Разногласия по поводу специфичности нарушений здоровья по сравнению с другими

формами многообразия и дифференциации перебросились на общую проблематику, связанную с

нарушениями здоровья; тем самым они умаляют роль школьного образования для людей с

ограниченными возможностями, а это важно в том числе для политической повестки. Данные,

полученные в результате изучения опыта канадской провинции, могут быть экстраполированы

для исследования данного вопроса в других странах, где обсуждается концепция интегративного

обучения; особенно это касается европейских государств.

Ключевые слова: многообразие, нарушения здоровья, инклюзивное школьное образование,

провинция Альберта

Winzer & Mazurek: Inclusive schooling for students with disabilities
International Dialogues on Education, 2019, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 43-51
ISSN 2198-5944

45

Introduction

As part of a general global demand to establish social justice, equity, and diversity as center pieces in

policy making, inclusive schooling for students with disabilities (special education needs) has

emerged as a widespread reform. Given its lengthy pedigree and increasingly central place in global

and national education policy discourses, it is not surprising that the inclusive schooling movement

has enthralled special education and involved many levels of general schooling.

That said, a universally accepted definition or any legal consensus about how to define inclusive

schooling does not exist (de Beco, 2014). Rather, sharply different and often non-compatible versions

ask different questions. As examples, but far beyond the scope of this paper, is the human rights ethos

propagated by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that, in fundamental ways, dif-

fers from the American thinking that students with disabilities receive education in the most appro-

priate settings, referred to as the least restrictive environment (LRE). Other versions ask ‘How much

inclusion is a good thing’ and pit partial inclusion (related to the LRE) against doctrinal and extreme

positions known as full inclusion, represented by the idea that all students with disabilities, at all

times, and at all levels, must be taught in general classrooms.

These two versions are at the heart of this paper which sets out to provide an example of the changing

dialogue on diversity and disability within the context of inclusive schooling. We have spoken to the

challenges that lie at the intersection of disability, diversity, and inclusive schooling previously (Win-

zer & Mazurek, 2017). This paper recharges the conversation but moves away from the theoretical

underpinnings to largely practical aspects. The discussion is set in our home province of Alberta

where a recent series of proposals sought to rebrand disability as diversity and promised inclusive

schooling as a solution to mounting diversity in the schools.. Alberta Education, the responsible minis-

try, claimed that the new agenda promoted the co-existence of diverse students in schools by moving

“from tolerating difference to valuing diversity” (Alberta Education, 2010b).

This brief paper explicitly focuses on the proposals, explains the core ideas with reference to the un-

derlying notion of subsuming disability under umbrella concepts of diversity, difference, and disad-

vantage, and spotlights some salient outcomes. Implicitly, it illustrates the tensions between education

reforms that promote equality for all and those that are more concerned with the needs of individual

consumers. We broadly conclude that Alberta’s set of reforms were muddled, plagued by a lack of

coherent interplay between legislation and practice on pivotal issues. The agenda seemed to be large-

ly fruitless in consolidating inclusive schooling although there is evidence that it did create a signifi-

cant reduction in official initiatives and urgency about disabled students and their needs in the politi-

cal space.

Alberta Education’s ambitious policies to handle disability and diversity within one inclusive system

offer an important lesson. The ensuing dilemmas are mirrored in other countries where the dynamics

of diversity have become an increasingly important category for action and where many jurisdictions

have undertaken the mission to welcome and engage all marginalized and disaffected groups and to

support diversity in the schools.

Case study

From the late-1980s on, the province of Alberta underwent reform activity in the direction of an inclu-

sive schooling agenda, but one with disabled students as the center piece of policy making. In 1993,

inclusive schooling was officially codified when Alberta Education crafted a policy that emphasized

Winzer & Mazurek: Inclusive schooling for students with disabilities
International Dialogues on Education, 2019, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 43-51
ISSN 2198-5944

46

the general classroom as the first placement option to be considered for identified disabled students

(see Alberta Education, 2004). Official endorsement of inclusive practices subsequently led to the

dismantling of separate settings such as resource rooms and special classes; many, but not all, special

schools were closed in favor of students sharing the mainstream. The possibility of greater general

classroom access led to significant increases in the diagnosis of disability, particularly within the se-

vere range. The numbers of disabled students in the general system grew from almost 10 percent of

total enrolments in the late-1980s to 13.4 percent by the mid-2000s. Students were identified and

funded within a complicated coding system that recognized many different types of disabilities and

degrees of severity. The number of eligibility categories for special services increased from 13 in 1992

to 19 in 2008 (Alberta Education, 1989; Alberta Education, 2008b, c).

At the same time, Alberta’s changing demographic scenario saw schools developing into complicated

settings of racial, linguistic, ethnic, cultural, social, and religious difference with twice the level of

classroom complexity compared to the average of all other jurisdictions in the Organization for Eco-

nomic Co-operation and Development (OECD; ATA, 2015). To add even more complexity to the mix,

cycles of austerity routinely appeared. The 1990s in Alberta were characterized by a long chain of

conservative economic policies that saw systems increasingly endorse market forms and accountabil-

ity dynamics. Concerns about public spending increased, together with significant demands to reduce

costs through greater efficiency and accountability.

Beginning in 2005, Alberta Education seriously embarked on a series of far reaching and fundamental

reforms that spanned a decade. The multiple proposals linked a number of pressing policy issues into

one debate. They addressed ideological commitment (social justice and equity), needs within the edu-

cation system (diversity), individual needs (disability), structural changes (inclusive schooling), and

external pressures (the politics of austerity). In the reform mode, policy makers formed at least tem-

porary alliances with ideology and social goals; they spoke to “value-based” approaches (Alberta Edu-

cation, 2010b). But, whatever the anchoring mechanisms, financial calculus was the driving force.

Reform was largely proxy for what commentators described as an exercise in “how best to manage

and plan for the cost of the other” (Gilham & Williamson, 2014, p. 557).

There are 375 distinct jurisdictional authorities (districts or divisions) in the province of Alberta (Al-

berta Education, 2016). In 2001, Alberta Education handed the responsibility for making funding de-

cisions about individual disabled students to the school authorities. But government spending had

become leaner and meaner and the resources devoted to education seriously declined. In their remit

to balance aid for general education and to fund inclusive practices, Alberta’s schools developed a

habit of identifying mounting numbers of students within the severe categories of disability, particu-

larly emotional disturbance and behavior disorders. Why? Because a designation of severe disability

produced high financial rewards- a bounty of $16,465 in additional funds for each identified student

(Charette, 2008; Graham & Jahnukainen, 2011).

In the fall of 2007, Alberta Education undertook a review of the 16,000 files that school boards

claimed met the severe disability criteria. Analyses of the funding arrangements found markedly in-

consistent application of severe disabilities identification across the province; only 56 percent of stu-

dents had bona fide severe disabilities that matched funding criteria (Alberta Education, 2008b). As a

direct result, the Alberta government underlined the need to improve the entire education system and

specifically called for a thorough examination of the special education enterprise (Alberta Education,

2008a).

After multiple consultative reviews and public forums that involved approximately 1000 stakeholders

(Alberta Education, 2010a), a framework titled Setting the direction, later Action on inclusion, emerged.

Winzer & Mazurek: Inclusive schooling for students with disabilities
International Dialogues on Education, 2019, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 43-51
ISSN 2198-5944

47

The documents were part of and prologue to a continuing chain of reform proposals (e.g., Alberta

Education, 2009, 2010b, 2011, 2012b, c). All were peppered with platitudes about diversity and inclu-

sion. All promised to address the massive diversity in the schools, expand and refine inclusive school-

ing, streamline special education, rethink fiscal arrangements for students with disabilities, and stem

unsustainable public spending. There was lots of talk about classification, coding, l abeling, and as-

sessment.

Overall, the set of proposals designed to fundamentally alter the directions of inclusive schooling in

Alberta articulated a number of notable discontinuities from past practice. We identify those most

germane to the present discussion below.

Diversity is a foundation of inclusive schooling. The original conceptual blueprint to guide inclusive

schooling in Alberta was built solely on the need to accommodate disabled students based on the

American model of the least restrictive environment. Action on inclusion and later documents changed

course by downplaying the disability variable in favor of a broader set of reforms with a different

policy intent.

Alberta Education’s new proposals essentially dismissed the classic concern for students with disabili-

ties in favor of privileging diversity. Policy makers held that “Inclusion is not just about learners with

special needs;” rather, inclusive schooling is “an attitude and approach that embraces diversity and

learner differences and promotes equal opportunities for all learners in Alberta” (2017, p. 1). Lore-

man (2018) describes the target audience laid out by Alberta Education as “a laundry list of categories

of diversity” (p. 2); that is, “race, religious belief, colour, gender, gender identity, gender expression,

physical disability, mental disability, family status or sexual orientation, or any other factors” (Alberta

Education, 2015b).

Disabilities are neutralized. The diversity framework characterizes disability as simply another

identity representation to be pursued alongside common markers such as culture, gender, ethnicity,

language, and social class. Such a model makes diversity proxy for commonality and tends to neutral-

ize disability. On one hand, it overlooks the uniqueness of disability relative to other forms of diversi-

ty, implies that disabilities are not really problems to learning, and fosters a perverse disinclination to

confront the real challenges facing students with disabilities. On the other, diversity demands uniform

treatment. Because all students are diverse and in need of various supports and practices, disability

does not really mean special needs. Under a new Alberta Education Act (2012a), for example, there are

no longer students with disabilities but students “in need of specialized supports and services.”

Reform would restructure schools and build a single inclusive education system. Alberta Educa-

tion (2009) proposed a system in which diversity and disability would function within “one inclusive

education system where each student is successful” (Alberta Education, 2009). Later, it spoke to

“shifting from a dual system of mainstream education and special education to a system that takes

responsibility for all students” (Alberta Education, 2012b). The documents also promised that all stu-

dents would “have equitable opportunity to be included in the typical learning environment and pro-

gram of choice” (Alberta Education, 2010a). Typical, referring to students in classes with their age

peers with instruction modified within the Alberta Program of Study (Alberta Education, 2010b) soon

morphed into an appropriate learning environment. Now inclusion did not “necessarily mean that

every student registered in the Alberta school system will be placed in a regular classroom” (Alberta

Education, 2012a). It seemed that a variety of settings, from segregated classes to the general class-

room would serve.

Winzer & Mazurek: Inclusive schooling for students with disabilities
International Dialogues on Education, 2019, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 43-51
ISSN 2198-5944

48

Outcomes and consequences

The above sketch of the attempted changes show that little about Alberta’s reform agenda was linear

or precise. On the contrary. Researchers critique “Inclusion’s confusion in Alberta” (Gilham & William-

son, 2014) and characterize the education landscape as riddled with a muddle of changes in defini-

tions and directions. The so-called reform climate is marked by lack of coherence, short horizons,

unfulfilled promises, and repeated calls for events that do not happen, and few notable successes. The

agenda is consistently an object of re-recognition. The Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) chides that

since the mid-1990s Alberta Education has been on a cycle where it is “just doing the same thing over

and over” to the extent that its reform agenda is “continually reoccupying the same space with an

unending series of revisions, scribbling and new texts” (ATA, 2014, p. 54).

Alberta’s decade of reform for students with disabilities ended rather abruptly in 2015 partly because

of the election of a new provincial government, partly because changing political discourses elevated

other priorities and dampened enthusiasm, and partly from what seems to be a pervasive ennui with

the whole concept of inclusive schooling for those with disabilities. Following, and since 2015, Lore-

man (2018) complains that there has been an “almost complete absence of action in policy and legisla-

tion with respect to improving inclusive supports for learners with disabilities.” Inclusive education,

he holds, has dropped “to be the lowest of government priorities” (Loreman, 2018, pp. 3, 4).

Researchers have warned that incorporating broad views of inclusion designed to encompass all

forms of diversity creates the risk that the interests of those with disabilities may become secondary

or be overlooked in favor of other minority interests (e.g., Norwich & Koutsouris, 2014). Prescient

words for the Alberta scenario where inclusive schooling went from being a very specific focus with a

very specific audience to a focus on simply providing children with disabilities an education (ATA,

2014). For example, what had previously been a separate department for inclusive learning within

Alberta Education was rolled into the general operation of the schools (ATA, 2015). Alberta’s present

Inclusive Education Policy (Alberta Education, 2015a) “represents the bare minimum” (Loreman,

2018, p.3). It is a mere two paragraphs long and Loreman (2018) suggests that the actual policy is, in

fact, not really a policy. The language used is vague and broad, it does not guide practice, does not

actually require schools to do anything, and does not foreclose any and all other options.

What Alberta Education describes as inclusive schooling is often decoupled from meaningful policy

and practice. Critics carp that “inclusive education in Alberta continues to be stuck in the 1990s”

(Loreman, 2018, p. 3). Alberta’s schools still rely on the Ministerial Order first developed in 1993

(mentioned earlier), and reiterated in the 2004 Standards for special education that specify that stu-

dents are entitled to inclusion in the general classroom as the first option on a menu of options. At

least some jurisdictions interpret the 2004 regulations to mean that segregated special education

programs are acceptable provided consideration is first given to placement in inclusive contexts.

Moreover, prescriptions about physical placement in the reform documentation are vague, flexible,

and changeable, with various mentions of ‘typical,’ ‘appropriate,’ ‘grouped programs based on specific

needs,’ and ‘a mix of the two experiences’ (Alberta Education, 2011; ATA, 2011; Gilham & Williamson,

20

14).

Certainly, Alberta boasts a remarkably broad public education system with much school choice. But it

is unclear exactly what inclusive schooling means. In general, traditional mechanisms remain dogged-

ly in place in an unchanged school system. Often, so-called inclusive practice is little more than recon-

stituted integration. For example, although Alberta Education (2010b) promised to move away from

medical models, identification, classification, and placement are often steeped in notions of individual

Winzer & Mazurek: Inclusive schooling for students with disabilities
International Dialogues on Education, 2019, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 43-51
ISSN 2198-5944

49

pathology. Further, any intent of all students within general settings is far from being realized. In-

stead, an actual approach of segregated and inclusive forms of education is maintained in both policy

and practice (Gilham & Williamson, 2014; Loreman, 2014).

Alberta Education’s list of diversity categories (2015b) included mental and physical disabilities but

elided specific references to students presenting with emotional or behavioral challenges, an increas-

ingly visible problem in contemporary classrooms. To accommodate children with such difficulties,

segregated special education programs, anomalies in an inclusive system, are flourishing, particularly

in urban areas. For example, Edmonton public schools have dozens of distinct sites for special educa-

tion. Many are segregated classes that cater to students with behavior disorders, severe emotional

problems, and autism. Similarly, the Catholic district has new plans for students with substantial be-

havior problems and severe autism who are not functioning well in typical classrooms. Some will be

congregated in a designated school building; others will be referred to private schools (French, 2017).

Postscript

This paper set out to discuss aspects of diversity and disability in inclusive schooling. We used Alber-

ta’s recent reform record as a case study to illustrate an increasing trend in contemporary special

education- assimilating disability into diversity so that inclusive schooling caters to the vastly mount-

ing diversity seen in the schools.

Alberta’s inclusive education reform objectives seemed to be woven around varied currents of educa-

tional thought, social goals, and economic considerations. Issues surrounding equality, diversity, and

the growing population of identified special pupils and their schooling were refracted through the

prisms of financial calculus and the imperatives of the fiscal restraint. Attempting to reconcile the twin

realities of diversity and disability within climate of austerity produced different paths to describe and

direct inclusive schooling that hobbled a coherent vision. Even after a decade of initiatives to change

the focus of inclusive schooling by rebranding inclusion as diversity, inclusive schooling in the prov-

ince of Alberta remains a contested domain with a host of unresolved questions about which inequali-

ties are the most important to address, who individuals with disabilities are, what is meant by inclu-

sion, who is to be included, and what ‘all’ means on an everyday basis.

Alberta Education documents prioritize diversity while the field remains preoccupied with students

with disabilities. Despite equity as the conceptual preference, the balance tips to disability as the pri-

ority. This continued tendency to focus upon students with disabilities and to downplay the needs of

other diverse groups is a relatively common focus in countries of the global North. For example, while

most European countries express an intention to realize inclusive education in accordance with the

UNESCO vision, “the results of its implementation in practice are not at all convincing” (Haug, 2016, p,

14).

As a final note, we can say that Alberta Education idealizes the inclusion project as a process well un-

derway. This paper argues that the promises became mired in a muddle of changing intent. There is

presently insufficient policy attention to the ways in which disability is being addressed as the system

dedicates itself- or attempts to- to diversity. Inclusion is a term employed at the level of policy making

but features of provision chime with traditional forms of special education. A multilevel architecture

remains in place that sustains a special system parallel to general education.

Winzer & Mazurek: Inclusive schooling for students with disabilities
International Dialogues on Education, 2019, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 43-51
ISSN 2198-5944

50

References

Alberta Education (1989): Students with challenging needs: A survey of programs and services. Basic

facts and figures. Edmonton: Alberta Response Centre.

Alberta Education (2004): Standards for special education. Edmonton: Alberta Educa

tion.

Alberta Education (2008b): Report on Severe Disabilities Profile Review. Edmonton: Alberta Education.

Alberta Education (2008c): Special education statistics: Alberta children and students with special edu-

cation needs. Edmonton: Alberta Education.

Alberta Education (2009, May 1): Setting the Direction framework. Edmonton: Alberta Education.

Alberta Education. (2010a, June 9): Forum helps shape future of inclusive education system. Edmon-

ton: Alberta Education.

Alberta Education (2010b): Inspiring action for inclusion. Edmonton: Government of Alberta.

Alberta Education (2011): Action on inclusion. Edmonton: Alberta Cataloguing in Publication Data.

Alberta Education (2012a): Education Act 2012. Edmonton: Alberta Education.

Alberta Education (2012b): Government of Alberta, education initiative, projects, and reviews, inclusive

education. URL: www.education.alberta.ca/department.ipr/inclusion

Alberta Education (2012c): Setting the Direction: Moving toward an inclusive education system in Alber-

ta. Edmonton: Alberta Education.

Alberta Education (2015a): Inclusive Education Policy. Edmonton: Alberta Education.

Alberta Education (2015b): Ministerial order on student learning. Edmonton: Alberta Education.

Alberta Education (2016, April): Number of Alberta schools and authorities. Edmonton: Alberta Educa-

tion.

Alberta Education (2017): The principles of inclusion. Edmonton: Alberta Education.

Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) (2011): Alberta’s Action on Inclusion: Transforming diversity

into possibility. In Leadership Update, p. 7.

Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) (2014): Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on inclusive education in

Alberta schools. Edmonton: ATA.

Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) (2015): Teaching and learning conditions in Alberta: A global

perspective. Edmonton: ATA.

de Beco, G. (2014): The right to inclusive education according to Article 24 of the UN Convention on

the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Background, requirements and (remaining) questions. In

Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 32/3, pp. 263-287.

French, J. (March 6, 2017): Inclusion advocates irked by Catholic plan for aggressive students. In Ed-

monton Journal, p. 1.

Gilham, Ch., & Williamson, J. (2014): Inclusion’s confusion in Alberta. In International Journal of Inclu-

sive Education, 18, pp. 553-566.

Graham, L., & Jahnukainen, M. (2011): Wherefore art thou, inclusion? Analysing the development of

inclusive education in New South Wales, Alberta and Finland. In Journal of Education Policy, 26, pp.

263-288.

Haug, P. (2016): Understanding inclusive education: Ideals and reality. In Scandinavian Journal of Dis-

ability Research, 19, pp. 206-217.

Loreman, T. (2014): Measuring inclusive education outcomes in Alberta, Canada. In International

Journal of Inclusive Education, 18, pp. 459-483.

Loreman, T. (2018, February 2): Disability & inclusive education policy in Alberta: The lowest of prior-

ities. URL: http://inclusiveeducation.ca/2018/02/02/disability-inclusive-education

Winzer & Mazurek: Inclusive schooling for students with disabilities
International Dialogues on Education, 2019, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 43-51
ISSN 2198-5944

51

Norwich, B., & Koutsouris, G. (2014): Recognising value tensions that underlie problems in inclusive

education. In Cambridge Journal of Education, 44, pp. 479-493.

UNESCO (2005): Guidelines for inclusion: Ensuring access to education for all. Paris: UNESCO.

Winzer, M., & Mazurek, K. (2017): Diversity, difference, and disability. In International Dialogues on

Education: Past and Present. URL:

www.ide-journal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/IDE-2017-1-full , pp. 225-231.

About the Authors

Prof. Dr. Margaret Winzer: Emerita, University of Lethbridge, Faculty of Education, Alberta (Cana-

da); e-mail: margret.winzer@uleth.ca

Prof. Dr. Kas Mazurek: University of Lethbridge, Faculty of Education, Alberta (Canada); e-mail:

kas.mazurek@uleth.ca



