Synopsis
In New Zealand education was made free, secular and compulsory with the passing into law of the Education Act 1877. By 1880, the first provision was made for students with special needs when the Sumner Institution for the Deaf and Dumb was opened. In 1989 legislation was passed so that all children could enrol and attend at their local school, where that was their parents wish. An interval of 112 years had occurred between the provision of free secular and compulsory education and that provision becoming universal. In 1995 the government announced its policy Special Education 2000.
Over that intervening period New Zealand had emerged as a nation that was an innovator and leader in many aspects of social welfare provision - we were 'the welfare state'. By the mid 1950's the nation had come to expect some provision and maintenance of state welfare support from 'cradle to the grave'. As the pressures of the oil crisis of the mid -1970s took hold over most first world nations, New Zealand, like the United States, and the United Kingdom moved away from the 'settlement' in social welfare and state provision that had previously been a hallmark of its social democracy.
In 1984 the government commenced a startling social experiment that lasted 15 years. The move towards privatisation of the state sector was driven by the market driven ideologies of neo-Liberalism, identified in New Zealand as Rogernomics. Towards the end of the reform period, the policy Special Education 2000 was released and implemented on a stage by stage basis. School principals were to become the implementors and managers of the last part of the major reforms in state education; and parents termed the consumers of the new era of special education were cast into the role of being the other players in this process.
Introduction
Allocation of what are essentially "limited and finite" resources into areas of expenditure such as special education has historically presented a dilemma to government in New Zealand. With a land area similar to that of the United Kingdom, a population of 3.8 million people (and a third of these in the largest city, Auckland), the implementation of special education policy presents particular challenges to policy makers. In this paper, the authors (both parents of children with special needs) evaluate the implementation of New Zealand's most recent education policy initiative - Special Education 2000 (SE200) - introduced in 1998.
The presentation is divided into four main areas:
- First - an introduction to set the scene;
- Second - an historical review of policy development, through successive government administrations, extending over 123 years, which culminates in the latest SE2000 initiative introduced in 1996;
The research that supports the third part of this presentation was undertaken in the greater Auckland area in three distinct phases. Initially, in a research project commissioned by the Family Advocacy Charitable Trust (FACT) in 1997, some 260 parents were surveyed by questionnaire, plus in depth interviews were conducted with 10% of these participants. In addition a number of disability support providers, ranging from parent groups to national providers were interviewed. Secondly, the field work component of a post graduate thesis in social policy created the opportunity to undertake semi-structured interviews with six school principals during 1999 who had already experienced the initial stages of the new policy's implementation. Thirdly, six of the initial participants in the 1997 FACT research were interviewed again in the year 2000 to provide comparative data on their experiences as parents under the Special Education 2000 policy. As well, six additional parents of children with special needs who had recently requested advocacy support in dealing with the services provided under the policy were interviewed. The paper correlates all the above information sources and reviews the impact of this most recent special education policy initiative on parents of children with special needs in New Zealand.
Throughout this paper reference is made repeatedly to Special Education 2000 (SE2000). The policy is made up of seven components designed to address the needs of learners in the early childhood and compulsory sectors of the education system. These are:
The categories are resourced in a variety of ways, from centralised management of assessment for entry into a targeted resourcing scheme (ORS), to the bulk funding on a population based formula to schools (SEG).
The recent major influence on policy in special education.
A significant influence upon the government's policy response to
students with special needs was the process organised by the Department of
Education in 1987 when more than fifty individuals and departmental officials
met for a week to compile the Draft Review of Special Education. The background
to the document noted that;
"Clear support has emerged for the principal of
equity for all, which requires the fullest possible inclusion of all students
in regular settings, rather than the continuation of a parallel system."
And "Education systems have dealt with many individual differences by a
process of exclusion . . ." and " While special education is still required for
many students with handicaps it is now internationally acknowledged that they
should not be segregated from their age peers without the most compelling
reasons." (Pp. 16-17).
There appeared to be no doubt in the authors' minds that special education services needed to be delivered to students in such a way that maximised the power of an inclusive educational setting. However an essential prerequisite for successful change would be ; " A major public education campaign is required. Without the support of society as a whole the necessary resources will not be provided." (p.9)
The importance of the Draft Review was lost amongst the intervening changes in education which focused on its management. In 1989 the fourth Labour Government brought change to the education provision for children with disabilities and special needs when it passed the Education Act 1989. This enabled all students to enrol and attend at their local school. The intention of the Education Act 1989 is very clear " . . . people who have special education needs (whether because of disability or otherwise) have the same rights to enrol and receive education at state schools as people who do not . . ." (Section 8) . This provision enabled students to be 'mainstreamed', as it was referred to then, on the basis of their parent's choice, rather than an education official's approval. Those employed in the sector responsible for delivering special education were made aware that their position and knowledge base was no longer one of absolute power. Parental choice was now legitimated and regarded by many as a right. This often became a point of challenge where parental rights and children's' needs would be played off against each other.
At the time the of the law change, in 1989, there had been considerable overseas influence over special education in New Zealand, particularly from the United States. The federally mandated legislation, educational models, resource provision, national lobby and support group processes, had all impacted upon the process of change that the then Education Department was encouraging. A feature of this work was the commitment to involving parents of children with special needs alongside professionals in all aspects of the development and training by the Department in the area of special education - an active process of partnership was being promoted.
Many parents took on as much knowledge of these approaches and practices as they could, adapting them for themselves and their children. And some of these parents came into the vanguard of the movement for inclusive education - with encouragement from the voluntary welfare sector involved in disability service provision in the community. Many of the professionals working within the new Crown agency responsible for this sector, the Special Education Service, aligned themselves with these practices and their linked values. It appeared that some parts of the system moved while others were static or much slower in their response to engage with the conceptual reorganisation of special education to meet a 'rights based' demand.
Ballard (1998) suggests that the movement toward inclusive education must not be based upon the relocation of the practises of [segregated] special education into the regular or mainstream environment. And for a number of years momentum gathered among groups of educationalists, professionals and parents to ensure that the distinctive advantages of inclusive education were embraced in practice.
There was now a dual system in place. One system represented all the accumulated resources and culture of the institutions for those with sensory impairments, residential special schools for students with behavioural disorders, day special schools and their satellite classes for students with intellectual disabilities, units for students with physical disabilities and special classes set up by schools. The other embraced the ideology of inclusion, with students with special needs being part of the regular school life. A dual approach to curriculum, pedagogy, training of staff and funding levels had thus become established.
Education serving the state.
In 1991 the National Government made clear their view of the education system and educational professionals as being a system to serve the State and its economic drive. The following are all found in the foreword to the 1991 education policy document Investing in People : Our greatest asset. "Education is fundamental to our future," .. and ". . . investing in educational achievement was central to the new government's economic strategy . . ." ..and " . . .investment in the new achievement focussed strategies . . ." and finally " . . . the government has made a number of investment decisions. . ." (p.10)
These statements were indicative of education being 'commodified' and positioned as a component of 'the marketplace'. The significance of this shift is signalled by the statement of the then Minister of Education, Hon Lockwood Smith that "Economic change is continuing, intensifying the pressures to train, increase skills and to improve the standard of management." The impact on teachers of this approach is clear when he states that the goal will be achieved when professionals " . . . adopt policies to make education . . . more responsive to the labour market." (p.10) The profession of education is demanded to support the 'values' of neo-liberalism and teachers are required to respond to the needs of the market. This philosophy did not meet the special educational needs of students in the mainstream of regular education, nor the expectations of parents, educationalists and lobbyists.
The big picture - reform in New Zealand education
The implementation of Special Education 2000 must be placed into the context of the reform of education in New Zealand. At the Special Education Research Conference in 1999, the Secretary of Education, Howard Fancy stated that "Special Education 2000 represents a major rethinking from past policy approaches in this area. . . Special Education 2000 is about putting in place a much more robust and enduring approach to policy." (p.2) Fancy (1999) indicated the importance of three inter-related elements; " the need to integrate different elements of special education policies. . . the need to provide greater certainty and predicability . . . and . . . financial robustness."(p.2) Departing from his prepared speech notes, Fancy indicated that the implementation of Special Education 2000 completed the reforms initiated by the Tomorrow's Schools policy. The reforms in education were initiated by the fourth Labour Government and were a part of the much bigger reform of state provision and involvement in social services that we have come to know as Rogernomics, and was identified by Kelsey (1995) as the New Zealand Experiment . Three key documents shaped the reforms in education; the first, Economic Management, prepared by the Treasury (which identified their social policy agenda) and delivered to the new Labour Government in 1984. The second - The Report of the Taskforce to Review education administration, Administering for Excellence : Effective Administration (1988), most often referred to by the name of its key author 'the Picot Report'. And the third, the 1988 response from the Minister of Education (the Rt. Hon. David Lange) to the 'Picot Report', Tomorrow's Schools : The reform of education administration in New Zealand.
In the decade leading up to Tomorrow's Schools there had been intensive
and divergent debate regarding critical issues and practises in special
education at international and national levels, (Stainback and Stainback,1996).
In New Zealand this was also the case, however the process of reform in
education predominated with those demands being felt across the whole of the
education sector.
Mitchell (1999) while describing the changes in special
education policy identifies how "Other paradigm shifts" (p.199) were of
significance. These reflected the changes in the broader public sector as well
as education, among them being;
principles of :(a) separating policy,
regulatory and delivery functions; (b), reducing public monopolies and
maximising contestability; (c), shifting the balance of responsibility for the
governance, management and accountability of learning institutions from the
centre to elected boards of trustees (BOTs) responsible for individual
institutions; (d), moving from the use of input controls to quantifiable output
measure and performance targets; and (e), moving towards greater parental
choice. (p.199)
The evolution of Special Education 2000 and its implementation has taken place concurrently with several phases of special education reform in New Zealand. Mitchell, (1999) identifies two; and at the time of preparing this paper a third phase is emerging. Since the election of the Labour / Alliance Coalition Government in 1999 the Minister of Education has proceeded with the Review of the Special Education 2000 policy in operation and this due to be reported back by the end of July 2000. Coupled with this review will be the implementation of the Labour manifesto on special education. Analysis of the policy mechanisms used by the Ministry of Education to secure the changes required to commence the implementation of Special Education 2000 can be found in comments made by Grace (1992) in his work describing the crisis and settlements in New Zealand education policy under the fourth Labour Government. According to Grace (1992) the construction of crisis may arise when;
critics of the established consensus are able to demonstrate by reference to legitimated and independent sources of evidence that the system does not have the confidence of a significant number of citizens or that the system is patently failing in terms of its own stated objectives. (p.167)
Following the election of the National Government in 1990 there were lengthy delays before the Minister of Education released the document Special Education in New Zealand : Statement of Intent in 1991. Concern was being voiced across the sector. Many individuals, schools, professional groups and organisations were expressing feelings of frustration, and parents their sense of dis-empowerment, as the concept of 'rights' enshrined in the Education Act 1989 became displaced by practises linked to educational reform. In the absence of any detail in policy related to inclusion, and with a number of comments made by the Minister that contradicted the prevailing direction of special education, which as previously mentioned continued to operate as a dual system and now justified under the guise of 'parent choice'; there was a high level of frustration.
A protracted period of consultation followed. This was undertaken through the work of the Special Education Policy Implementation Team (SEPIT) whose fifteen members canvassed views and opinions over three cycles of consultation taking two years. The Final Report of this group was released in August 1993.
In 1995 the Minister of Education released the Special Education Policy Guidelines and announced his desire for Ministry officials to work on "proposals for the future direction for special education - Special Education 2000."
In May 1996, the policy, Special Education 2000 was released to
educators and parents. In June 1996, a further announcement was made of policy
direction. The introduction to that announcement stated that there was to be a
substantial increase in funding with $55 million new money to implement the
policy. The aim of Special education 2000 was: "to achieve over the next
decade, a world class inclusive education system that provides learning
opportunities of equal quality to all students." (MoE, May1996, p. 3)
The
policy had two major components:
Information, education and specialist support to assist families,
schools and teachers achieve the best possible learning environment for all
students with special education needs.
Key Elements of this support were:
A significant increase in funding to provide assured and predictable resourcing for individual students and schools. The key elements to this support were:
The policy announced that "a small group of students (about 2 per cent of the school population) need a high level of support if they are to participate in and benefit from the school programme." The two per cent was to be a combination of 0.4% of those students (2,500) with very high needs and 1.6% (11,500)of high needs students. (ibid, p.3)
The policy also highlighted the importance of the family's involvement
in the policy "It is the family who is critical to the child's educational
achievement." And,. . . "It is the family which has long term responsibility
for the child and knows the child best. It is therefore the family which will
make the most important decisions on the child's behalf." (ibid p.10)
The
policy promised parents that it would: "promote greater understanding of the
rights of parents to choose their child's school" and "make schools aware of
the responsibility they have to all of the students in their communities."(ibid
p.11)
The policy was to be phased in over three years.
The June 1996 policy statement focussed mainly on the use of the Special Education Grant, which was to be bulk funded to schools. The premise used by the Ministry of Education to fund schools in this manner was that: "apart from those students with 'very high' and 'high' level needs, students with special education needs are distributed across the total school population." (MoE 1996, p.3)
And so it was appropriate to make the funding provisions directly to the school for their management. Special Education 2000 places the task of achieving opportunities of equal quality for students with disability upon their parents, and teachers. Schools are resourced directly and for most of their students they will have to purchase the services needed. The market model had been put in place by these actions, and subsequently the role of the State into the background.
The June 1996 statement reinforced the Special Education Policy
Guidelines released in June 1995.
Principle 4 stated: "Partnership between
parent/caregivers and education providers is essential in overcoming barriers
to learning."
Principle 5 "All special education resources are used in the
most effective and efficient way possible, taking into account parent choice
and the needs of the learner." (MoE, June 1996,p.7)
The document also
reinforced the legal and regulatory obligations of school board's of trustees.
At the last count a further 36 documents advising special education policy
or guidelines had been released over the ensuing three years.
Two accounts prevail of the policy development model being used.
The disjointed incremental approach
The ongoing release of detail to support the implementation of the policy presents a clear example of what Lindblom (1979) defined as disjointed incrementalism. Parsons (1995) indicated that this method is likely to embody a range of approaches: limited options arising from analysis, inter-weaving of goals, values and analysis; examination of the problem not the solution, trial and error approach, restriction of analysis to a few possible solutions, and "fragmenting of analytic work to many partisan participants in policy-making." (p.292) While these points offer a description that gives a view of the development and implementation of Special Education 2000 it could be argued by officials close to the development of the policy that their approach differed.
The rational - comprehensive method
An alternative description of the process and its typology can be found in the rational - comprehensive method, (in essence a prescriptive approach to policy making). Yet again Ministry officers may dispute this model and the academic accounts of its operation and problems. In reviewing this approach, Hill (1997) notes some of the earlier concerns identified by Braybooke and Lindblom in 1963. Their detail is important in laying out the range of troubles that may emerge when the rational comprehensive model is utilised if it is not adapted to resolve the following issues:
It is our view that both approaches are being used, but the spill over from the problem areas is being left for those implementing the policy to try to remedy in the first instance.
Not all of the policy communication was about specific detail of
financial supply or service provision. An ongoing component of the
communication strategy has been the developing of a sentiment in the education
sector that was about the process of implementation itself.
In 1997 the
secondary message in documents detailing the policy was amended, and the
'banner slogan' was changed from "Getting it right" to "Getting it Right,
Together".
Special Education 2000's stated aims were:
Young children and school
students with special education needs will:
The Ministry of Education document then indicated that there would be: "Professional development, training and information for boards of trustees, principals teachers and parents of children with special needs." (Ibid p.4)
Under the heading of "Educators and parents/caregivers - the key relationship", the Ministry of Education stated ; "For this new policy to work, it is vital that early childhood centres, schools and families decide together how the special education needs of individual students should be met." (ibid p.5)
And ;
Funding is now provided directly to schools for students with moderate special education needs rather than allocated centrally because it is believed that those closest to the student- schools educators and parents/caregivers - together are best able to make funding decisions about these students. (ibid p.5)
The meaning of partnership for parents
The two basic components of the Special Education 2000 policy that attracted many parents were the opportunity of a formalised partnership with the educational professionals who taught their children and the promise of allocated resources for children with special needs, whether they were linked to the child or school-based. There was a belief, held by many parents, that with these two elements alongside The Special Education Guidelines and with training for Boards of Trustees, principals and teachers; there would emerge a level of formal accountability, hitherto lacking, by those providing services for their children with special needs.
The SE2000 policy stated that the key relationship was to be between parents and educators. Many parents assumed that the new policy signalled a mandatory shift in professional attitudes that would allow them to enter into equal 'partnership' with their child's educational provider as of right. On the other hand, principals interviewed in the current study found this process to be yet another task given to the school for their attention. Very few of the principals interviewed made the link between the 1996 policy initiatives and the corresponding senior management responsibilities from the Special Education Policy Guidelines, released a year earlier in 1995. They had anticipated that there would be no changes to the role of the Crown agency, the Specialist Education Service, and that this agency would continue to be an 'on call' service provider to schools. Partnership between parents and professionals was therefore the core of the Special education 2000 policy.
The sentiments behind partnership may be something everyone thinks they understand, however as Bastiani (1993) states:
Partnership is one of the most dominant and widely used images of our times, not only in education but also elsewhere. Any attempt, however, to examine it as a set of ideas or practices, quickly reveals its complex and elusive nature. (p.113)
While Wolfensdale (1989) comments on the core elements of effective partnership, these are not new views for New Zealand parents of children with disabilities, especially if their child has been involved in a successful early intervention programme.
The elements or building blocks of partnership are perceived by various writers to be equality in decision-making, power-sharing, equal rights in self expression and the exercise of mutual responsibility and accountability by all parties to each other and to others outside the specific enterprise. (p.108)
Parents interviewed for this study, had similar views to Wolfensdale (1989) describing the ideal 'partnership' variously as;
"When they share information with you, ask you if you have any concerns and display open communication. I never feel as though it is us and them. We're in it together making joint decisions about Simon". Karly
"It's about respect, that they respect me for the information I bring to the situation about my child. It has got to be open and honest." Mere
"We all sit down with our son Samuel and have a fair deal to say on how the money is going to be spent on him at school. We have regular meetings. We see the principal on a regular basis." Jane, Samuel's mother
"Its about finding together how to make things happen for Luke. We need to set goals together in order to own them." Margaret
John Bastiani (1993), states that whilst 'partnership' is a "term widely used throughout the education service, to cover a range of situations and circumstances. Its use, or overuse, is more often than not uncritical, implying that it is highly desirable, unproblematic and easily attainable." (p. 104).
For all the parents interviewed partnership was a very problematic concept There appears to have been very little consideration given as to how any kind of 'partnership' was going to work between parents and schools given that the state education system is hierarchical, autocratic and bureaucratic by nature. Schools might also say that they do not have a 'partnership' relationship of this kind with any other parent whose child attend their schools, so why should parents of children with special educational needs be treated in a different way ?
Ministry guidelines to the concept of 'partnership'
Having determined that Special Education 2000 was to be implemented around the notion of 'partnership', the Ministry of Education has expected schools and boards of trustees to determine how that 'partnership' was to be achieved. In many cases parents' expectations exceeded what was being delivered by schools and boards of trustees. For many parents there was a vacuum about their role in the relationship in the information provided by the Ministry of Education. When the 'policy' itself is scrutinised there is a clear message as to where the power in the 'partnership' lies so that the policy slogan of "Getting it Right ,Together" appears flawed and limited when the powers of the three main players are compared.
Figure One :Levels of participation and control in implementing SE 2000
| Ministry of Education | School/Boards of Trustees | Parents and Child |
|
|
|
Schools and the Ministry - a partnership ?
School principals also saw considerable difficulty in their relationship
with the Ministry in the implementation of the policy
". . . there's been
some major failings in the Ministry about the way it operates, if we operated
our schools like the way they operate the Ministry we would be out of business
. . I think it is an appalling process really in a lot of things. The rules
change and you get unbelievable deadlines . . . no preparation, endless
meetings that go nowhere . . ." W
The principals reflected the role of the
Ministry in a negative light, relating to their lack of control and input at
various times during the phased implementation.
". . .gutless Ministry
devolving everything away into clusters . . . I think that was a nasty little
job to give schools because there are industrial issues in there . . . just
walk away and say well you guys work out what you want. . " W
Parents and partnership with schools
All the parents interviewed had definite views about the shape of partnership with the school. Only one parent, Mere, had formally raised the question of what form a partnership with the school might take and with the teachers responsible for educating her son. Bastiani (1993) commented that :
Everyone's in favour of home-school partnership-whatever it is! But because it's a buzzword, there also tends to be a conspiracy to avoid looking at it too critically in case it falls apart or disagreements break out! (p.113)
All the parents understood clearly that they had to maintain a vigilant attitude toward the school regardless of how well their child was progressing. While all the parents voiced what the desirable elements of partnership were, their reluctance to discuss the concept with the school possibly stemmed from a fear of what attitudes might be revealed if they examined the beliefs of the teachers in detail.
Some schools have used the professional discourse to limit the participation of parents, setting the parameters of their involvement and stating that it is non-negotiable, as in the case of Mere and Margaret.
"At a recent teacher parent interview all they did was to tell me what they were going to do for my son. It was like they were making the IEP process obsolete. I don't have a partnership with my school. They think 'partnership' is about "parents coming to sport's day." Everything is on their terms." Mere.
Margaret was effectively disenfranchised from having her views accepted as a valid and knowledgeable partner with the school when her son was turned down for ORS funding.
"I was asked to sign the Ongoing Resource Application before the school had filled it in. I refused and that really caused conflict. Eventually they agreed to allowing me to write some information about Luke but it was on a separate piece of paper which they attached to the application." Margaret
For a number of parents typified by Martha, the educational professionals became part of the system controlling and limiting their participation through SE2000's pecking-order of funding via the severity of disability and thereby further disempowering her as a parent.
"Partnership meant nothing - we got struck off the beneficiary list (because we didn't get Ongoing Resourcing). We thought SE2000 would improve our situation, I read it with a great deal of hope in my heart. But we are a lot worse off than before. It's not that anyone was that down right awful to us, but there was this bureaucratic system that just chewed us up and spat us out." Martha
The experience of some parents was typified by this comment made by Allan, "I've been on the Board of Trustees for 11 years now. I am determined to stay until Simon has finished primary school. I have kept an eye on the Board for Simon's sake and I got onto the selection committee for the new principal. Our new principal is great, she has vision and focus." Allan.
Running against any notion of 'partnership' for parents of children with special needs is the ideology of market forces, competition, parent 'choice' and devolution of power to the local level. The reality for many parents of children with special needs is that they do not have a choice of schools for their children, particularly if they do not carry a 'dowry' of resources with them.
Schools and partnership with parents
Fifteen years earlier Warnock (1985 ) had declared . . . in educational matters, parents cannot be equal to teachers if teachers are to be regarded as true professionals. Even though educating a child is a joint enterprise involving both home and school, parents should realise that they cannot have the last word. It is a question of collaboration not partnership.(p.12)
Nevertheless most parents, with their children in the 'mainstream' view 'partnership' as the foundation stone of SE2000. To be successful the five main building blocks critical for policy implementation are:
And four years into the implementation of Special Education 2000 the same concern was being voiced by one of the principals in the study as he spoke of the parents of children with special needs at his school; ". . . there is still not enough support for those families who have been stuffed around by the education system. These articulate, intelligent women and men who really feel dis-empowered by the system. That really concerns me. That is what the system has done for these people." M
Resourcing
Initially the SE2000 policy document stated that the Ongoing Resourcing Scheme (ORS) (where a student's needs were formally verified and resourcing set in place for a period of three years) would cover 2% of students who would be funded under the categories 'high' and 'very high' needs. As implemented, the situation is very different, only 1% of such children are resourced in that category. Another 1% of students are resourced separately under the Behaviour Initiative.
By accessing ORS funding the student with special needs has an entry into the 'world of resources' and by association the parent has the right to claim some form of 'partnership' with the school premised on the now verified special educational need of their child. The parent is now a legitimated partner in the process, not just someone with an opinion. In contrast to this, the shift in the role of the teacher and special educational professional, who have now become 'gate keepers' of the resource provided by the fundholder is now the critical determinant to the success of the policy. The context of education in New Zealand had been cemented into a market driven model of the educational reforms, which has also embraced special education as an 'add on'. This has impacted parents and school principals in many contrasting ways;
"When we didn't get any resources that was the end of any idea of 'partnership'. The school had the power and the control. They kept Luke on in the unit without any funding through the 'goodness of their heart'. I was beholden to them because Luke didn't have any resources. What did I have to bargain with?" Margaret.
In contrast principals noted the tension of SE2000 on their school community:
"I believe we get mainstream opportunities for a selected group of youngsters according to their need but with respect to other users of the site. We thought," Right, they're part of our district, these kids exist in the spectrum of humanity, they are special needs youngsters, they need to be nurtured along but where it is appropriate for them to be mainstreamed." R
And the sorts of opportunities SE 2000 resources created for the school
and the students selected by them to be enrolled in;
"The resourcing of the
place . . . well we manipulated it so that we had to have a bigger percentage
of our students as ORS students because basically we wanted to have enough
funding that we could give continuity to the kids and continuity of staffing so
we let that decision drive what we could do." R
For this principal, if the student attracted a resource they could stay
in the unit attached to the school, if not they had to go elsewhere or take
their chances with the resources provided by the SEG funding. This is a
startling example of the way resourcing has shaped the most desirable basis for
'partnership' from this principal's perspective.
For another principal, the
unit that had been operational in the school and catering for students with
multiple disabilities for a number of years is about to close.
" special
education (SE2000) makes it uneconomic for us to run . . . G And when he
considers the community demand for ongoing support for students with high or
very high needs no longer sees it as desirable for the school to offer a place
to them.
"I don't want to be seen as the alternative caring school in the district that is going to take all these kids in. Kids who choose us, we'll do our best for them but I'm not going to market it and that's the same sort of clash." G
Where resources and attitudes combine then parents are happy and see the
benefits of the policy as it works for their child.
"SE2000 has been
great for us. Simon has all the resources he needs. The school is not stressed.
The teacher time is spent increasing his reading and hand writing skills.
Combined with the resources we have a school where the teachers have excellent
attitudes." Karly
Where resources could not be linked to students principals were
uncertain of the ongoing support for individuals. This principal had lost track
of one student;
"The ORS criteria . . . is set too high or too low,
whichever way you want to look at it and too inflexible too - we had a student
here he was hitting children in the class, spitting, we provided a teacher aide
. . . I don't know what has happened to him now . . . he disappeared into a
black hole." G
The Ministry officials developing SE2000 have designed the policy to ensure that in managing the special education resourcing ,including SEG, the school would make decisions at the point closest to delivery of that support. This was intended to reflect the views of the family, however many parent experiences as expressed to the authors would indicate otherwise.
In summary many of the parents interviewed stated that:
All this occurred despite the instruction to Principals on the use of SEG funding in the New Zealand Educational Institute publication The Principals' Kit (1999) that: "Parents should be consulted on the work to be done with their children." (p.77) and "The board must have policy guidelines on how the SEG is to be used." (p.77)
In commenting on these points of difficulty Armstrong (1995) noted that ; "Once 'special education needs' were defined in terms of the additional resources that ought to be made available, professionals were thrust into the role of gatekeepers and the possibility of genuine partnerships with parents was undermined." ( p.22)
Policy information and dissemination
The initial releases of the SE 2000 policy statements were characterised by the public defence of the policy and its implementation detail by members of the Ministry of Education Special Education 2000 team, in conjunction with the Liaison Officers employed by the Ministry in each district at series of meetings held around New Zealand during 1997. In terms of a public relations exercise the outcomes of these meetings, offered to mixed and sometimes separate audiences of parents and educationalists, was far from satisfactory for many of the participants.
One principal commented that;
"The people in the Auckland office [of the Ministry] were doing their
best but they didn't know the answers either so once they went outside of the
prepared messages that they were receiving from Wellington the really didn't
know and couldn't be expected to know." H.
The physical separation
between those originating the policy messages and those delivering them was
sometimes a real problem. And on other occasions the style of the communication
and working relationship was insufficiently direct for this pragmatic secondary
school principal; ". . . the bureaucratised stuff that you had to go
through, all the cluster committees and accountabilities and instruments of
this and that. I find that I'm a pragmatic person, I'm a farmer's son, if the
cow needs to be pulled out of the ditch - let's get on with it !" R.
In June 1998 an 'Information for Families' kit was produced for parents and caregivers. Despite assurances to the contrary, in the final event, there was no leaflet on rights for parents produced, apart from specific references restating the sections of the 1989 Education Act that gave children with special needs access to school, and the section detailing the appeal process to follow via arbitration. For a number of parents typified by Martha, the educational professionals became part of the system controlling and limiting their participation through SE2000's pecking-order of funding via the severity of disability and thereby further disempowering her as a parent. "The school never told us anything. Nobody ever told us we could do an arbitration. To do a section 10 [arbitration] you have to be educated and wealthy. No solo mother from Otara [South Auckland] is going to get through it. It seemed there were endless toll calls to Wellington to make - the 0800 number didn't get you through to those people who were in charge of Section 10's in Wellington. Then you really needed an advocate to help you out. I would say that thousands will have given up on getting resources for their children." Martha
As the policy documents were being 'drip-feed' with announcements often
months apart the waiting for more detail and answers to the questions that
arose became a feature of the implementation.
". . . there was policy
being made on the hoof and the Ministry and the Government at that time hadn't
really reached the full policy position; right till the end of the road they
were releasing sections of policy and giving implementation dates as they went
along, so there were huge questions still waiting for schools to understand and
know about before they could act . . ." H.
Constantly parents were being told that the SE2000 policy 'is a very
large, complex education programme,' but there was no training for parents to
understand the intricacies of the policy.
Whilst the Ministry of Education
has published a number of Special Education Updates over the last three years,
to be distributed mainly by schools, many parents have found these publications
difficult to understand, if they have received them at all. The Updates are
printed only in English, despite there being a large number of parents using
special education services for whom English is a second language.
National organisations in the voluntary sector such as New Zealand IHC tried to fill the gaps the process created, by the production and dissemination of information. The smaller parent support groups working at the 'grass roots' level often were unable to be of any real assistance to parents as they were left out of the 'information loop'. The Ministry of Education had established a relationship with many of the national organisations who had a presence in Wellington and were able 'top up' the public dissemination of the policy by communicating directly with these groups. The national organisations in turn could link across their various community networks if they wished.
A typical excerpt of a Ministry written communication was the following statement taken from a November 1997 Update document where parents were informed that:
"prototype programme for students with severe behaviour difficulties will be established in the Waikato in 1998. Other prototypes trying different mechanisms in different areas will also be developed."
Parents were also informed that:
"Professional development is
critical because it will enable schools to take greater responsibility for all
the students with special education needs." However, the professional
development referred to, is not compulsory, for either teachers, principals or
boards of trustees. Continuity of funding is not contingent upon any level of
participation by school administrators or professionals beyond the presumed
reading and understanding of the documents as released to the individual
schools.
In 1999 parents gained their own Update for Families. In the November 1999 edition, parents were informed that:
Transport for students with special education needs will be managed by local fundholders and SES from the beginning of next year. This means that transport assistance will be aligned with Special Education 2000 and should be considered as part of the Individual Education Programme.
Parents were bewildered by the jargon, the complicated language and found it difficult to discover what parts of the Update was relevant to their particular situation. Common questions about the transport funding were difficult to answer. Parents found it difficult to understand where their child now fitted into the changed system as the communication provided was too general.
School principals expressed concerns for similar reasons in response to
the now pressing obligation of implementing a policy that was still being
developed;
". . .we've been led to hell and back in order to understand how
it's going to happen ? . . .I've found the communications over Special Ed 2000
quite difficult to cope with . . . I found it really difficult to see an
overall picture of where we were going . . . Boy we had to work hard to feel
our way through it, all along the way." R
This was a commonplace
experience, as observed by one of the interviewed principals. ". . . right
across the secondary schools . . . they weren't really quite sure of where it
was heading in detail, so they knew the general thrust and everyone had in
their mind the pyramid and the approximate dollar values attached to that but
how it was actually going to work in practice, everyone was asking questions
and nobody had too many ideas at that stage." H
And where information was
provided it often described systems so new that they were not yet in place as
operating structures, processes and personnel. ". . . there was a steady stream
of newsletters and some booklets coming out but as we will remember a lot of
organisation within the Special Ed 2000 were paper entries only." H
On a local level, one parent, - Mere, experienced high levels of
frustration and tension with the staff at her son's school;
"It seems to me
we have a culture of teachers who are uninformed about Special education 2000.
I took in a pile of resources - chapters from books, ideas and nothing has
changed. How could they tell me they had read all that and not changed at all?
They didn't even discuss it. I can't believe I have to feel this way. It's like
we are being punished." Mere
Attitudes
The attitude of educational professionals remains the biggest stumbling
block for parents. Where parents have challenged the school or educational
professionals there have often been 'paybacks'.
When Mere challenged the
teachers' attitude to her desire to be a more active 'partner' in her son's
education, there emerged a number of consequences. Recently, in a letter home,
the school outlined its view of their relationship with Mere as follows:
"We work collaboratively with parents but as the professionals it is for
us to decide what a good education is for Ewan and how we use the resources
available."
"And It must be realised however that the communication between
the school and parent can only be as it is for the other 500 children in the
school. This is the agreed premise behind mainstreaming."
And whilst the school had written the letter it instructed the parent that if she had any queries she should contact the fundholder which was the Specialist Education Services who had not contributed to the writing of the letter.
When Mere and the advocate decided to ask a facilitator to intervene with the school as the relationship had deteriorated so much, the school wrote a communication guideline to be followed by Mere as follows:
The proposed communication plan was implemented before Mere could agree to it or ask for any modifications. She was expected to 'rubber stamp' the plan.
In 1997, research data for the Family Advocacy Charitable Trust (FACT ) was collected via a questionnaire to parents of children with special education needs, asking about their advocacy requirements. 899 questionnaires were distributed to schools with mainstreamed students with special educational needs and principals were asked to distribute them to the families of the children. A follow up of 50% of the schools was conducted. This showed that less than half of the questionnaires were forwarded to the target group of recipients by the school principals. The action of the principals reinforced the prevailing view held by many parents that professionals deliberately act as 'gatekeepers of information.'
The research carried out by FACT was undertaken concurrent with the introduction of the Special Education 2000 policy. The concerns noted in 1997, over the attitude of educational professionals to students with special needs remained after its introduction and persist to the present day. Parents interviewed for the 1997 FACT research and re-interviewed for this study on the whole reiterated their concerns about professional attitudes to their children.
" I have been trying for five years to get agencies to establish a plan for my son. We were told with help, he would achieve. SES identified him as needing special schooling. Since then we have battled for help, support and information, and received very little . "He's not bad enough," they say. My son is slowly slipping further behind, I guess he'll soon be bad enough ! Frustration levels are high." Rachel mother of Howard 1997.
The support person told us recently. "If he gets suicidal, let us know, then we can do something about it." We have known about this since he was four years old. Rachel, mother of Howard 2000.
Many of what are essentially routine processes under the SE2000 policy
implementation carry high emotional costs for parents. The reality for one
mother was shared in this way;
"IEPs are a major nightmare. They
secretly stack the odds against me. I no longer go to IEPs alone. I feel that
it [the school administration] is really patronising and condescending. They
say "Now listen very carefully and I'll repeat that one more time." I don't
deal with it well. I don't mind being punished but I do object to my son being
punished. Frequently, I must confess, I give in. It is a feeling of total
disempowerment." Margaret, mother of Luke in 1997
Schools are very aware of parents' responses and feelings. On some
occasions the school would use them to support the school's position on special
education issues, on others parents were left isolated and vulnerable.
"Everything was about power and control. I didn't get offered any SEG
money for Luke. The teachers said to me that they would give him some teacher
aide time, but they also said to me, 'you realise we don't have to don't you?'
I had to be very grateful. It was ironic, when the taxi service was threatened
they couldn't wait to get my support, but by then I was paying Luke to go to
school. But they certainly didn't want you asking questions about things they
wanted to keep to themselves I took two different support people to IEP's. One
was a work mate, the other the school counsellor. I can tell you they watched
what they said then…" Margaret mother of Luke - 2000
With the
support of two advocates Margaret had found the strength to proceed, but this
had still not addressed the working relationship with the school.
Participating principals also indicated their discomfort at the change
in roles and expectations demanded by policy implementation. One principal who
had prided himself on working to build an inclusive approach throughout his
school, admitted that;
". . . my job is managing and I suppose SE 2000
has involved me in making some harder decisions that I've been faced with . . .
harder in the sense of being really hard headed about money and not going where
your emotions want to take you. . . I mean I have to take responsibility for
that but that's made me very much more calculating . . . than I have been in
the past." M
And another principal when reflecting on changes captured the essence of
reforms in education when he said;
"State education has got to be
inclusive, you teach everybody, but if you're in a market model, then you
exclude people, you have no choice to do that to survive, to prosper. And so
out there is the contradictory message about the values of society and
education. . ." G
Where the policy has been implemented with a balance between resources,
attitudes and practice change can occur. When first interviewed Jane commented;
"It is easy to write IEPs; it is not so easy to deliver them."
The IEP
meeting was a disappointment to Jane as the person appointed by the school to
attend the meeting had little knowledge or involvement with special education.
The teacher concerned stayed twenty minutes than walked out as she had another
meeting to attend. Jane said, "I asked her to stay but she wouldn't. I had
the IHC advocate there, the SES and an adviser from Homai [a special school for
students who are vision impaired or blind ]." "The school would not let Samuel
leave the school to do his lifeskills which involved him working in different
places. Both the advocate and SES said this was wrong and it could be done. The
meeting got very hot." Jane mother of Samuel -1997.
Subsequent to the 1997 interview, Jane changed Samuel's school and
achieved the desired balance;
"The last two years have been a wonderful
experience for us. Samuel does his own shopping. He goes all by himself. The
other school would not dream of letting him do this. The school absolutely
respects us. The principal shows leadership, and the school immerses the
students with special needs in everything it does. The SES is the fundholder.
The last meeting was great. The SES worker had loads of ideas and she was up to
date with everything." Jane mother of Samuel - 2000
Advocacy
There is no centralised advocacy support service for parents of children with special needs as of right in New Zealand. In 1991 the Parent Advocacy Council was disestablished under the National Government. Since 1991 the prevailing view of the National and Coalition Governments has been that to provide advocacy support for parents as of right, would drive up the request for resources (Interview with Wyatt Creech former Minister of Education, June2nd, 2000).
In 1991 cabinet papers identified that changing special education policy was a high risk area in terms of lobbying from "a highly motivated group of parents and other advocates willing and able to lobby on behalf of special needs learners". (Cabinet papers, August 20 1991, Section 44 p.11) The cabinet documents went on to identify the Special Education Service as representing;
A significant and influential group of professionals with a high level of credibility among parents and other professionals. This agency is funded through a contract with the Ministry of Education and can be held accountable through the terms of its contract with the Ministry, to implement and abide by the adopted government policy. This would apply to SES dealings within its own organisation and also with groups to whom it offers services ie parents and learning institutions. Inclusion of SES in the Minister's proposed implementation group will greatly assist this process. (Cabinet papers, 20 August 1991, Section 45 p.11)
So for the Cabinet, the problems associated with the 'parent lobby' was going to have to be managed. The SES was going to have to respond to the parent lobby through restricted terms of the newly negotiated Document of Accountability, with its prescriptive identification of agency response. Both the cost to the government and its exposure to "unmanaged reaction" was to be minimised. On the other hand the difficulty created for the SES was considerable, as the 'identified best practice' in special education was now contradicted and about to be controlled by the terms of their contract with government.
In New Zealand, the service organisations involved in the voluntary
sector, supporting people with disabilities; intellectual handicap, physical
disability and sensory impairments, rely on a mix of government funding and
donations to meet their operational costs. Advocacy that is too strident or
effective in its criticism of government activity in any area of service
provision, including special education, may well jeopardise the continuity of
state funding to the particular service and the disability sector that it
supports. There has been a heavy reliance by the Ministry of Education on
support groups to disseminate information, notify parents of forthcoming public
meetings, or to provide membership of Ministry advisory groups. There has been
a reluctance by the Ministry to act on their own initiative. The Ministry has
been reactive and ad hoc in its approach to the parent community. Only when
asked did representatives of the Ministry go out into the community and inform
parents formally of the changing situation with the SE2000 policy and its
implementation.
The Ministry often relies upon parent support groups to
'empower' other parents through the distribution of material and information.
However whether this in fact formed an effective communication mechanism was
left open to whatever circumstances prevailed.
The FACT Report - 1998
The research carried out by the Family Advocacy Charitable Trust (FACT) in 1997 revealed that only 37% of respondents belonged to a support group (1998,p. 42). The research showed that over 50% of those parents who belonged to a support group had a child 7 years of age or younger (1998,p.21). In the study, those parents who belonged to a support group were identified as being more likely to be European, earn over NZ$40,000 and hold tertiary qualifications and have a child with an identified disability (1998,p.19). Whilst there is validity in the assumption that support groups can assist parents in making decisions about their child with disabilities, it must be accepted that over 60% of parents in the greater Auckland region do not receive support from any such formal group. Coupling this with the known over-representation of Maori and Pacific Island children using special education services, and their under representation in support group membership or use, it would appear that the Ministry's strategy in communicating with parents via support groups is potentially flawed.
In October 1999, (prior to the change of government) a Ministry of Education statement accompanying the Budget announcement on education expenditure advised that facilitators were to be appointed to resolve difficulties in the family / school partnerships for students with special needs. That statement read :
A core role for the Ministry is to build effective relationships with education providers and communities so they can achieve the best possible education outcomes for students. Fundamental to this premise is that where difficult situations exist, the support should go to develop and enable a working partnership to be maintained rather than pitting one group against another. There has been a strong lobby from the Family Advocacy Charitable Trust (FACT), the Commissioner for Children, IHC, NZCCS and the Quality Public Education Coalition (QPEC) et al for a Parent Advocacy body. Whilst parents are strong in their lobby for advocacy, representatives from the school sector question the size and nature of the problem. They also state that they receive unreasonable expectations from parents of students with special needs in requests for provision of service and accountability.
The Ministry of Education has thus responded to a long standing situation that had been brought to its attention from the early 1990s. It has made a response that those in the parent support sector identify as being premised upon the managerial view that a party or group of parties working together have a vested interest in the situation that they are lobbying for; thus to question so as to deny legitimacy to the objective of the lobby effort. The Ministry of Education statement is interesting in that it ignores the quantitative and qualitative data collated by the FACT research, yet appears to give greater credence to what can only be viewed as anecdotal evidence contributed by the educational sector.
Accountability to parents by the school
All schools are required to operate within the parameters of the National Education Goals, and the National Administration Guidelines. There is a nominal level of accountability through the Board of Trustees of the school to parents. Where decisions regarding special education issues are challenged the requirements of the Education Act 1989 and the Human Rights Act 1993 are the key pieces of legislation, there is no case law decision that is precedent-setting in New Zealand. Parents understand that when they push their views too hard that their child is at jeopardy and what welcome which existed in the school, is likely to disappear. So a framework for accountability needs to be in place. From a parent's perspective, accountability must be;
Figure Two : Common patterns of accountability.
Complex hierarchies that by-pass families are typical of the accountability lines found in many schools, parents experience low levels of accountability.
Figure Three : Desirable pattern of accountability.
A child centred, family focussed model would be more effective and give greater accountability for parents.
Accountability and appeal - the Ministry of Education
There are no mechanisms to ensure that any of these elements of
accountability to the family take place. It appears that good will and the
desire to build a relationship between the key stake holders have prevailed
over the development of any formal accountability structures centred around the
child and family.
There is no accountability for parents despite the
Ministry of Education stating that they will act when advised that schools are
not fulfilling their obligations. This is fine in theory. However, as there is
no prescriptive requirement in the implementation of Special Education 2000,
and no policy for Ministry intervention in school administration, it appears
that at best the Ministry liaison person will 'have a chat' with the school.
The option prevails for the parent to be advised to write to the board of
trustees and get them to act. The situation for parents becomes more precarious
when the school is also the fundholder. When acting as the fundholder, the
Specialist Education Services can only require schools to confirm through a
'tick the boxes' mechanism that the resources given to the school have been
spent as indicated on students Individual Educational Plans(IEP's).
The
Special Education 2000 policy may involve a process of verification of
individual children's needs. Parents are able to appeal under Section 10 of the
Education Act 1989 if their child is not verified. After the first appeal using
this provision was successful the Ministry changed the procedure for its use to
disallow the introduction of any new material to challenge the decision of the
verifiers. As a consequence the need for accurate and complete appraisal at the
time of completing an application on the child's behalf is even more crucial.
Characteristically, the Ministry has relied on other parties to be
accountable to families. However, the Ministry does not have the formal power
to enforce accountability in the relationships with the other parties that they
rely upon, such as boards of trustees and schools, to deliver services to
students with special educational needs. A pending High Court action in New
Zealand is likely to test the accountability of the Ministry of Education for
service delivery to students with special educational needs.
Accountability for implementing special education in schools - ERO.
The Education Review Office (ERO) published its report on the implementation of Special Education 2000 in June, 1999. Among the information presented in their report was the following data;
The Education Review Office document 'snapshots' the implementation of the policy through its review function of schools. The data reported by ERO is less authoritative and useful than it could be due to the limited depth of the investigations made.
Fundholders and accountability
For the majority of parents the fundholder for their child is the Specialist Education Service, but for some families their child's school is the fundholder. Where a school, or an organisation, has twenty or more verified (ORS) students it may apply to become their fundholder. There are particular accountability requirements a school must satisfy to meet the standards required by the Ministry of Education. These are framed within the National Education Goals (NEGs), the National Administration Guidelines (NAGs) and the Special Education Policy Guidelines. Within the latter, particular policies and procedures must be in place to attain transparent administration of funding, management and the use of the IEP process as the base document for meeting a student's needs, and as a basis for consultation with parents.
Conclusions
The foundations of the Special Education 2000 policy were established in the belief of the parent's right to enrol their child with special educational needs in the school setting of their choice. It assumed that:
Having reviewed the implementation of the policy over the last three years our conclusions are:
The real question arising out of our review of the implementation of the Special Education 2000 policy is "Does the market model serve the purpose of special education?" Our conclusion is unequivocally "No."
Accountability
In our view accountability needs to be formalised. This may be via the Education Review Office. In which case, ERO needs to have sufficient rigour in its process of review of service delivery and the powers to ensure a school corrects shortfalls in education provision to students with special needs.
Accordingly, we recommend that the Education Review Office reviews schools on the basis of the Special Education Policy Guidelines, alongside the present range of review criteria; the National Curriculum, and the National Education Goals and National Administration Guidelines.
Contestability
Under the SE2000 policy 'fundholding' authority is contestable between the Specialist Education Service or individual schools or organisations accountable for managing the funds of 20 or more students verified under the ORS.
The distribution of students in the Ongoing Resourcing Scheme is uneven among the fundholders, with an over- representation of students with very high needs (and their funding levels) being attracted to the small number of segregated special schools spread throughout the country. The difference in the individual funding levels between the two categories is sufficient to require a mix, of both, so that the aggregated level meets the average cost of support, per student. Put simply, if you have only students funded at the high level, the sum of the average cost of their support will exceed the aggregated level of funds being awarded to resource them; resulting in the under funding of their needs.
This situation has created an anomalous distribution of resources. Special schools are 'winners' and students in the 'mainstream' are losers. This is not the intention of SE2000.
Accordingly, we recommend that there should only be one fundholder, and that contestability of fundholding should be removed. Parents would still choose where they enrolled the son or daughter with special educational needs.
Training
As SE 2000 requires that students be supported on the basis of an
environmental model and no longer by the traditional deficit model of special
education; all teachers must have basic competence in areas of instructional
and assessment design that are sufficiently broad to cater for students with
low intensity special educational needs. Specialist training at post graduate
level must be fully funded on an ongoing basis. This will ensure that teacher
supply does not hamper the policy intention to establish (and maintain) a world
class system of inclusive education.
Accordingly, we recommend that
appropriate training programmes be implemented and maintained at undergraduate
and post graduate levels. Current teachers must be encouraged to increase their
skills through a variety of training modes. Training must include all teachers
of children who are supported with an individual educational plan because of
their level of need.
Advocacy
Advocacy services must be able to safeguard students with special educational needs and their parents' choices under law, and should not be regulated by opportunity cost. The advocate's role may be to ensure that partnership is viable. There is a desirable link between advocacy and accountability.
Accordingly, we recommend that an advocacy service be established and fully funded to support students with special educational needs.
Only when these recommendations are enacted do we believe that Special Education 2000 will be likely to meet its stated aim.
References:
Armstrong, D. (1995) Power and partnership in education : Parents, children and special educational needs. London : Routledge.
Ballard, K. (1998) Inclusive education in New Zealand : The state we are in. A keynote address to the third Asia Pacific Conference on Down Syndrome. Auckland : Down Syndrome Association of New Zealand.
Bastiani, J. (1993) Parents as partners : Genuine progress or empty rhetoric ? In, P. Munn (Ed.) Parents and schools : Customers, managers or partners ? (Pp101 - 116). London : Routledge.
Brown, C., and Browning, H. (1998) Students with special needs: The case for advocacy. Auckland : Family Advocacy Charitable Trust.
Department of Education (1987) Draft review of special education. Wellington : Author.
Fancy, H. (1999) Opening Address to the Special Education 2000 Research Conference - Auckland February 1999.
Grace, G. (1992) Labour and education : The crisis and settlements of education policy (Pp. 165-191). In, M. Holland and J. Boston (Eds.). The fourth Labour government : Politics and policy in New Zealand (second edition). Auckland : Oxford University Press.
Hill, M. (1997) The policy process in the modern welfare state. (Third edition) London : Prentice Hall / Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Kelsey, J. (1997) The New Zealand experiment : A world model for structural adjustment ? (2nd edition) Auckland : Auckland University Press with Bridget Williams Books.
Lange, D. (1988) Tomorrow's schools : The reform of education administration in New Zealand. Wellington : Government Printer.
Lindblom, C. E. (1979) Still muddling through. Public Administration Review 39 (6) Pp. 517-525.
Mitchell, D. (1999) Special education in New Zealand : A decade of change. (Pp199 - 210) In, M. Thrupp (Ed.). A decade of reform in New Zealand education : Where to now ? Waikato : The School of Education - University of Waikato.
Ministry of Education (Undated) Special education 2000 : Getting it right together. Wellington : Author.
Ministry of Education (1991) Special education in New Zealand : Statement of intent. Wellington : Author.
Ministry of Education (May 1996) Special education 2000. Wellington : Author.
Ministry of Education (June 1996) Special education 2000: The special education grant. Wellington : Author.
Ministry of Education (June 1998) Information for families Wellington : Author.
Ministry of Education (1995) Special education policy guidelines. Wellington : Education Gazette.
New Zealand Education Institute (1999) The principal's kit. Wellington : Author.
Parsons, W. (1995) Public policy : An introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. Cheltenham : Edward Elgar.
Smith, L. (1991) Education policy : Investing in people our greatest asset. Wellington : GP Print.
Special Education Policy Implementation Team (1993) The final report of the Special Education Policy Implementation Team on : Delivering special education. Wellington : Ministry of Education.
Stainback, W. and Stainback, S. (1996) (Eds.). Controversial issues confronting special education: Divergent perspectives (2nd edition). Boston : Allyn and Bacon.
Taskforce to Review Education Administration (1988) Administering for excellence : Effective administration in education. Wellington : Author.
Treasury (1984) Economic management. Wellington : Government Printer
Warnock, M. (1985) Teacher teach thyself (The 1985 Dimbleby lecture) The Listener 28 March, pp. 10-14.
Wolfendale, S. (1989) Parental involvement and power-sharing in special needs, In, S. Wolfendale (Ed.). Parental involvement : Developing networks between school, home and community (Pp. 106-119) London :Cassell.
 |
 |