Dear Editor:
What I'm about to say is archaic. But the public needs to be reminded of what teaching was like for all children prior to the government's overhaul of the system we once had. In the '80s I volunteered in a special class. It was run by two teachers and a 0.8 aide and it serviced 15 students: those who were learning disabled, with behavioural difficulties and special needs. Most children spent some time in this class to participate in subjects and activities that would decrease frustration and boost self-esteem, then returned to their homerooms.
This was cheap in comparison to the new system that the government replaced it with to appease parents with special needs children. In order to achieve 100 per cent inclusion, a battery of special education aides were hired, students were evaluated to assess needs and, depending on the needs of the class, aides would work with one or several children at a time. On many levels this model worked well.
However, costs kept rising, so fewer students with learning disabilities generated aide time. Labels were changed to the point where some teachers using the old system of classification became very confused with the new one. Children who would have got aide time in the past were left behind. So as it stands: increasing numbers of learning/behavioural students are in the classroom with inadequate service, teachers try to attend to as many students as they can, students without disabilities help those who have them.
Should teachers stand up for feasible working conditions (at personal expense) to bring back what they had? Or does the government change to a new program or opt to destroy what it had built?
Lisa Payne
North Vancouver
