Mais conteúdo relacionado 1. Reading
Hewko:
I
assigned
this
reading,
not
because
I
think
that
legal
involvement
with
education
policy
and
practice
is
a
particularly
desirable
way
to
operate—it
seems
to
me
to
represent
yet
another
dimension
of
inter‐expert
communication,
and
one
that
has
potential
for
very
complex
outcomes.
Rather,
I
think
this
account
can
be
used
as
a
source
of
numerous
examples
of
missed
opportunities
and
sad
consequences.
I
take
it
as
an
illustration
of
several
parties
arguing
from
position
rather
than
from
shared
interest.
I
would
not
suggest
that
either
of
the
parties
involved
were
deliberately
trying
to
impede
Darren
Hewko’s
access
to
schooling.
Nor
were
any
of
them
indifferent
to
his
interests.
Despite
this,
it
appears
as
though
the
failure
to
achieve
consensus
contributed
to
Darren’s
exclusion
(for
whatever
official)
reason
from
the
provincial
education
system.
The
legal
decision
is
not
an
easy
read.
There
are
portions
of
it
that
might
be
omitted—the
review
of
autism
is
likely
known
to
all
of
you,
although
it
may
be
of
interest
to
see
what
Judge
Koenigsberg
includes
as
a
means
of
understanding
her
perspective.
There
are,
after
all,
at
least
four
points
of
view
here—that
of
Darren’s
parents,
that
of
the
ABA‐IBI
experts,
that
of
the
education
system
(which
has
some
internal
variance
of
its
own),
and
that
of
the
legal
system.
Although
this
last
is
supposedly
impartial
(image
of
blindfolded
justice
holding
scales),
it
is
of
interest
to
see
how
this
impartiality
appears
in
this
case.
Some
suggestions
re
reading:
1. It
isn’t
easy
(at
least
it
wasn’t
for
me),
but
try
to
set
yourself
apart
from
your
ideas
of
what
might
have
been
optimal
supports
for
Darren,
as
you
read
this,
and
look
at
how
people
presented
their
ideas
to
one
another.
2. I
assigned
both
the
BC‐CASE
document
and
Chapter
1
of
Getting
to
Yes
as
preparation
for
reading
Hewko,
even
though
the
BC‐CASE
document
is
in
fact
a
consequence
of
the
legal
decision.
You
may
wish
to
try
to
see
instances
of
argument
from
position
that
might
have
had
a
better
chance
of
becoming
“meaningful
consultation”
had
a
different
tack
of
discussion
been
used.
3. Note
down
key
moments
in
the
year
when
there
were
potentials
for
collaboration
and
discussion
and
when
there
were
confrontations.
What
were
the
consequences?
Are
there
points
when
the
direction
of
the
case
could
have
changed?
What
would
have
been
necessary
for
that
to
have
been
the
case?
4. Think
of
the
participants
and
the
discussions
that
are
reported
in
the
Decision:
Do
you
see
examples
of
Hard
Bargaining?
How
about
Soft
Bargaining?
Can
you
see
(or
envision)
their
consequences?
Are
these
