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 consistent with your experiences of collaboration and consultation with parents and other voices?
5. Madame Justice K. seems to focus on autism. BC CASE looks beyond that to collaboration regarding all children with special needs. FEAT again focuses on autism in its interpretation of the decision. How do you interpret these different focuses?