SlideShare uma empresa Scribd logo
1 de 2
Baixar para ler offline
Reading Hewko:<br />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.<br />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.  <br />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.  <br />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.<br />Some suggestions re reading:<br />,[object Object]
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.

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais de ebredberg

Fasd assessment
Fasd assessmentFasd assessment
Fasd assessmentebredberg
 
From astley correspondence2
From astley correspondence2From astley correspondence2
From astley correspondence2ebredberg
 
Ir kw contacts updated august 2010
Ir kw contacts updated august 2010Ir kw contacts updated august 2010
Ir kw contacts updated august 2010ebredberg
 
Neuroscience commentary final
Neuroscience commentary finalNeuroscience commentary final
Neuroscience commentary finalebredberg
 
Course Outline
Course OutlineCourse Outline
Course Outlineebredberg
 
CYSN Framework For Action
CYSN Framework For Action CYSN Framework For Action
CYSN Framework For Action ebredberg
 
ASBC FEAT Hewko Interpretation
ASBC FEAT Hewko InterpretationASBC FEAT Hewko Interpretation
ASBC FEAT Hewko Interpretationebredberg
 
Judge Koenigsberg Re Hewkov Bc 11 03 06 1
Judge Koenigsberg Re Hewkov Bc 11 03 06 1Judge Koenigsberg Re Hewkov Bc 11 03 06 1
Judge Koenigsberg Re Hewkov Bc 11 03 06 1ebredberg
 
Getting to Yes, Chapter 1
Getting to Yes, Chapter 1Getting to Yes, Chapter 1
Getting to Yes, Chapter 1ebredberg
 
Supporting Meaningful Collaboration with Parents
Supporting Meaningful Collaboration with ParentsSupporting Meaningful Collaboration with Parents
Supporting Meaningful Collaboration with Parentsebredberg
 
Science Research
Science ResearchScience Research
Science Researchebredberg
 
Gifted (Maurice)
Gifted (Maurice)Gifted (Maurice)
Gifted (Maurice)ebredberg
 
Class 6 (Behaviour And Mh)
Class 6 (Behaviour And Mh)Class 6 (Behaviour And Mh)
Class 6 (Behaviour And Mh)ebredberg
 
Class 5 (Fasd Ppt)
Class 5 (Fasd Ppt)Class 5 (Fasd Ppt)
Class 5 (Fasd Ppt)ebredberg
 
Class 4 (Adhd)
Class 4 (Adhd)Class 4 (Adhd)
Class 4 (Adhd)ebredberg
 
Joint Statement On Dyslexia
Joint Statement On DyslexiaJoint Statement On Dyslexia
Joint Statement On Dyslexiaebredberg
 
Joint Statement On Dyslexia
Joint Statement On DyslexiaJoint Statement On Dyslexia
Joint Statement On Dyslexiaebredberg
 

Mais de ebredberg (20)

Fasd assessment
Fasd assessmentFasd assessment
Fasd assessment
 
From astley correspondence2
From astley correspondence2From astley correspondence2
From astley correspondence2
 
Ir kw contacts updated august 2010
Ir kw contacts updated august 2010Ir kw contacts updated august 2010
Ir kw contacts updated august 2010
 
Science
ScienceScience
Science
 
Neuroscience commentary final
Neuroscience commentary finalNeuroscience commentary final
Neuroscience commentary final
 
Course Outline
Course OutlineCourse Outline
Course Outline
 
CYSN Framework For Action
CYSN Framework For Action CYSN Framework For Action
CYSN Framework For Action
 
ASBC FEAT Hewko Interpretation
ASBC FEAT Hewko InterpretationASBC FEAT Hewko Interpretation
ASBC FEAT Hewko Interpretation
 
Judge Koenigsberg Re Hewkov Bc 11 03 06 1
Judge Koenigsberg Re Hewkov Bc 11 03 06 1Judge Koenigsberg Re Hewkov Bc 11 03 06 1
Judge Koenigsberg Re Hewkov Bc 11 03 06 1
 
Getting to Yes, Chapter 1
Getting to Yes, Chapter 1Getting to Yes, Chapter 1
Getting to Yes, Chapter 1
 
Supporting Meaningful Collaboration with Parents
Supporting Meaningful Collaboration with ParentsSupporting Meaningful Collaboration with Parents
Supporting Meaningful Collaboration with Parents
 
Science Research
Science ResearchScience Research
Science Research
 
Gifted (Maurice)
Gifted (Maurice)Gifted (Maurice)
Gifted (Maurice)
 
Class 6 (Behaviour And Mh)
Class 6 (Behaviour And Mh)Class 6 (Behaviour And Mh)
Class 6 (Behaviour And Mh)
 
Class 5 (Fasd Ppt)
Class 5 (Fasd Ppt)Class 5 (Fasd Ppt)
Class 5 (Fasd Ppt)
 
Class 4 (Adhd)
Class 4 (Adhd)Class 4 (Adhd)
Class 4 (Adhd)
 
Class 3
Class 3Class 3
Class 3
 
Class 2
Class 2 Class 2
Class 2
 
Joint Statement On Dyslexia
Joint Statement On DyslexiaJoint Statement On Dyslexia
Joint Statement On Dyslexia
 
Joint Statement On Dyslexia
Joint Statement On DyslexiaJoint Statement On Dyslexia
Joint Statement On Dyslexia
 

Reading Hewko

  • 1.
  • 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?