Search results

Many Bolsheviks heralded the October Revolution of 1917 as the beginning of a new era in history; by 1921, however, much of this optimism had disappeared. Civil war, peasant rebellion, empty factories, closed schools, strikes in the industrial establishments that had survived, and the Kronstadt Revolt made many party members weary and cynical. A few, however, stubbornly adhered to an untarnished vision of a grand future. They could be found especially among those officials responsible for primary and secondary schools at the Commissariat of Enlightenment (Narkompros). Anatolii V. Lunacharskii, commissar of enlightenment from 1917 to 1929; Nadezhda K. Krupskaia, his chief assistant for school policy; and their colleagues still believed that they possessed the means to reshape not only the schools but also human behavior and society. While the party engineered a calculated retreat with the New Economic Policy (NEP) and the state slashed the educational budget, Narkompros remained determined to challenge the present and storm the future. It did so by launching a program of sweeping changes in the content and methods of school instruction. With a faith it hoped was infectious, Narkompros assumed that teachers would follow its lead. It would not be so simple.

This article examines how a small group of high-socioeconomic status (high-SES) parents organized community opposition to the integration of a special-needs student into a grade 3 classroom in an urban elementary school in Ontario. Using data gathered in a participant observation study, this article shows hoiv parents came to believe that existing special education policy placed the individual needs of the special education student over the needs of the collective. It explicates parents' subsequent efforts to enter into a social discursive process to challenge the policy and ultimately co-construct unofficial integration guidelines specific to the local school. In forcing the school board to explicate special education policy and practice, the parents underscored the nature of schools as contested sites of policy negotiation and established themselves as players in the policy development arena. Furthermore, this article highlights the importance of both history and local context in policy development and implementation and suggests that special education initiatives are best conceptualized as nested in local communities. The article concludes with a suggestion for future research on special education policy and community responses to integration. ; Cet article porte sur les démarches entreprises par un petit groupe de parents de statut socio-économique élevé qui ont mené une opposition communautaire pour empêcher qu'un élève en difficulté soit intégré dans une classe de 3e année dans une école élémentaire en milieu urbain en Ontario. S'appuyant sur les données d'une étude participation observation, cet article démontre que les parents en sont arrivés à croire que la politique existante relative à l'éducation à l'enfance en difficulté mettait les besoins de l'élève en difficulté avant ceux de la collectivité. On explique les efforts des parents qui visaient à entamer un processus de discours social pour défier la politique et finalement pour participer à l'élaboration de principes directeurs officieux portant sur l'intégration et spécifiques à leur école. En obligeant le conseil scolaire à expliciter les politiques et les procédures concernant l'éducation aux élèves en difficulté, les parents ont fait ressortir la nature des écoles comme sites de contestation sur les politiques et ils se sont érigés en intervenants dans l'arène du développement de politiques. L'article souligne l'importance que jouent, au niveau local, l'histoire et le contexte dans le développement et l'implantation de politiques. On y propose que les initiatives en matière d'éducation à l'enfance en difficulté se conçoivent le mieux comme étant emboîtées dans les communautés locales. Une suggestion quant à la recherche sur les politiques touchant l'éducation à l'enfance en difficulté et les réactions communautaires à l'intégration vient conclure l'article.

Education policy favouring 'inclusion', together with medical advances, mean that a growing number of pupils in mainstream schools may have health‐related support needs in respect of a chronic illness or physical disability. Data from an empirical research study investigating these needs and carried out between 1996 and 1998 are used to reflect on the position of this group of pupils within policy guidance on special educational needs (SEN) and medical needs. Evidence of confusion and ambiguity, both in the guidance and its interpretation, suggests that the needs of this group remain somewhat hidden. More recent developments in special needs policy guidance are discussed in terms of the prospect for strengthening support for this group of pupils. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.