Throughout the world, special education has always been substantially concerned with “striving for excellence”, in the sense that what has been sought and striven for by special educators are specific programs and policies which effectively meet the special educational needs of particular children and adults who are not adequately served by the programs and policies generally available. The term “striving” has two related meanings and both seem apt in the present context. First, an examination of the history of special education reveals that appropriate special education policies and programs are seldom, if ever, achieved unless those seeking them on behalf of exceptional learners have the commitment, determination, and fortitude to strive - in the sense of “fight” - often against very considerable opposition, to achieve what is required. The second meaning of “strive” - to make a great and tenacious effort, also epitomizes the work of those who have sought and still seek appropriate special educational programs and policies.

The recent advances in research in child development and early educational intervention programs signal a clear need for significant reform of the methods now used to prepare teachers of preschool age children with special needs. The changes need to vary in kind and amount. Reforms need to address both content and clinical skill development. And, competent personnel must be produced in greater numbers.

Of late, considerable attention has been paid to the educational provision of children with profound and multiple learning difficulties (P.M.L.D.), (Evans & Ware, 1987; Hogg & Sebba, 1986). Why has the spotlight suddenly fallen to this group of children? Improved postnatal care, high standards of medical care generally, and a wider range of life-sustaining medication has increased the longevity of brain-damaged children, and more are able to enter the education system. In addition, the demise of hospitals for people with a mental handicap has meant a cessation of educational provision for children with mental handicap within these settings. As the concept of normalization permeates the health and social services departments, more “care in the community” projects arise, and children not living at home with their parents are given places in community-based residential facilities (Wolfehsberger, 1972).

The history of special education is conceived within the integration debate in a way which lends credibility to two broad claims. The first is that governments have been lax in providing educational facilities for children with disabilities, while the second comprises an argument for shifting definitional control of the notion of ‘disability’ from the medical to the educational arena. The recent Report to the Australian Schools Commission on Integration in Australia exemplifies this stance by pointing to the initial reluctance of governments to assume responsibility for educating children with special needs, followed by their eventual involvement in establishing segregated educational facilities. With segregated schooling becoming the norm, the problem now confronting educators is how to integrate these students and their supporting resources into the regular school system.

The Professional Development for Special Educators program was first developed in 1986 as a response to a need within the Archdiocese of Canberra-Goulburn. At that time the Archdiocese employed approximately 40 full-time and/or parttime Special Education Resource Teachers to work in regular primary schools. In the preceding years the following had become apparent:

• • the nature of the role of the special educator in the regular school was changing;

• • the expectations of the special educator, held by classroom teachers and principals, were diverse and at times unclear;

• • the special educator was often unsure of his/her role and of how best to respond to the needs within the school;

• • the level of expertise and experience of the special educators varied greatly.

In this paper, my objective is to discuss how both macro and micro level influences have operated in Singapore to achieve over a remarkably short period of time a much improved national provision for special educational needs and training for special needs teachers in both special schools and regular schools.

In the 25 years since Singapore gained independence, this newly industrialising nation without natural resources, has placed a priority on training and developing a well-educated, skilled work force. In order to avoid human wastage there has been an emphasis on establishing a quality education system available to all who are willing to learn, and in which recognition has largely been related to academic achievement.

Des English was a person of great charm, innovation, and inner strength. His early death at the age of 44 in 1977 came as a bitter blow not only for his family but for the many teachers and parents he had influenced and guided in respectively providing and in seeking educational opportunities for children with disabilities. Des grew up in a small town in Victoria called Donnybrook, north of Melbourne. He was educated by the Marist Brothers at Kilmore College, and in the 50’s trained as a primary teacher at Geelong Teachers College, from which he gained an extension of one year to study as a Special Teacher at Melbourne Teachers College. His first appointment was as an Opportunity Grade teacher at North Melbourne State School. His talent for leadership surfaced early and in his second appointment he became Principal of Footscray Special School for children and adolescents with intellectual disability. Throughout the rest of his career he gained one promotion after another to the Principal positions at Ormond, Travencore and St. Alban’s Special schools. I was fortunate to work as a deputy principal with him throughout his last two appointments.