ableism

ADHD, Dyslexia, Dysgraphia – Human Rights Education Case

This is a new case that was posted on the BC Human Rights Tribunal Website March 26th, 2024. This is a timeliness application.

I have read through this case and I feel MANY families can relate to the details of this case or various aspects of this case.

It really deserves a full read, however I have pulled some paragraphs to summarize and give an overview. The analysis of this case by the tribunal member and their determination of whether disability was connected to the harm alleged is really important learning for us parents. It also describes how the tribunal interprets alleged inappropriate accommodations as potential discrimination.

I am also going to be emailing this case to the Ministry of Education and asking them to explain why they are not screening children in Kindergarten. Dyslexia BC has been advocating for this for years!

The Parent obo the Child v. School District, 2024 BCHRT 91

[8] The Child attended an elementary school in the School District from September 2015 until December 2020. He has dyslexia, dysgraphia, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [ADHD].

[9] By the third week of kindergarten in 2015, the Parent alleges that the Child began complaining of constant nausea and experienced diarrhea and vomiting regularly. She states he told her that he was scared to go to school as the work was too hard and he could not do it. The Parent alleges that the Child’s physical ailments were only present on school days and he began resisting going to school, to the extent that he cried all evening before going to school and lay on the floor crying two to three hours before school. The Parent alleges this same pattern persisted throughout the entire time the Child attended the school.

[14] Around August 2018, before the Child started grade three, the Parent alleges that she asked his teacher if he may be dyslexic. The Parent says that the teacher assured her that her son’s situation was normal, and he just needed to keep practicing. The Parent says that she thought that by raising the possibility dyslexia to the teacher it would prompt the teacher to investigate the issue more thoroughly. The Parent says that she ultimately decided to trust the teacher’s opinion, which resulted in the Child not being appropriately accommodated for his disabilities.

[15] In September 2018, the School District conducted a functional behavioral assessment of the Child. Based on the assessment, in November 2018 the School District placed him in a literacy intervention group. The Parent alleges the placement was an inappropriate response to the Child’s disabilities.

[17] In December 2018, the School District created its first Individual Educational Plan [IEP] for the Child. The plan focused on addressing the goals of the Child attending school and managing his anxiety in a positive way at school. It also addressed various ways to increase his reading and writing to advance him from operating at a grade one level. The Parent alleges the IEP did not appropriately address the Child’s disabilities.

[18] In June 2019, the Parent alleges the Child’s IEP was updated with minimal change. She says that worksheets provided by the school over the summer were too hard for the Child to complete. Once again, the Parent alleges the School District’s attempts to accommodate the Child’s disabilities were inappropriate.

[25] In mid 2020, at the end of grade four, the Parent says that she realized the extent of the Child’s reading struggles as he could not read instructions or complete any online school without her providing him with extensive one-to-one support. She alleges his reading skills were much lower than the School District had previously indicated. At that point the Parent says she began doing in-depth research on dyslexia and other disabilities pertaining to reading. She then decided to pay for him to attend tutoring with literacy specialists outside of school.

[31] ……...The Parent stated that she felt incredibly rushed during a less than one hour meeting about the plan for the Child related to the new information and the complexity of the situation. She worried about several educators being involved who did not have training for children with the Child’s learning disabilities and processing challenges.…..

[34] Finally, the Parent noted her concern that as of grade three the School District had already started to consider the Child as not being a candidate for graduation with a high school diploma.

[37] In January 2021, the Parent says that the Child was enrolled in a private school equipped to meet his education needs. She says that at the new school, the Child received 45 minutes of OG tutoring at the new school every day with positive effects. By the time her complaint was filed in November 2021, she described him as a “different child” who did not complain about going to school and did not get headaches and have an upset stomach or diarrhea. The Parent says the Child was learning at grade level and was now being given the opportunity to be successful.

[49] After reviewing the information on file, I have further determined that there is a succession of separate acts of discrimination of the same character that are separate contraventions of the Code extending back to the spring of 2016. I address each allegation in turn.

[50] The Complaint alleges that on April 4, 2016, the Parent emailed the Child’s kindergarten teacher with his reports that he felt rushed when doing work at school, and despite his best efforts he felt he was too slow in completing tasks. The Parent asked the teacher if there was anything that could be done about this problem. The teacher responded with an acknowledgement that the Child did take his time with his work and appears to suggest that the Parent should reassure the Child that he could take time and not be so hard on himself. From my review of this event, I am satisfied that the Complaint sets out an allegation of discrimination where the Child accessing educational services experienced harms because the School District failed to accommodate the Child and did not meet his educational needs by only telling the Parent to tell the Child not to not rush or be too hard on himself. The harm incurred 12 by taking this action only was the Child not receiving a proper education. I am further satisfied the Complaint sets out an allegation that the School District failed to make sufficient inquiries into the nature and extent of the Child’s disability-related needs in response to the Parent’s concerns. In my view, this inaction caused harm where the School District failed to discover Child’s learning disabilities such that he could then be provided with appropriate accommodations to prevent him falling behind. In my view, the Complaint alleges that the Child’s disability was a factor in the harms alleged.

[51] The Complaint alleges that in November 2016, the School District’s response to the Child’s reading difficulties was to send home alphabet cards and provide video links for him to work on sounding out letters and creating simple words. From my review of this event, I am satisfied that the Complaint sets out allegations of discrimination where the School District failed to accommodate the Child by addressing his learning disability needs in this manner. I am further satisfied the Complaint sets out an allegation that the School District failed to make sufficient inquiries into the nature and extent of the Child’s disability-related needs as opposed to sending home alphabet cards and video links to address his needs. In my view, the Complaint alleges that the Child’s disability was a factor in the harms alleged. In my view, the Complaint alleges that the Child’s disability was a factor in the harms alleged.

[52] The Complaint alleges that in the fall of 2017, the School District addressed the Child’s ongoing reading problems by giving him sight cards to take home and providing him with some one-on-one reading support. At this time, the Parent noted her concerns that the Child was merely memorizing the cards and not actually able to spell the words. She also observed that he was guessing words based on pictures. I am satisfied that the Complaint sets out allegations of discrimination where the School District failed to accommodate the Child by addressing his learning disability needs in this manner. I am further satisfied the Complaint sets out an allegation that the School District failed to make sufficient inquiries into the nature and extent of the Child’s disability-related needs as opposed to sending home sight cards and providing some one-on-one reading support. In my view, the Complaint alleges that the Child’s disability was a factor in the harms alleged. 13

[53] The Complaint alleges that in August 2018, the School District’s response to the Parent’s concern that the Child might be dyslexic as he continued to struggle in school was to assure her that he just needed to keep practicing. I am satisfied that the Complaint sets out allegations of discrimination where the School District failed to accommodate the Child by addressing his learning disability needs in this manner in response to Parent’s concerns. I am further satisfied the Complaint sets out an allegation that the School District failed to make sufficient inquiries into the nature and extent of the Child’s disability-related needs as opposed to staying the course with Child despite ongoing problems and the Parent highlighting the possibility that he could be dyslexic. Once again, I find the Child’s disability was a factor in the harms alleged.

[54] The Complaint alleges that In the fall of 2018, the School District’s response to the Child’s ongoing learning struggles was to conduct a functional behavioural assessment and place him in a literacy intervention group. I am satisfied that the Complaint sets out allegations of discrimination where the School District failed to accommodate the Child by addressing his learning disability needs by focusing on the behavioural components and not his disabilities. I am further satisfied the Complaint sets out an allegation that the School District failed to make the appropriate inquiry, conducting a psychoeducational assessment instead of a behavioural assessment, into the nature and extent of the Child’s disability-related needs. Again, failing to accommodate the child after a proper assessment is alleged to have harmed him by not providing a proper education. I find the Child’s disability was a factor in the harms alleged.

[55] The Complaint alleges that in December 2018, the School District created its first IEP for the Child. I am satisfied that the Complaint sets out allegations of discrimination where the School District failed to accommodate the Child by addressing his learning disability needs with an IEP that focused on the behavioural components and provided ineffectual learning supports not indicated in the later psychoeducational assessment. Again, the School District is alleged to have failed to make the appropriate inquiry into the nature and extent of the Child’s disabilityrelated needs. It allegedly failed to accommodate the child after a proper assessment resulting in the harms related to not receiving a proper education. I find the Child’s disability was a factor in these harms. 14

[56] The Complaint alleges that in June 2019, the School District updated the IEP with minimal changes and sent worksheets home with the Child to do over the summer break that were allegedly beyond his capabilities. I am satisfied that the Complaint sets out allegations of discrimination where the School District failed to accommodate the Child by addressing his learning disability needs with a revised IEP that has the same issues as the first IEP. A further allegation is set out concerning sending home inappropriate worksheets over the summer. Once again, the School District is alleged to have failed to make the appropriate inquiry into the nature and extent of the Child’s disability-related needs. It allegedly harmed the Child by not providing him with a proper education. I find the Child’s disability was a factor in the harms alleged.

[57] The Complaint alleges that in September 2019, the Child’s grade four teacher admitted she was unaware of him having an IEP and provided him with grade two spelling lists work as an accommodation of his disability. I am satisfied that the Complaint sets out allegations of discrimination where the School District failed to accommodate the Child by addressing his learning disability needs by sending home grade two spelling lists for him to work on. Once again, the School District is alleged to have failed to make the appropriate inquiry into the nature and extent of the Child’s disability-related needs. It allegedly harmed the Child by not providing a proper education. I find the Child’s disability was a factor in the harms alleged.

[58] The Complaint alleges in February 2020, the School District’s lack of response to the Parent’s concern that the Child was reversing letters on his written tests is an allegation of discrimination. I am satisfied that the Complaint sets out allegations of discrimination where the School District failed to accommodate the Child by addressing his learning disability needs in the face of dyslexia symptoms. Once again, the School District is alleged to have failed to make the appropriate inquiry into the nature and extent of the Child’s disability-related needs. It allegedly harmed the Child by not providing a proper education. I find the Child’s disability was a factor in the harms alleged.

[59] The Complaint alleges on November 4, 2020, that the revised IEP implementing the October 27, 2020, psychoeducational report findings is an allegation of discrimination where it relied on the Parent to organize and pay for the Child’s OG tutoring and inappropriately 15 continued to focus on treating his anxiety. I am satisfied that the Complaint sets out allegations of discrimination where the School District failed to accommodate the Child by addressing his learning disability needs with a revised IEP not properly guided by the psychoeducational assessment resulting in the Child not receiving a proper education. I find the Child’s disability was a factor in the harms alleged.

[60] The Complaint alleges on November 5, 2020, that the school principal was unwilling to guarantee that the Child would receive tutoring from someone trained in OG tutoring is an allegation of discrimination for the purposes of this decision. I am satisfied that the Complaint sets out allegations of discrimination where the School District failed to accommodate the Child by committing to provide him with an appropriately trained tutor necessary to meet his learning disability needs. This resulted in the Child not receiving a proper education. I find the Child’s disability was a factor in the harms alleged.

[61] To summarize, the materials before me set out a series of discrete allegations of discrimination incidents involving the School District’s repeated failures to appropriately accommodate the Child’s disability over the five years that he attended school within the School District. These incidents involved the trial of various inappropriate intervention activities, inappropriate IEPs and an inappropriate assessment. All these actions attempting to address the Child’s learning disabilities allegedly resulted in harms related to the Child not receiving a proper education. Further, for much of the period in question, the School District failed to make the appropriate inquiry into the nature and extent of the Child’s disability related needs by way of a psychoeducational assessment.

[65] In concluding there were no significant gaps in this case, I have considered the Parent’s submissions and evidence indicating she was actively engaged in the Child’s education during his time out of school over the years. For example, she participated extensively in the take home activities prescribed by the School District while actively pursuing guidance from his teachers, the school counsellor, and the principal. In my view, the Parent remained very much engaged in the accommodation process throughout the years and this lessens the significance of any gaps between the discrete instances of discrimination outlined above. As an active participant in the School District’s ongoing accommodation of the Child’s learning disabilities, I see less significance in the gaps of months between the discrete allegations. While it is possible 17 to say the Parent had numerous opportunities to file a complaint, the information before me indicates that she was actively engaged as a participant in the accommodation process between events where the issue of accommodation arose, which lessens the significance of the gaps in this case.

[67] For these reasons, the complaint is accepted for filing as it alleges a continuing contravention of the Code.

Advocacy Club for Parents/Guardians

Here is a resource I just have to pass along!

https://jennscharf.com/school-advocacy-club/

New Page called ADVOCATE HELP DIRECTORY

You will notice I have added a new page called Advocate Help Directory.

These advocacy organizations and businesses specifically focus on K-12 education advocacy for inclusion in BC.

ADHD Advocacy Society of BC
K-12 Advocacy Info

Autism BC

BCCPAC
Advocacy Info

BC Ed Access – Facebook Parent Support Group
Education Advocacy Resources

Dyslexia BC – offers direct support in school advocacy

Family Support Institute – offers direct support in school advocacy
Education Advocacy Toolkit

FASD Support Society of BC – offers direct support in school advocacy

Inclusion BC – offers direct support in school advocacy
Advocacy Handbook

Jenn Scharf – IEP and advocacy services – offers direct support in school advocacy

K-R

Suzanne Perreault – Inclusive Education Consulting and Counselling – offers direct support

External Complaint Organizations

Ombudsperson BC
Professional Conduct Unit (Teacher’s Regulation Branch)
Human Rights Tribunal BC
Your MLA

Self-Advocacy and Victim Blaming in Education

Certain elements of self-advocacy need to be in place.

1. The person on some level needs to be accepting of their disability AND be willing to talk about it.

2. They have to be able to identify when they need help.

3. They need to identify what they need help with and have the language to express it.

4. They need a trusted adult who has proved their willingness to listen to them over time.

5. The child needs to feel heard.

6. The child needs to feel that this trusted adult will believe them when they say they need help.

7. This needs to be repeated enough times and be predictable enough for the self-advocate to feel comfortable and safe to advocate for their needs.

Often school staff will say…..

Well _____________ happened, but if XXXX advocated for himself, this wouldn’t have happened.

That is BULLSHIT.

Children since they enter school are socialized to believe they MUST follow authority or something really bad is going to happen. They think they will be disappointing all the adults in their lives, and kids deep down just want to make their loved ones love them.

All they want to do is to make the adults (especially their parents but also their teachers) in their lives happy so that they will feel worthy and good about themselves. We need to look at their situation through the lens of a child.

There is so much systemic ableism, that people don’t want to acknowledge it. If they do, they are now responsible for changing it.

Learning self-advocacy can take a lifetime. Adults have a hard time advocating. It’s stressful and anxiety-producing for all of us. We need to have realistic expectations for our children. Especially when they are navigating an oppressive system, based on hierarchy, and control. They live in this environment 5 days a week, we don’t.

We have a human rights decision on our side.

It’s easy for schools to make us think our kids share responsibility or are responsible for all of it.

Let’s keep in mind….

Self-advocacy expectations have been defined by the BC Human Rights Tribunal. In Student by Parent v. School District BCHRT 237.

[90] Generally, it is the obligation of the person seeking accommodation to bring forward the relevant facts: Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud, 1992 CanLII 81 (SCC), [1992] 2 SCR 970. This can be challenging for children, and especially challenging for children with invisible disabilities. I agree with the Parent that children who require accommodation in their school are in a different situation than adults seeking accommodation. Though they have a role to play in the process, that role will be age and ability-specific, and the burden cannot be on a child to identify and bring forward the facts necessary for their accommodation.

Family Status – Human Rights Complaints in Education

Here is some clarity to something that can be confusing when it comes to parents adding themselves to their child’s human rights complaint in education. (Your complaint will also need to pass the discrimination test.)

You need to file separate complaints. One for your child and one for you. Then, when and if they are both accepted, then you need to file an application to join them.

As a parent, it makes logical sense in our head to just include ourselves in our child’s complaint because we see everything so connected, but that is not the process that one needs to go through. So, to save yourself some time in further applications and playing catch up, when you file your child’s complaint, also file a separate complaint for you. Wait to see if both are accepted and then you need to file a 7.1 Form to join the complaints.

Here is the application page. You will want Application Form 7.1 – General Application. If you go to page 2 of 7, on that list, 7th on the list down, you will see “Join two or more complaints”

It is highly likely that the respondents will be making submissions for them not to be joined, or to dismiss your complaint. So, just mentally be prepared for that.

Here is the groundbreaking case that brought this option out in the open. So thankful for this brave parent.

Groundbreaking BC HRT – Accepts Parent on Child’s HR Complaint

Direct link on CanLII

You may want to quote this case directly in your complaint.

Also, keep in mind the one-year time limit for filing. If you file outside of the one-year time limit you may want to consider this case. Also, be aware that you will need to have evidence of the harm related to your loss of work or emotional harm.

Experience is such a valuable teacher.

If you have any questions, call the BC Human Rights Clinic. They are the best people to talk to about your complaint or any questions about the process. Processes do change, forms change, and with each new human rights case decision that gets posted – arguments can change. (This blog was written on Dec 21st, 2023)

Late filing – Timeliness of Complaint

This is a decision from the Human Rights Tribunal, posted in the September category for 2023.

The complainant filed the human rights complaint after the one-year deadline. These applications for late filing are very rarely accepted, and this case was accepted.

It’s also notable because it involves accessibility issues for a disabled student in a post-secondary school. This case was considered novel because the student is autistic. See paragraph 44 for details.

Here is the case and I have selected a few paragraphs from the main case.

Schulz v. Camosun College, 2023 BCHRT 142

[6] Millie Schulz has multiple mental disabilities, including autism spectrum disorder [ASD], attention deficit disorder [ADD], and post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD].

[16] On January 4, 2021, Millie Schulz sent a letter to the College dropping out the MHA program. After noting their issues and barriers, they said they did not feel supported in their classes with CAL, which was only looking out the College’s interests.

[37] Where the delay is due to a disabling condition, the Tribunal has observed that it may be in the public interest to accept a late-filed complaint: MacAlpine v. Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, 2011 BCHRT 29 at para. 42. Disabling conditions can include physical and mental ailments resulting in great difficulty coping with even the basic daily tasks of life: Naziel-Wilson v. Providence Health Care and another, 2014 BCHRT 170 at para. 21

[42] Millie Schulz argues their case is unique as it involves a complainant with ASD. While the Tribunal has addressed mental health discrimination in the provision of services, it has not addressed many of the issues impacting individuals with ASD, and their need for accommodation, especially in a school or employment setting. They cite one Tribunal case dealing with autism from 2011, which points out that the nature of adult autism and how it manifests itself in the workplace is poorly understood, and individuals with this disability are subject to stigma and stereotyping: Noriega v. B. C. (Min. of Children and Family Development), 2011 BCHRT 199 at para 28.

[44] While appreciating this case is quite common in terms of the Tribunal dealing with the accommodation of a student with mental disabilities in a post-secondary setting, I find that the 12 subject matter of accommodating autism, in particular ASD, is sufficiently unique to attract some public interest in allowing the complaint to proceed late filed.

[45] After weighing all the factors, I have decided it is in the public interest to accept this late-filed complaint. While appreciating a significant delay in filing occurred, this factor is outweighed by the reasons for delay associated with Millie Schulz’s mental disabilities and the novelty of the case. It is now necessary to address the issue of whether any substantial prejudice would result. C. Substantial Prejudice

Human Rights in Education

Depending on how the previous years have gone, thinking about the next school year can certainly trigger our own internal alarm systems. Fighting for inclusion, a fair and equitable education, and one that is free from discrimination for our children, can be challenging at times. It can feel like the system is against us. Remember that there are pockets of positivity and support that also exist. Knowing your rights and the rights of your child is especially empowering and can help reduce some of the anxiety.

Inclusion seems to be happening on an individual level by luck and chance around our province, and not systemically. We are all crossing our fingers that our kids win the ‘lottery’ and get placed in the classes of those amazing teachers who just “get it”.

But we don’t need to just hope to survive the year based on luck.

Understanding your child’s human rights in the education system and advocating with those in mind is an extremely powerful approach. The more you understand how the duty to accommodate applies to your child in school, the stronger your advocacy impact will be, and the more empowering the experience can be.

It is not uncommon for school staff and teachers to not fully understand how human rights apply to education. It isn’t something that they are taught before, or when, they begin working in the system.

Wondering if your disabled child is experiencing discrimination at school, all comes down to the question: Is your child “accessing their education, equitably”? So, what does that mean exactly?

It means they have a right to an equitable opportunity to receive and participate in education. This does not mean that they are given the exact same as everyone else. Equity means that they are given what they need so they have a chance to learn and show their learning.

Here are some examples of your child’s rights that are supported by the Human Rights Code, under the duty to accommodate:

Your child’s IEP supersedes a teacher’s classroom autonomy and classroom management decisions. Which means, your child’s IEP is the priority over their personal teaching opinions and how they like to run their classes. IEPs are very important.
Your child has a right to go to school and not be exposed to discrimination-based harassment. (Bullying connected to their disability, race, gender, etc.)
They also have the right to be in a positive school environment.
Your child has a right to receive reasonable accommodation so they can access their education. Which means, if your child is struggling or failing, they are not accessing their education and they are not receiving reasonable accommodation. Document the failing and the struggle that they are experiencing. The more evidence you have, the more effective your advocacy will be. A child struggling and failing is an indication that the accommodations that the school provides, or lack of, is not working. It’s their responsibility to make this work.

Here are some examples of your rights and responsibilities that are supported by the Human Rights Code.

You have a right to be consulted on your child’s education. The school has the final decision as to what reasonable accommodations look like for your child, but they must consult with you and at least consider the information you offer about your child. This needs to be meaningful consultation.
Both you and the school have a duty to co-operate in good faith. Which means respectful language on both sides and no dirty parlor tricks from the school system. I would suggest you review the code of conduct that will be posted on your school districts website, and they need to follow that as well.
You have a responsibility to facilitate the implementation of accommodation decided by the school. You can facilitate and still keep advocating.

Through the School Act, you have a right to appeal if you do not agree with the final decision of the school. This is a much faster process than the current Human Rights Tribunal process. The School Act and the Human Rights Code are two separate legislation Acts. Processes are different. Goals are different. Outcomes will be different.

Filing a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal means that your child has experienced harm that is connected to their disability. It’s about harm that has already occurred, and harm that you will need to have evidence of. More blog posts on this will be coming in the future.

Advocacy is a skill that can be developed.

Some resources I recommend are:

Inclusion BC – Chapter 7

Family Support Institute & BC Access Society – Toolkit

Family Status Protection

BIG NEWS!

For parents who are concerned about losing their job due to parent responsibilities of raising their children, this is a step in the right direction.

“Vancouver, B.C. – On Friday, the B.C. Court of Appeal issued a decision that clarifies the circumstances in which parents and caregivers can seek accommodation in their workplaces.

The Court released their decision in Gibraltar Mines Ltd. v. Harvey, a case alleging discrimination against the mother of a young child by her employer. B.C.’s Human Rights Commissioner intervened in the case to address the legal test for family status discrimination in B.C.

‘Family status’ is a protected ground in B.C.’s Human Rights Code, prohibiting discrimination based on a person’s family situation, such as if a person is a caregiver for children or elderly parents. To determine whether family status discrimination has taken place, decision makers in B.C. have traditionally used a two-part test. This test asked whether the employer unilaterally changed a worker’s terms of employment and whether there was a serious interference with a substantial parental or other family duty as a result. The main issue before the Court of Appeal in Gibraltar was whether the law did, in fact, require a unilateral change to terms of employment as part of the legal test to establish discrimination.

Friday’s ruling means that employees can qualify for a workplace accommodation when any condition of their employment has an adverse effect on an important parental duty. Complainants are not required to show that their employer has changed their terms of employment. This is particularly important for parents of young children whose parental obligations may change during their employment and conflict with their workplace responsibilities.”

“The Court’s decision is welcome and is a significant win for gender equality in the workplace in many ways. It is an important step forward, but there remain outstanding issues that need to be resolved to ensure that mothers and other caregivers are able to access the full protection of human rights law.”Kasari Govender, B.C.’s Human Rights Commissioner

For the full release read the HR Commissioners announcement

For more media regarding this:
The Canadian Press
Burnaby Now
Global News

NEW! Dyslexia Advocacy Society of BC has a BLOG!

Woohoo!!!

Dyslexia Advocacy Society of BC Contact us 778-839-1540

Picture of the front page of the blog titled Dyslesia BC Blog, first post: Lets make sure we get structured literacy into BC schools.

Dyslexia BC now has a blog and what are they posting about?

Some upcoming advocacy action. That’s what!

“Next week, starting on April 27, 2023 the British Columbia School Trustees Association (BCSTA) is having their 2023 AGM and they have a motion at the table submitted from the North Vancouver School Board (No.44) that is called “Learning Disability (Dyslexia) and Policy/Guidelines for Screening in Kindergarten.” To help support this motion we have written a letter to the BCSTA Board.”

To read the letters and support the very important motions, visit their blog at Dyslexia BC Blog

An Open Letter to the Trustees of SD35-Langley

Dear Trustees,

I registered for the information session, Tuesday January 31st, regarding AP 355 procedure. At the last minute I was unable to attend due to the physical location of the meeting, but would have been able to attend if the meeting was online. I would like to communicate my concerns regarding your procedure. Even though my children are not in your district, other districts and parents are taking notice and your procedure has wider implications for other school districts to follow with similar procedures.

My concerns include the following:

Potential for misuse. People in positions of power can use policies such as this as stepping stones for wider implications and inferences that leave vulnerable people even more vulnerable.
Age. Other districts who have an exclusion policy have an age minimum of 16. However, this administrative procedure starts at kindergarten. That means some children being impacted by this procedure will be as young as 4 years old. This becomes enforceable on DAY 1 of kindergarten. The “spirit” of your procedure is very different than the other 3 policies I found online.
Costs. There are financial costs to this procedure on families that are not being addressed by the school district. Will parents be reimbursed for their lost wages due to not being able to work for 3 days at a time? Due to systemic issues that are created and maintained by the Ministry of Education and how the public service of education is delivered in this province, it leaves parents shouldering the financial responsibilities and not the school district. Districts can be held financially responsible for human rights violations, lost wages and the cost of outside school programs. What happens here?
Appeals. I have concerns that there is not already an established separate appeals process that is not a very cumbersome time consuming section 11 appeals process.
Delivery. I have concerns in which this information night was delivered. It could have easily been on zoom so that families with disabled children could access the information. The barriers were evident and did not go unnoticed by the families who could not attend. Due to the small number of people who were able to physically attend the information session, compared to the number of concerned members of the disability community who were interested in attending, the small “sample size” group who attended, you will be unable to make inferences to the larger population and feel that you fully understand everyone’s concerns. It fulfills checking off a box on your to-do list, but little else, and I implore you to consider further community consultation via online as well.
Reporting. Will there be reporting expectations from the district admin to the board so there is oversight? How often will these reports be expected to be reviewed and is there going to be a public anonymous quantitative data reporting system for transparency and legitimacy of your procedure? If you say this procedure will benefit the families for accountability, how will you be demonstrating that to the public that with evidence?
Vague terms. It concerns me that there is a lot of vague undefined terms in this policy with no reference. Acts have definitions. For example, What does “exceptional circumstances” mean?
Legal consultation. Will the school district be accessing their lawyers for legal consultation during the implementation of this policy? Will parents have the same access to legal consultation?
Human System. Education is delivered through the means of a human system, designed and maintained by people. It is flawed and socially constructed by people who don’t often experience oppression. We are also in a state of educational crisis with severe staffing shortages and untrained adults working in the system who are not trained teachers or EA’s. The stress level of staff who are working in a system of scarcity and desperation will impact the learning environment and employees emotional regulation. This will transfer to the culture and behaviour of those children who are also navigating this human system. Children are not the creators of the environment that they are entering, they are reacting to their environment. It is recognized that we live in a society that is ableist, racist, classist, and education is delivered through a colonized lens. The children who are struggling to adapt to this system and who are most vulnerable will be mostly affected. How are families supported as they navigate this system that they have no control over? As per the school act, final decisions are the purview of the board and not the parents. Parents are responsible for facilitating decisions made by the schools or they can be seen as not fulfilling their duty to cooperate in good faith and human rights complaints will be dismissed. If parents disagree with the methodology that is being forced on their child, what is their recourse that will not risk their employment or make them homeless as they cannot pay their rent due to extended exclusion? There are bound to be cultural and/or philosophical framework disagreements as professionals who work in disability education cannot even agree on appropriate approaches for specific disabilities and these disagreements even within these professions can lead to fierce emotional debate. For example, Autism and Dyslexia.
Diagnosis. Not all disabilities are even identified or screened by education staff, therefore many children are not even appropriately diagnosed. The mental health profession is understaffed and extremely stretched very thin with many people not being able to access supports until they are in extreme crisis, and even then the needs are just to high. In a failing system, with so many children falling through the cracks, how does this policy ensure that the education system is adapting to the needs on a macro systemic level? Does the Ministry of Education support this policy and do they plan on providing the school district with funding to ensure that children are accessing education in equitable ways? Will the Ministry of Education ensure that TOC’s will be provided so staff can have time to meet and consult with the appropriate professionals? And on that note, is the BCTF on board with this policy and 3 day cap? If the expectation is meetings are to be taking place and plans designed within 3 days, in the union on board with ensuring their staff are aware of their expectations? How will further professional training be provided to reduce the need for this policy to even exist?

Your responsibility in creating a procedure that doesn’t cause harm is very heavy. Please do not speed along the process. Please take into account the very community that you think this policy will benefit and that means a lot more consultation with community and collaboration with external non-profit organizations who advocate for vulnerable families.

If this procedure is discriminatory or harmful, external organizations will end up being involved in the process eventually and it will cause more harm and stress for everyone involved: school staff, parents, and most importantly the children. As young as 4 years old, on DAY 1 of kindergarten.

Sincerely,

Kim Block

Here is a link to their information and admin procedure link