Tag: disability

Documenting the Harm

You are feeling helpless.

Out of control.

Wondering what you can say to convince educational staff to not give up on your kid….

The complete desperation, I remember that feeling. I see you and I hear you.

You aren’t sleeping and you are spending hours staring at your ceiling wondering if an answer will present itself.

I will tell you something very very important.

You. need. to. document. the. harm.

All of it.

And not just the harm to your children. You too! Did you lose a promotion? Lose an educational opportunity? Did you quit your job? Have to leave school?

This is going to feel weird.

This is going to feel like you are stepping beyond the boundaries of normal family life. Yup and yup. You are going to feel that your child’s privacy is being violated. Yup. I get the heartache. Totally.

Documenting the harm that your child is experiencing from the education system can be one of the most powerful forms of advocacy, that a parent can gather.

Here is why.

You need evidence to be undeniable.

You need evidence so that you are not dismissed.

Human Rights.

A very important test of human rights complaints and Charter challenges is proving that you or your child is being disadvantaged (harm) because of their disability.

Without evidence, the human rights tribunal will state that your allegations are nothing but conjecture. And will dismiss your case. Done.

Dadmand v. School District No. 36 (Surrey), 2011 BCHRT 323

IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210 

[16] That provision creates a gate-keeping function that permits the Tribunal to conduct preliminary assessments of human rights complaints with a view to removing those that do not warrant the time and expense of a hearing. It is a discretionary exercise that does not require factual findings. Instead, a Tribunal member assesses the evidence presented by the parties with a view to determining if there is no reasonable prospect the complaint will succeed. The threshold is low. The complainant must only show the evidence takes the case out of the realm of conjecture.

You need admissible evidence. Period.

Without it, the district will be confident that you will not complete your obligation in the legal test of proving discrimination.

This is about the harm that has already occurred. Not something that you anticipate for the future. Something that has occurred in the PAST, and that you have evidence for.

So…… what proof/evidence do you need?

These are things I would think about?

Videos/Pictures/Witnesses/Doctors visits/Counselling visits, etc.

  • Is our child losing sleep? Are they eating less? (Keep a log)
  • Are they writing or drawing out their feelings? Keep their creative expressions.
  • Did you need to increase anxiety medication?
  • Are they requiring counselling? (Note: Government-free counselling will not testify as it is a conflict of interest and the school district knows that)
  • What are you witnessing at home? Log details of everything and take videos.
  • Are they refusing to leave their bed?
  • Are they refusing school? Document the days and for how long. Match it up with attendance on their report cards.
  • Are they self-harming?
  • If you are seeing any mental health responses describe the behaviour as if an alien is watching… what are they doing? For example, they are rolling in bed picking skin off of their right leg and smearing blood on the wall. (Did you take pictures of the blood?) Describe everything from a clinical perspective. I know this is hard, but you need to do it.
  • Are you filming them melting down after school? You can hide the camera.
  • Keep their school work with their grades on the pages
  • Keep all the report cards, suspension reports and emails

From the Human Rights Tribunal

******

What is evidence?

Evidence can be:

  • oral testimony: a witness answers questions in person, or over a speaker phone if the member agrees
  • documents: documents, such as pay stubs or letters, are given to the tribunal member by a witness and are marked as an exhibit at the hearing
  • things: sometimes witnesses give the tribunal member other things such as photographs – just about anything that helps prove your case – these things may also be marked as an exhibit at the hearing
  • affidavits or other statements: a witness’ evidence can be given to the tribunal in writing – this can be a statement such as a letter, or a statement made under oath or solemn affirmation called an affidavit
  • expert evidence: evidence from an expert that may be oral testimony, an affidavit, or a written report

What evidence will the tribunal accept?

The tribunal can accept almost any evidence that is relevant, which means that it relates to the complaint or to the response to the complaint.

http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/guides-info-sheets/guides/getting-ready.htm

******

You get the idea, depending on the child, the list is endless.

As parents, we know what we know, but we need to prove it. Otherwise, our allegations are essentially worthless.

I actually don’t believe that school staff truly understand the harm that is happening to children and families. We don’t all live in the same world. They don’t see what we see.

This is why, we MUST document the harm in order to tell our kids stories.

Even if we feel that nothing will happen. You never know what years down the line will bring.

Keep the evidence.

The opportunity may present itself in the future to speak your child’s truth.

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. They have dismissed cases that were one day or three days late. Brutal.

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:

  1. 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. 
  2. 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.)
  3. They also have the right to be in a positive school environment.
  4. 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.

  1. 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. 
  2. 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. 
  3. 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

What is Fatal to a Human Rights Complaint in Education?

A and B obo Infant A v. School District C (No. 5), 2018 BCHRT 25

I have heard of many families in very complex situations. Parents/guardians are struggling with accepting/agreeing to accommodations offered by the school that they feel very strongly won’t work. If you are thinking that the human rights process is a process you might be considering, there are important things to note.

I have pulled the paragraphs/parts of paragraphs from this case that I feel are important for simplicity.  I highly encourage people to read the full case to understand the context of everything and how a hearing and the Human Rights Code are applied. It is a layered case and the complexity of the situation is something many families can find themselves in.  

I’d like to also note, that even though we are reading this case, there might be information that is not written about that this family may feel is very important that was left out.

Let’s look at the issues this case brings up and how we can be prepared for them.

Some of the topics this case brings up are:

  1. The importance of documentation and having as much evidence as you can.
  2. Witness testimony from parents and education staff (credibility conflicts)
  3. The role and responsibilities of parents/guardians.
    • The duty of parents/guardians to facilitate accommodations
    • Parent/guardian credibility
    • Parents/guardians duty to cooperate in good faith

“If the School District initiated a reasonable proposal that would, if implemented, accommodate the Child, then the Parents were obliged to facilitate that proposal. Failure to do so is fatal to their complaint of discrimination.”

DIRECTLY FROM THE CASE:

[37]           I am entitled to accept some, none or all of a witness’ testimony. Where there was disagreement in the evidence, my findings and reasons are set out. Where necessary to do so, I have assessed credibility and considered factors such as the witness’ demeanour, powers of observation, opportunity for knowledge, judgment, memory, and ability to describe clearly what they saw and heard….(continues)

[38]           In resolving conflicts in the evidence, and determining whether to accept the evidence of any witness, in whole or in part, I have adopted and applied the test set out in Bradshaw:

Credibility involves an assessment of the trustworthiness of a witness’ testimony based upon the veracity or sincerity of a witness and the accuracy of the evidence that the witness provides. The art of assessment involves examination of various factors such as the ability and opportunity to observe events, the firmness of his [or her] memory, the ability to resist the influence of interest to modify his [or her] recollection, whether the witness’ evidence harmonizes with independent evidence that has been accepted, whether the witness changes his [or her] testimony during direct and cross-examination, whether the witness’ testimony seems unreasonable, impossible, or unlikely, whether a witness has a motive to lie, and the demeanour of a witness generally. Ultimately, the validity of the evidence depends on whether the evidence is consistent with the probabilities affecting the case as a whole and shown to be in existence at the time. (Bradshaw, para. 186, citations excluded)

[39]           I find that the most helpful evidence in this case is the documentary evidence created at the time of events…(continues)

[42]           I have assigned relatively little weight to the Mother’s evidence where it conflicted with the first-hand accounts given by the School Counsellor, Principal, Vice Principal, and Teachers H, M, and G. I have found the Mother’s hearsay evidence considerably less reliable than the direct evidence of reliable witnesses, where there is a conflict.

[43]           The Mother acknowledged that she was probably not present for most of the incidents at school that involved her Child. At times, she had a hard time recalling events. For example, the Mother’s testimony on the psychoeducational assessment of her son was wrong by one year. She acknowledged that she was “out a year”. The Mother testified that there is no reason to dispute the emails that were authored by her at the time. The Mother testified “that is what I wrote at that time”.

[44]           During cross-examination, the Mother responded to several questions regarding her testimony about her Child’s version of events by saying that she did not know or was not there. She acknowledged that most of her knowledge of the incidents came through her Child. I find that her son was more likely than not motivated to minimize his involvement in some incidents when reporting them to his Parents, so as to avoid discipline. For example, the Mother described disciplining the Child in relation to an incident where he swore at the Principal. She described their punishment as “Draconian”. (In retrospect, the Mother regretted using that word in her letter). As another example, regarding the November 2016 Incident, the Child only reported to his Parents that he grabbed another student by the collar, whereas I find, as a fact, that the Child choked a student, pushed him over a railing, and spat in his face.

(Parents’ Obligations (Paragraph 248-260) ** Important to read in the case. This case was dismissed and discrimination was not found. )

[258] In summary, the evidence shows that the accommodation process of the Child at school was often frustrated by the unreasonable actions or inactions of his Parents. The Parents did not attend re-entry meetings after the Child was sent home from school; the Parents attended the first IEP meeting, but refused to attend future IEP meetings. After November 2015, the Parents stopped providing comments to draft IEPs that were sent to them for review. The Parents refused to participate in the creation of a Safety Plan for the Child. The Parents did not provide the requested medical and psychological information to enable the School to modify the Child’s IEP. The Parents rejected the Principal’s offers of an educational assistant, classroom change, pod change, and school change. The Parents interfered with and rejected the psycho-educational assessment performed by a school psychologist. The Parents opposed any involvement of the District’s Intensive Behavioural Team with the Child. The Parents refused to allow an educational assistant to work with the Child despite it being recommended by his teachers, School Counsellor, and Principal. In a letter dated May 2016, the Parents wrote that the Principal was the “root cause of all this mess”.

[248]      The School District is not the only party with obligations in the accommodation process. Rather, the parents were obliged, as the Child’s representatives, to work towards facilitating an appropriate accommodation: Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud, 1992 CanLII 81 (SCC), [1992] 2 SCR 970. If the School District initiated a reasonable proposal that would, if implemented, accommodate the Child, then the Parents were obliged to facilitate that proposal. Failure to do so is fatal to their complaint of discrimination.

Again, I highly encourage everyone to read the full case. I appreciate every family who has taken their case to the human rights tribunal hearing level. Even cases that have not “won” are still beneficial. It is through their experiences and stories that the rest of us learn and therefore become better advocates for our children to navigate this current system.

TAKE AWAY LEARNING

Whether this is fair or unfair/just or unjust/right or wrong…to uphold a human rights complaint…this is what I take away from this case.

  1. We need to be so thoughtful in how we communicate with the school.
  2. We need to be solution focused.
  3. Our credibility just like the staff’s credibility may be a part of the hearing process if there are issues around credibility and the relationship with the school.
  4. We need to document everything and gather as much evidence as we can.
  5. We need to cooperate and facilitate accommodations and if they are not successful, document the failure. (Paper documentation, video, etc)
  6. We need help. We should seek guidance and advice from as many professionals and other advocacy support people as possible if we find ourselves in a challenging advocacy situation at our child’s school.

However, it is also important to be aware.

"Parental conduct or lack of parental authority cannot be used as a justification for not meeting an exceptional student’s needs;"

To view the document on CanLII’s website:
L.B. v. Toronto District School Board, 2015 HRTO 1622 (CanLII)

"a parent’s “fierce advocacy” for his or her child must not and cannot prevent a school board from accommodating the child’s needs to the point of undue hardship."
[77] The Interim Decision sets out my reasons for issuing an order with respect to the first two points, as follows:
(a) School boards have an obligation under the Code to accommodate their students with disabilities to the point of undue hardship, regardless of whether the students are receiving any medical treatment in the community or not;
(b) School boards cannot order or demand of parents to place their children into residential psychiatric treatment programs and cannot deny or withhold accommodations to the point of undue hardship on the grounds that the student should be in such a program. While I have no evidence to show that this was the case here, that does not alter the principle;
(c) School boards have an obligation under the Education Act to provide appropriate special education placements, programs and services to their exceptional students. Parental conduct or lack of parental authority cannot be used as a justification for not meeting an exceptional student’s needs; and
(d) I agree with the decision in R.B. v. Keewatin-Patricia District School Board, (R.B./Keewatin) 2013 HRTO 1436, an HRTO decision cited by both parties in this case, at para 265, that a parent’s “fierce advocacy” for his or her child must not and cannot prevent a school board from accommodating the child’s needs to the point of undue hardship.
Here is the link to the case in full: https://canlii.ca/t/gmd68

For more updated human rights process information please click on my Human Rights Tribunal page and scan down to the “Things that are not explicitly explained but are good to know…”

For more information on understanding the duty to accommodate.

I offer an Education/Human Rights Workbook to parents/guardians. Hopefully, this process can help clarify your case.

I wish you all the best,

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

Resolution Options in Education

You have a situation at your child’s school that you realize, with all your best efforts, is not being resolved internally. You need help. You need an external organization to intervene. Who do you go to?

Not necessarily an easy question.

Some have retaliation protection built into their legislation, some do not.

Each option is connected to their own separate legislation. They are each a silo and operate independently. They are not connected. Knowing which avenue is most appropriate can save you months and even years of potential disappointment or wasted time.

Here are your options and the legislation they are attached to.

** All of these processes will require you to provide as much documentation (evidence) as possible.

  1. Professional Conduct Unit (Teachers Regulation Branch)

The TRB is connected to the Teachers Act. If the teacher in your child’s class has violated the standards for educators you can file a complaint. The Commissioner will determine if their behaviour was enough of a marked departure to lead to a consent resolution. The TRB will not consider human rights discrimination in the way that the HRT will. They are connecting the teacher to the Teachers Act and their professional standards, not determining if their behaviour was discrimination or related to the human rights code.

Before you file a TRB complaint please read this information.

There is no retaliation protection built in to the legislation, they advise you file another complaint for the retaliation.

2. Ombudsperson BC

The Ombudsperson of BC deals with administrative fairness and is connected to the Ombudsperson Act. So if education staff are ignoring you, not explaining their decisions to you or not following their own policy, then you could file a complaint with them.

You can go on their website and see their check lists to know if the administrative or procedural unfairness that you are experiencing is something they can assist you with. They can do an early resolution if you are being ignored. Silence, unfortunately is not uncommon in education.

There is retaliation protection built into the Ombudsperson Act.

3. Human Rights Complaint

The HRT deals with the Human Rights Code. It is an administrative tribunal and this area connected with disability in education is most likely going to be tied to Section 8: Duty to Accommodate. This is a legal process connected to the Human Rights code. That’s it. They will not be applying school policy to their decision making, just the Code. Understanding the components of the duty to accommodate is key.

There is case law around the schools responsibility to prevent continued bullying, and not having barriers that would prevent a disabled child from accessing their education connected to a duty to accommodate. This includes a duty to inquire, a duty to consult, and a duty to co-operate in good faith. Parents then have a duty to co-operate in good faith, a duty to facilitate the decision, and need to accept accommodations that are being offered that will remove the barrier for their child to access their education. This doesn’t mean the best accommodation, just enough to remove the barrier. I highly recommend you consult a lawyer. On the HRT website they have a list on where to get help.

There is a very firm 1 year limitation.

You can request it go through a “fast track” process if your issue is urgent.

There is retaliation protection built into the Human Rights Code.

4. Section 11 Appeal

This process connects with the School Act. As a parent you can file a section 11 appeal if you disagree with a decision that the school is making and it is significantly affecting your child and their education.

This process is faster than the Human Rights Tribunal process.

This advocacy is more open to looking at how policy and discrimination are impacting the student. Here are some guidelines.

Here is the Section 11 Appeal Manual.

5. OIPC

OIPC follows the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act

If you submit a Freedom of Information Request and they have redacted information you want access to, or are withholding information you feel you should have access to, or are delaying and not following the guidelines in providing you your FOI request, you can file a complaint with the OIPC and they will examine your case.

Here is how to make a complaint.

6. Education Mediation

Education mediation is connected to the Education Mediation Act. This is an option I know very little about, and would be relying on this legislation for information just as anyone else looking at it for the first time.

If anyone has gone this route and would like to share their experience with me, I would love to hear about it. Please email me at Kim @ speakingupbc.ca

7. Whistleblower Policies

All school districts are required to have whistleblower policies. If you are dealing with lying, manipulation and unethical behaviour, this is a route you may want to investigate further and pursue. Each school district should have this policy posted on their website. You may need to find it through the Board of Education section of their website under policies or administrative procedures.

8. Advocacy groups (highly recommended)

Support is essential when advocating in education. Having someone knowledgeable with experience to guide you is very beneficial.

BCEdAccess Society & Parents Facebook group
Inclusion BC
Family Support Institute

Teacher Suspended – Not Following IEP and Safety Plan

We have an important consent resolution that has rightfully been making the news.

The Professional Conduct Unit (formerly Teachers Regulation Branch) doesn’t have a great track record.

In fact, most of the complaints parents file lead to “no action”. It has been confusing, disheartening, and a punch in the gut for many that leads us to question the legitimacy of this department in the Ministry of Education and Child Care that should be protecting the most vulnerable.

As shown by the annual reports by the Professional Conduct Unit, you can see for yourself.

2021-2022
2020-2021
2019-2020

You get the idea…puzzling isn’t the word…

In the year 2021-2202 out of 242 complaints/reports only 28 led to a consent resolution. If you read through them all, you will get a clear sense of which ones make it through. Most of them are sexual offences or related to physical safety.

There is a lot more going on in schools, unfortunately, that require action in order to keep kids safe from harm beyond just their physical bodies. Based on self-reporting of parents, especially for kids who are disabled, they just aren’t making it through, even when the human rights tribunal is accepting the same complaints from the same parents. Here is the discipline database.

Thankfully, most teachers will never experience this process because, well, they are just absolutely fabulous who have a genuine care for children. All of us parents and society will forever been in their debt. Forever and ever.

Other people….chose the wrong career.

Even though the TRB rarely, and I mean rarely, releases a consent resolution connected to a student with a disability, this recent case highlights that the teacher wasn’t aware of the students IEP and Safety plan, when they should have been, and states the incident has caused the student anxiety.

I was hoping this story would make the news.

And it did.

Many parents feel that IEP’s don’t get the respect they deserve. Some teachers follow them to a tee fully embracing them, and others completely ignore them. Ignore an IEP and safety plan and we could end up seeing you in the news one day.

Here is the full consent resolution that is posted on the Ministry of Education and Child Care’s website. Parents, you may want to keep this one on your computer. An advocacy tool.

Bellow are news articles on this important consent resolution. I will update them as they are posted in the media.

Vancouver Sun
Surrey-Now Leader
Vernon Now
Info News
BC CTV
Global News

Update: Administrative Procedure 356 Feedback from the Public

Communication I received from the Langley School District on Feb 9th, 2023.

“Thank you for sharing your questions and feedback. As was outlined in the meeting, the District is gathering feedback from the public, reviewing the information, and providing responses that pertain to Administrative Procedure 356. The District is also sharing a webpage which contains the meeting minutes, presentation slides, and question-and-answers from the meeting on the District webpage here.

The District is welcoming questions and feedback from the public until February 23, 2023.

To ensure equity and transparency, any additional questions from the public that were not answered in the question-and-answer period of the meeting and pertains to Administrative Procedure 356 will be shared on the same webpage after February 23, 2023.

Thank you for your feedback and helping contribute to our learning community.”

UPDATE: March 11th, 2023 – They have posted the questions and answers from the parents information night

https://www.sd35.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/03/AP356-Additional-Questions-2023Mar10.pdf

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. 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.  
  5. 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.
  6. 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?
  7. 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?
  8. 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?
  9. 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.
  10. 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