Tag: #HumanRights

Understanding Systemic Change

I have recently had someone publicly tell me that the information I post “is already out there and readily available, and what is the point of providing information if it won’t help anyways?”

And “Being NICE and COLLABORATIVE so they will like you is the wrong approach”

And “this is exactly the response system is hoping for: having parents spend a multitude of energy and hours on researching and getting information to “help their child” in the classroom, so they can self congratulate themselves in showing how collaborative they have been with parents.“

This person feels the human rights system is a waste of time. What needs to occur are legislations changes only and anything less than that is a waste of time. They feel the only response parents should be doing is pulling their kids out of the education system.

Here is my response:

Not to toot my own horn, but for this blog, it’s important I place myself in this topic before I dive in. I don’t want anyone to think I am just making this stuff up. It is an informed blog. One of my degrees is in Human Relations from Concordia University, Montreal, with a certificate in family education. I graduated with honors and an award. This degree is about human systems. How people function in groups of all sizes from families to large organizations and societies, systemic change, and how to intervene when systems become toxic.

Some people when they advocate can reach a point when they are beyond frustrated, angry and bitter. Some people have decided to lash out at other people. The very people they are in the trenches with. They end up making it harder and more emotionally draining for parents who are advocating. I don’t think they realize the impact and how upsetting it is for other parents to hear their comments. Crabs in the bucket. My perception is that there is a lack of understanding of how human systems work, and how systemic change occurs and they are frustrated because how they think they should be able to make systemic change occur, isn’t occurring. The wider the gap between our expectations and reality, the more depressed or angry we will become.

I can’t fit everything in this blog about how human systems work, so for this blog I am going to focus on macro-level and micro-level aspects. Macro-level systems are the big ones. The government bodies that include hundreds and thousands of people. They are our political system, the structure of our economy, the structure from the Constitution of Canada and the impact on our system, democracy, our education systems with public schools, private schools, online schools etc. The large groups of multiple moving parts that involve many complex layers, and are maintained by many layers of legislation, policy, and guidelines. Think of many many gears all locked together. They are all moving. Wish to change one gear, and they will all be impacted. These systems have formal codes of conduct and contracts. Also, the unwritten social contracts and social rules that glues everyone together. These systems are tidal wave systems that do not get pushed off course unless something massive happens. I haven’t even mentioned the topic of power. That’s a whole other blog. Systems that are oppressive like to remain that way, unless it’s detrimental to themselves to not change.

Micro-level changes are things that happen on one-to-one individual levels. Individual social interactions. A 20-minute conversation is a micro-level interaction. This is when we advocate with our child’s teacher and they learn something new about ADHD and now they are adapting their teaching and accepting of movement breaks because they understand things differently.

Some people think, that if we only change this one law, or have this one human rights case, or if we change one piece of legislation then everything will be solved for all of the following generations.

I can promise you, if this is how you think, this is where your pain is because that will never happen. Change will never happen because of one person. Ever. We are dealing with way too many macro-level systems all connected and interacting with each other, AND we are dealing with way too many micro-level individual interactions of ableism and lack of information about disabilities. One person is not going to swoop in and solve it all. The education system provincially has hundreds of thousands of people working in these systems. There is not one solution. If we are waiting for a hero to ride in on a horse and save us all, we’ll be waiting for a very long time.

One person cannot change a human system. It takes teams. Plural. And in our society, it is going to take multiple teams all working together with a common goal for a sustained period of time. These teams are going to have to cover ALL different areas and all different aspects of the multiple gears.

There are 4 elements to a social movement.

  1. There is a trigger event that inspires an intense reaction from the community
  2. ALL of the already established community groups come together and work together as ONE
  3. They have a common simple message that the public can understand. (Eg. Black Lives Matter)
  4. The advocacy of this one common message and connection of all of the groups needs to be for a sustained period of time. A long time.

That is a social movement.

Think of the women’s movement in the 70’s. We still have women’s issues today. But women entering the workforce was quite the shift that started it all off. The different professions women are working in today is because of that social movement.

We need to work at both a macro-level and a micro-level. Even if we had a piece of legislation change or a fantastic policy manual from the government we are still going to be dealing with the individual people who are ableists and want power over. Any change coming from the top down and they will figure out ways to get around it, ignore it, and we will still be struggling with the same shit.

It’s not that we just need to get EA standards and everything will change.

It’s not that we just need to get legislation changed.

It’s not that we just need this one class action human rights case.

We need everyone. We need ALL of it. It is all hands on deck. We need every disability organization, we need all parents, we need trustees, we need educators, we need PAC’s, we need unions, we need everyone working in their own corners advocating for accessibility and inclusion.

Anything less than that, and we will not be able to move the needle enough to notice change in this generation.

It takes a micro-level AND a macro-level response.

Social change, where people really feel that the needle moved, that is noticeable… usually takes 3 generations. But not always…

We are in a catch-22 when it comes to legislation changes. The government won’t enact legislation or funding commitments to items that they feel the majority of their constituents don’t want. Their goal is to get re-elected. If they don’t get re-elected they can’t pursue any of their goals. So, if the public doesn’t care about kids with disabilities and their access to an equitable education…. the government isn’t going to put a massive amount of money into that. They need to make their constituents happy. We also know that society is generally ableist. And oppressive. We are also dealing with evolutionary instincts. Humans are complex. We are a mix of beautifulness and survival instincts. When resources are tight, we want them for ourselves.

Everyone’s advocacy efforts are all part of the work. It all matters. Every single one of you. There is no one single solution or even one single group that is going to just fix everything in a couple of years. It takes massive amounts of people ALL advocating in our own corners. Micro-level and macro-level advocacy work. We can’t just change legislation. We need to change the hearts and minds of everyone to uphold and embrace the legislation even if it does change.

Having said all of this: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has” -Margaret Mead

Very true. It all starts somewhere. Seeds get planted by small groups that grow over time.

If you are someone who is belittling other parents’ advocacy efforts. Telling them there is no point to any of their work, and that the system will never change. Which is actually impossible, because systems always change. They are maintained by people and society changes all the time. Please, and I say this with love in my heart. Please find counselling or keep your comments to yourself. The human rights process may have been a waste of time for some people, which I am truly sorry. The human rights system enforces the Human Rights Code and creates the Duty to Accommodate which is the strongest piece of advocacy tool that we have as parents, and those cases that advanced the Code were because of parents who sacrificed. You are not helping anyone by belittling all of parent’s advocacy and telling them there is no point. You are now the one making this worse for them. When you make statements telling people to give up, you are now oppressing them. I have zero tolerance for that.

This is a marathon. Not a sprint.

It’s a team sport. We all need to train individually but run together.

Let’s build each other up and be supportive.

New Human Rights Tribunal Decision against the Ministry of Education – Funding – Dismissed

We have a new Human Rights Decision issued in October but was just posted on their website on December 12th, 2024.

Ward and others v. Ministry of Education, 2024 BCHRT 306

This is a VERY interesting decision as it is a parent claiming discrimination to not having equal funding and this unequal funding they felt was discriminatory. Funding is a reason many parents would like to file a class action against the Ministry. This decision supports the reality, that we can’t just sue the government over lack of funding. Especially, the Ministry of Education and Child Care.

And the main crux of the argument of why we cannot file a complaint against the Ministry of Education and Child Care in connection to funding is because they are just following the legislation that is voted on and passed in the Legislature. The Legislature creates the School Act. The funding is given to the school districts. The school districts make the decisions on how the funding is allocated. As stated below the Tribunal dismisses complaints against bodies whose only role in funding is oversight.

Every human rights decision that I have ever read that included the Ministry of Education in a complaint, has been dismissed every. single. time. I really encourage everyone to read this case in full. The analysis is very interesting. I thank this parent for filing such a complaint and allowing the tribunal to apply their interpretation and analysis so that we can learn from it and understand how the system works.

I really can’t say it enough, that if you think you have a case, filing complaints is a form of advocacy. Even if you personally “lose” it is not a loss for the community. This is a HUGE form of advocacy. It’s information and knowledge that lets us understand where the lines are. Where the boundaries are. We could end up wasting TONS of time and energy advocating in the wrong direction. These decisions are literally GOLD.

For those of you who have your children in online learning, this may be of particular interest. This parent was filing a complaint and a class action complaint.

Here is the complaint and the Ministry of Education’s main argument:

[2] The Complaints allege that the Ministry of Education [ Ministry ] discriminated against Ms. Ward, Praise, the Parent Class and the Child Class and the Child Class [collectively the Complainants ] in the provision of services contrary to section 8 of the Code by failing to provide equal funding for students, paid to their parents who are the primary service providers of parent-directed educational programs. Parent-directed educational programs, the Complainants say, include homeschooling and a subset of distributed learning programs, now online learning, which require the delivery of the program by a parent.

in the provision of services contrary to section 8 of the Codeby failing to provide equal funding for students, paid to their parents who are the primary service providers of parent-directed educational programs. Parent-directed educational programs, the Complainants say, include homeschooling and a subset of distributed learning programs, now online learning, which require the delivery of the program by a parent.

[3] The gist of the Complaints is that children are statutorily required under the School Act to receive an educational program but if the child receives that program from a parent, the child receives less student funding than if that child attends a Board or Authority run educational program. The Complaints allege that this unequal funding has a discriminatory effect on both parents and children who choose to homeschool based on family status, marital status, gender expression, religion and sex.

[5]….. The Ministry’s main argument is that the Complaints seek a service that the Ministry does not provide to the public: “a direct funding program for parents who opt-out of the public or independent K-12 school system and homeschool their children.”

[25] The Ministry argues that the Complaints are seeking direct payments from the Ministry in order to provide educational programs and this is not a service the Ministry provides. It is not a service customarily available to the public. The Ministry says that while they do provide funding for education, it does not do so to the “public” but via Boards and Authorities in accordance with the relevant legislation. Those Boards and Authorities then provide services to the public as per the School Act and Independent School Act.

Some interesting key points in the analysis related to funding is:

[32] When the Legislature passes legislation, it is not providing a service to the public within the meaning of s. 8 of the Code : Phillips v. BC, 2019 BCHRT 76 at para. 14; Startek v. British Columbia (Ministry of Finance) 2022 BCHRT 117 at paras. 28-29. The issue whether the Complaints engage a service customarily available to the public turns on whether the Ministry is administering a service created by the applicable legislation, the School Act and Independent School Act, to which the Complainants are merely seeking access.

[34] The Complaints are focused on the Ministry’s omission of equal funding to, as Ms. Ward says, “the primary education service providers – parents”. In my view, the Ministry in creating its funding model abides by and is restricted by ss.106.1-106.4 of the School Act. [2] There is no provision in the School Act or the Independent School Act for the funding of educational programs provided by parents. The Ministry’s job is simply to apply the legislated criteria. The Complainants are not eligible for the funds that they seek because the Legislature has not included such funding in either the School Act or Independent School Act .

[35] The applicable legislation has not created or extended a service to the Complainants. The Legislature has specifically left out funding of educational programs provided by parents. The Tribunal in this situation cannot review the Ministry’s actions since the Legislature in creating the restrictions on funding, maintaining the limitation to fund only educational programs for Boards and Authorities, was operating in its sui generis law-making capacity. There is no reasonable prospect the Complainants will prove that the funding for parent-directed educational programs is a service provided by the Ministry within the meaning of the Code.

[45] In Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the province’s role in funding and overseeing education in the province was not sufficient to establish liability for decisions made by a school district about how to allocate its funding: para. 54. This reasoning is also reflected in Tribunal decisions dismissing complaints against organizations whose only role is funding or oversight: Hoffman and another v. BC Ministry of Social Development) and another , 2012 BCHRT 187 at para. 94; Hunter v. BC (Ministry of Health) and others (No. 2) , 2005 BCHRT 408 at paras. 24-26; Stone v. Coast Mountain Bus Company & others , 2005 BCHRT 50 at paras. 47-48.

[48] The Ministry’s application to dismiss the Complaints is granted.

Families are Advocating – A Year in Review for Human Rights, OIPC Decisions, and the Media!

It’s been quite a year for tribunal decisions. An explosion of decisions that have advanced the human rights code that I haven’t seen occur in a VERY long time. I hope the school districts are paying attention. They need to stop underestimating people. Families are advocating!

Human Rights Decisions

In the last 365 days we have had the following cases.

Student (by Parent) v. School District, 2023 BCHRT 237 – December 19th, 2023
Key Point Summary Link

This case spread across Canada in over 60 different media outlets into large cities and small towns. Even internationally. Media list blog. Who would have ever predicted that would happen!?!

This case was a partial win by a self-represented parent. There are many key highlights of this case that advance the human rights code. It writes that you don’t need an IEP to be protected under the code, self-advocacy expectations are defined, and the most beautiful part is MEANINGFUL INQUIRY. Anxiety gets pushed under the rug as no big deal in schools. This case elevates the attention and seriousness of how anxiety impacts a student. It also brings up the topic of communicating a diagnosis between staff. It also highlights hindsight and how important it is for parents to be communicating to the school what they are seeing at home.

X by Y v. Board of Education of School District No. Z, 2024 BCHRT 72 – March 8, 2024
Key Points – Summary Link

This case was also by a self-represented parent. It wasn’t a personal win for her, but due to her absolute persistence in completing this case AND waiting 15 months for the decision! It did advance the human rights code and the community as a whole has benefited. The jewel out of this case is that education staff are not allowed to give up. They have to continually keep trying by evaluating and adapting their methods. You would think that parents actually don’t need this in writing, but we do.

The Parent v The School District, 2024 BCHRT 113 – April 2024
Key Point Summary Link

This case was again also by a self-represented parent. It confirms that the human rights tribunal will accept family status complaints from parents in connection to the discrimination or harm that their child experiences in an educational setting. This also links to another family status case that occurred at the BC Supreme Court level that confirmed that the tribunal has the authority to accept family status and education as a valid complaint. A public-facing decision, a turning point for parents with disabilities in education.

Child K (by Ehmke) and another v. Queen of All Saints School and another – May 16th, 2024
Key Point Summary Link

This case confirms that the tribunal is willing to name school districts in human rights complaints. FABULOUS. This case also is clear as a bell in saying to education defence lawyers that using TRB complaints will not be accepted for dismissal reasons. So, parents don’t have to fear that filing TRB complaints will compromise their human rights complaint. If anything, I think they help, as a way to gather evidence that the education staff submit. It’s a gold mine of documents that we can access that we would never even know existed.

SUMMARY: Human Rights Cases are very important advocacy tools to use when communicating with your child’s schools. It is very likely that the staff don’t even know what their legal human rights responsibilities are. These cases need to be APPLIED. Then when we all do this, we move the needle.

OIPC Decisions

We also can’t forget the OIPC decisions that occurred in the past year.

Way to go! Two of them were by parent(s)/guardians!

F24-30 April 15th, 2024 – School District Coquitlam
-Section 14 – lawyer-client privilege

F24-09, February 7th 2024 – School District Coquitlam
– Section 13, Section 22

To read the other previous cases in previous years also by parents, here is the list.

Ombudsperson BC

This case came out this year about there not being an appeal avenue for a section 177. That is huge. Parents who receive these can now ask for what the appeal avenue is and if school districts don’t automatically tell them, then they are not following the recommendations and standard from Ombudsperson BC.

https://bcombudsperson.ca/case_summary/schools-out

Media Articles

We also want to look back and appreciate the media articles that were spearheaded by parents. They brought their issues to the attention of the public via the media. That isn’t easy. Way to go! If parent(s)/guardians aren’t brave enough to do this, the public will assume everything is okay-dookie. We thank you!

August 9th, 2024 – The School System has Failed my Kids – Surrey Mom Speaks out

March 30th, 2024 – Vancouver schools lag on playground accessibility, parents say

March 11th, 2024 – Parents demand fix for staffing shortfall at Vancouver school

March 9th, 2024 – Parents voice concerns over ‘crisis-level’ staffing shortages at Vancouver school

March 8th, 2024 – Parent says school district’s decision comes as a huge relief to parents and students 

Social movements are slow.
And this is what advocacy for disability rights is.
A social movement.
It will always be too slow for anyone’s liking.
Really.
While we wait for change, harm is being done.

Some people feel defeated and think what is the point,
the system isn’t changing.

Change very rarely occurs in leaps and bounds.
Certainly not in human systems.
It’s normal for it to be
2 steps forward,
1 step back,
3 steps forward,
1 step back,

It’s always messy.
Never a straight line from A to B.
More like a zig-zag all over the place.
But this is how humans work.
Especially in large groups.
Societies.
No way to get around that.
Just need to muddle through it.

But we are seeing more advocacy tools pop up.
Decisions and accessibility legislation.
Families are advocating.
More external watch bodies are taking notice.
Change is slow.
But it is occurring.
The roots are growing.

What is scary and dangerous is when the system feels no one is watching.
That they are untouchable.
Then the system will change in leaps and bounds.
It can always get worse.

We need to hold the line.
Send the message that we are here.
We are watching.
We are learning.
We will take action.
And clearly, we have.

Let us focus on this:
Many seeds have been planted this year.
May they take root and grow

To my community of families,
Happy Holidays, and I wish you all the best for 2025.



5 Rules on How to be Untouchable

(Or at least try to be…)

The school district and their lawyers are just waiting for you to do any of the following things listed below…literally sitting back, fingers crossed and waiting. They know what works. They do this all the time.

They can use your own decisions against you in multiple ways. Destroying your credibility at a hearing, filing a section 177 against you, getting your human rights complaint completely dismissed and with costs, shutting down complete communication with you, sending you a cease and desist letter or threatening a defamation lawsuit.

(And before we go any further, trust me, this blog is not from personal experience. For those of you who know which school district I am connected to, please don’t infer, none of these things have happened to me.)

This blog is from reading case law, newspaper articles, finding websites/YouTube videos of pissed-off parents and hearing their stories, hearing stories directly from other parents, and hearing through the grapevine ALLLLL of the multiple other stories floating around our community. This by the way is a national issue, not just a BC issue. So, if you are sitting in a small town in PEI, this stuff still applies.

To the people waiting for you to do any of these things… this is a chess game. It’s not a chess game to us, and its a hard pill to swollow just how strategic navigating the maze needs to be, but we need to realize that this is how its viewed by them. And we need to figure out what the rules are and follow them.

When we follow the rules, we are closer to being untouchable, and we can continue to advocate.

Here we go.

Rule #1 – Always be polite and respectful.

  1. Don’t be rude. Be polite and respectful. Always.
  • Losing your cool and sending in an email that is just blasting them, insulting them, threatening them, etc, etc. is an easy way for them to be all over you and be backed up by the tribunal and court system. This will open the door for them to file a dismissal and get your case dismissed and apply for costs, file a section 177 etc, etc. They are literally hoping you go this route and you make it really easy for them to control you. They can’t wait for this to happen.
  • Sending in your emails doesn’t need to align with exactly how you feel. Your emails need to be written with strategy in mind. Your intent can be to either to document what is happening with the purpose of gathering evidence, to communicate your child’s unmet needs in ways that they can’t claim hindsight later on and trigger meaningful inquiry, to be problem-solving to resolve the immediate issues at hand etc. But making yourself feel better to release the stress valve has the potential of undermining your advocacy and destroying the opportunity for the systemic changes that you are hoping for.
  • It’s a painful part of the advocacy process to think so strategically, but this skill is really really important. I think of it as, we need to become Cheetahs. Cheetahs are loving parents, and affectionate with their young. They are also the most extremely patient and strategic hunters. We need to be cheetahs for maximum efficiency. We can’t let our advocacy efforts be undermined and swept aside because we lose our shit. They will poke us and poke us and just wait for us to explode. We need to have other release values and when we interact with them, we are in cheetah mode.

Rule #2 – No defamation, no naming

2. Don’t name or defame anyone on social media.

  • Defamation is a really easy hook to get you on. Defamation just needs to be said to one other person. It is ridiculous how fast they will jump on this.

See news article below, click to read.

Mom threatened with legal action after questioning B.C. principal who’s now accused of misappropriation
2014 letter from school board lawyer warned against ‘defamatory statements’ about Tricia Rooney
  • That means on any social media site, in conversations with anyone else, you CAN’T name people. You are making yourself way too easy of a target.
  • I took a workshop on defamation. Here are my notes.
  • If you are in a heated battle with the school, keep your circle very small on who you let in. These need to be trusted people in your life. You can talk about your situation, just don’t name anyone.
  • Having fake social media accounts can be ways of interacting with support group FB accounts or posting anonymously can be a layer of protection that will aid in your untouchability.
  • Parents have had human rights cases dismissed and their social media posts were used against them.
  • Trust me, they troll your social media when you become a red flag to them.
  • You never know who is in a Facebook group. Just like it is easy for a parent to make a fake account to protect themselves, it’s easy for anyone to make a fake Facebook account. Facebook groups are public, not private.

Rule #3 – Don’t share confidential information

3. Don’t post content on social media that has the words CONFIDENTIAL on it. This again opens you up to them being able to threaten you with legal action and having the ability to control you.

  • This includes anything from the government that is sent to you in a password protected file or simply has the words CONFIDENTIAL at the top.
  • And yes… this is how the system stays in control and keeps everything hidden. I know. If you want to present this information as evidence in a hearing, that’s a different story. Stuff that is hidden away under privacy laws can still be used as evidence at tribunal hearings and court proceedings. This again is about being strategic about what we do. Be the cheetah. Wait it out. If you play the chess game right, you’ll be able to present the evidence when you need to and maximize your efficiency.

Rule #4 – Don’t protest

4. Do not protest a decision in a school by refusing to leave, or forcing your way into a classroom. Refusing to pick up your kid in the name of protest, I also don’t suggest. You are setting yourself up for a section 177 and you will be accused of not working in good faith with the school, you will not be following your duty to facilitate and your human rights complaint has the potential of being dismissed. If you refuse to pick up your child without good reason in the name of protesting, MFCD may be called.

  • Even if you adamantly disagree with the a decision that the school has made, they have the power to make those decisions whether you agree or not. It’s risky for them if they didn’t meaningfully consult with you, but the School Act and Supreme Court of Canada, do give them the power to make class placement decisions and reasonable accommodation decisions.
  • The only way to maintain your credibility and access to the school is to follow the internal and external complaint systems in a civil manner. I know, that they are the ones controlling the system and this isn’t going to be fair. Totally get it. It doesn’t matter. If you want to give them even more power and have them cut you off at the knees then behaving in a way that makes you non-compliant, or the staff don’t feel physically or psychologically safe around you will end up being a gift to them. It will be so easy for them to file a section 177. Next time you show up at the school the police will be called and you’ll be out the door so fast. Don’t do them any favors. Collect your evidence and nail them in due course. Patience.

Rule #5 – Knowledge and your values are power

5. This rule isn’t a rule on not what to do, this is a rule on what to do. This will also help to make you feel personally untouchable.

  • Know your stuff. That means human rights law, duty to accommodate, and external complaint avenues. Learn as much as you can. Knowledge is power. Ground your arguments in evidence and documentation. Stick to the facts. Don’t over-exaggerate. Don’t lie. Your credibility is everything.
  • This to me personally, is so important. Following your values is the most powerful tool to be untouchable. When you align your advocacy with your values, and how you want to treat people, strength is unlimited. What is your fuel? Unfairness? Systemic oppression? Lying? Even though people may be playing dirty with you, or lying to you, navigating your advocacy with how you want to operate and interact with people can give you a sense of emotional untouchability. It’s called inner peace. And it’s priceless.

Be one with the Cheetah.
Make it hard for them.
Don’t be easy prey.
You’ve got this.

Who Does Society Care About?

This mom speaks the truth. Thank you Ashley Roberts, The Dsylexia Initiative.

ID: A picture of a head with the brain and mental health written inside. Four colour ribbons coming from the head. Text: It's impossible to fight for your child and not have your mental health be impacted. To a Mom her child deserves the world. To have someone invalidate that thought, that feeling, time and time again takes a toll. To sit in a meeting and hear no, or, in my opinion worse yet, the edubabble word salad to mask the no like you're stupid, takes a toll. We are bombarded with the message that to question is to teacher bash, that parents are lazy, worthless, stupid and the children are entitled POS's who need stricteer, better parenting. This masks the whole "spare the rod, spoil the child" mentalility, but of course no one is going to open up and admit that. While we fight an unielding system that absolutely does not care, our children are being damaged, and so we as moms are damaged further. Dyslexia affects the entire family and so mental health of the entire family is impacted as well. There is no way to fight and not pay a price. There just isn't. We must embrace the mental health aspect for our children, and ourselves. Bringing this awareness into the light will empower us all. Hugs xoxox.
.

The government distributes society’s resources, and this distribution is not an equitable one. It is based on the wishes of the majority of voters. 27% of people have disabilities in Canada. An article by The Tyee, “Why is Vancouver Funding an Extremely Expensive Private Dyslexia School? questions how these resources are being divided. I question funding for private schools in general, as they seem to be getting a good chunk of taxpayers’ money. Yet, only families who can afford to pay costly yearly tuition fees can access their services, while the schools are escaping human rights violations due to their private business structure. Funded by the government, yet given an escape pod via the “undue hardship” justification test of a limited private business. As this parent feels, some specialized schools are providing the supports that kids aren’t getting in public schools. This option is not available to everyone. You need money. Lots of it. Every year. You need the time, ability and transportation to get your child there. Private schools are an impossibility for most.

Currently, our system is prioritizing some kids over others by how they design teacher education post-secondary programs. Teachers aren’t being properly trained for inclusion. Deciding not to inform teachers about human rights and science-based accommodations is a decision. Surveys internationally are all coming back with the same data. In Canada too, Teachers don’t feel adequately prepared for children with disabilities in their classrooms. And here. And here. And I could go on… and on…. and on.

Children are always going to be vulnerable. They are vulnerable because they don’t have a choice to leave. When children with learning disabilities are not getting proper instruction and support at school they experience levels of shame, embarrassment, chronic stress, anxiety, fear and sometimes bullying. Children are extra vulnerable when they have disabilities. They are in an education prison. They are completely dependent on a society that is ableist, misinformed and sees them as an easy target or easier to sweep aside.

The kids get the message daily that they are a burden to society. Someone who should feel lucky to be tolerated. These messages become internalized.

There are some legislative advancements with the federal and provincial Accessibility Acts.

However, for Canada to become barrier-free by 2040 it would entail a complete culture shift.

Employers post these boilerplate disability statements about being inclusive. However, inviting us to the table just isn’t enough. We need to be included at a level that we are participating in changing the shape of the table. Expecting us to carry on and fit into the same rules, and think the same way, isn’t inclusion. It’s not diversity. It’s performative and useless. For autistic and other neurodiverse individuals it can lead to burnout, mental health issues, and employment issues.

We know that change within society takes time. It’s painfully slow, that is true.

While we are waiting for society to evolve…we need to acknowledge harm is being done. Significant life-altering harm. Let’s take a look at the harsh reality.

Kids are dropping out of school. 30-40% of kids with ADHD drop out of high school.

They are escaping to the streets. 80% of homeless youth have Dyslexia.

They are more likely to engage in self-medicating themselves with drug use.

Their risk of them ending up in prison is higher, leading to the over-representation of people with neurodiversity and disabilities in prison.

From Decoding Dyslexia Ontario
Impacts of unsupported dyslexia: statistics

This is not their individual failure. This is a societal failure. Just how people at the Oscars walk up to the stage to collect their awards, they thank all of the people who helped them along the way. They recognize that they didn’t get to that stage by themselves. Well, guess what folks, the kids dropping out, on the streets, self-medicating and ending up in prison didn’t get there by themselves either. We are failing them. Our education system is failing them. Society’s norms are not inflexible laws of gravity. We can change the structures of human systems. We can operate, function, interact and live differently. Our schools don’t need to function this way.

So, when we make our decisions…our laws, our policies, our education training programs…who are we willfully ignoring?

This question needs to be asked EVERY SINGLE time the government makes a decision.

Who is benefiting from this policy or law? Certain people are. It won’t be everyone. So who? Name them. Write it down.

Who is going to be potentially harmed by this policy or law? There will be people harmed in some way by everything they do. So who? Name them. Write it down.

  • Crowded classrooms push kids with disabilities out the door.
  • Underfunding schools pushes kids with disabilities out the door.
  • Lack of proper training of teachers and support staff pushes kids with disabilities out the door.

Adults are pushing kids with disabilities out the door.

Advocating for children with disabilities is hard work, but worthy work. However, I want to acknowledge there is a weathering process parent(s)/guardians all experience. We are slowly eroded by the constant dripping in the advocacy process and/or we become stalagmites building ourselves up by the constant dripping process. These two realities are often braided together.

We are desperate for adequate teacher training. I am not talking about workshops in universal design. I am talking about adequate training in specific disabilities and neurodiversity. We need early screening for dyslexia. We can’t wait for kids to fall behind in literacy skills in grade 3 or 4 and then to be on an assessment waitlist for 2 years that costs $5,000.00. That wait-and-see philosophy is pushing them out the door. It is a disaster. The inaction of our government is failing children and families. There was such hope with the Supreme Court Decision that there would be

How a Dyslexic Student Could Change Canada’s Schools by The Tyee (Nov 12, 2012)

“A momentous change for Canadian schools

If I read the Court’s decision (and the School Act) correctly, this and future provincial governments are now bound to provide funding that will ensure that all B.C. students, regardless of talents or disabilities, receive the kind of education set out in the School Act.

That would be a momentous change for schools across Canada as well — perhaps comparable to Brown vs Board of Education, the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down racial segregation in the schools.”

The United States has legislation. Where is Canada?

The government is failing children and families. It doesn’t make any friggen sense to not support children with neurodiversity and disabilities. When supported, kids with ADHD can thrive as adults. Dyslexic thinkers are also incredibly diverse thinkers. It makes no sense as a society to not help these kids flourish because it is possible. Kids with ADHD don’t even have a designation and dyslexia isn’t even a label that schools are allowed to use. “The term dyslexia is not commonly used in the educational system. It has been removed from legislation, policies, procedures and most teacher training programs.” Talk about erasure. We can’t ever shut up about this.

Even if you want to make the argument that the government has limited resources, it doesn’t even make any economic sense to be ignoring such a huge group of people.

We have 1.8 million Canadians with ADHD.

10-20% of people in Canada have dyslexia.

As a country do we want this or this? What on earth is our country doing??

For the good, the bad, and the ugly, no one gets to where they are in life by themselves.

No one.

Here are some helpful organizations in BC

ADHD Society of BC

Dyslexia BC

BCEd Access Society

Inclusion BC

Family Support Institute

Name Them!

As parent(s)/guardians navigate the BC Human Rights Tribunal system, something to think about is anonymization.

The tribunal will automatically anonymize your child and your name whether you ask them to or not. This is to protect the identity of a minor. Even if a parent and child ask to be identified, you are going to need to fight for it. As Lee Ehmke did in her daughter’s complaint. Child K (by Ehmke) and another v. Queen of All Saints School and another, 2024 BCHRT 150

The anonymization process can be addressed by making a general application form 7.1 and submitting it to your case manager. You can make this application as soon as you find out that your complaint has been accepted.

You can decide to name your child’s school district. If you are in an independent school, their name. There are reasons to consider identifying them.

School districts can hide behind anonymization and they will be less concerned about having your complaint proceed to a hearing.

Here are some thoughts to consider on whether to name them or not.

  1. Naming them could reduce the harm families are experiencing at the hands of district staff who feel untouchable. When people are in power, and untouchability becomes the systemic norm, it is very dangerous. The rule of law is an important concept in our country. No one should be untouchable.
  2. The human rights tribunal system is an adversarial legal system. Parent(s) are unrepresented against lawyers, fighting out their case in the arena of law. An area that they are most likely, not educated or trained for. The human rights system can unintentionally become a barrier for parents to access justice due to the adversarial design and lack of access to free legal services and advice. The system is leveraged against the parents. We need to create as many human rights cases to help other parents not even need to enter this system. Human rights cases can be used in your advocacy and showing schools that they can be identified and that you plan to go this route may be the motivation they need.
  3. School districts are notorious for lying, gaslighting and manipulating parents. They have the legislation to give them the power to be the decision-makers of a child’s school environment 5 days a week, 6 hours a day with poorly trained staff in disabilities and mental health. Schools could easily apologize and take accountability for the harm that was caused, but they never do. Only when issues are brought to the attention of the media. They are all so confident, that they just sweep us aside and move on to the next dumpster fire. This is a provincial and national issue. Historically, schools are entrenched in covering up all sorts of things and that toxicity is still normalized today.
  4. We need to start naming school districts. It needs to become the norm. They may have the motivation to resolve issues with parents a lot earlier if they know that they will automatically have parents making applications to name them.

When you make your application, you can use the above points in your argument.

Here is your case law.

Child K (by Ehmke) and another v. Queen of All Saints School and another, 2024 BCHRT 150

Keep this case handy parents if you want your district named. Paragraphs on this topic are 5-34.

(7) The Tribunal has discretion to limit publication of identifying information where a person can show their privacy interests outweigh the public interest in full access to the Tribunal’s proceedings: Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure [Rules], Rule 5(6); Stein v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2020 BCSC 70 at para. 64(a). The Tribunal may consider factors like the stage of the proceedings, the nature of the allegations, private details in the complaint, harm to reputation, or any other potential harm: JY at para. 30. It may also consider whether the proposed limitation relates to only a “sliver” of information that minimally impairs the openness of the proceeding: CS v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), 2019 BCCA 406 at para. 37. It is not enough to just assert that a person’s reputation may be tarnished: Stein at para. 64(c).

(29) I appreciate that naming the School could make it easier for motivated and diligent people to identify the people who were involved in the events of this complaint. In that respect, my order will not perfectly protect the people involved. However, I find that – unlike the individual educators and staff involved – there is a specific public interest in the identity of the School as a publicly funded institution serving the public: A obo B v. School District 61, 2014 BCHRT 105 at para. 11. I am not persuaded that this public interest is outweighed by the potential that some of the educators may then be identified. There have already been a number of complaints and proceedings involving the educators and staff, and Mrs. Ehmke points out that many people within the community already know about the complaint.

(30) I deny the application to limit publication of the name of the School.

Thank you to Mama Bear Lee Emhke for smoothing out the path on this one!

Why Can’t we Just Sue the Government?

Good question!

Many parent(s)/guardians are asking this question. What they are experiencing in the education system is mass systemic discrimination and they are wondering how in the world is this allowed to happen?? Doesn’t the Charter protect our rights?

I hope this blog is used as a launching pad for discussion. I encourage people to be critical of this blog, question it, challenge it, and be curious about what I could be missing. What’s your opinion??

Let’s tear this question to bits.

Why can’t we just sue the government?

Funding

  1. A large majority of parents want to sue the government over lack of funding, EA support so their children can get an education. Something connected to scarce resources. They feel that resources are not being distributed fairly and people with disabilities aren’t getting their needs met and this is discrimination.

When you sue the government it needs to meet a specific legal test. We can’t just sue for lack of funding. If we could, any non-profit organization that felt they weren’t getting enough funding would be suing. That would be all of them. All non-profit organizations of marginalized community groups need more funding and feel they are never getting enough to service their community who are facing lots of discriminatory situations. They are all understaffed. All competing for grants. All desperate. All good and worthy causes. All justified. Yet still… not getting the funding to meet the needs of their community. Keep reading, I’ll explain further.

Quality of Life

2. Something to keep in mind, the government doesn’t owe us a certain standard of living. There is no legislation or law on this. We know this because people are sleeping on the streets and they can’t sue the government for being in that position.

Democracy & Charter of Rights

3. Our government works as a democracy. The system that we have to express our dislike over how the government spends our money, is through voting, contacting your MLA, or peaceful protesting. Other social movement activities like signing petitions, or starting your own non-profit organizations to work with other community members to advocate are all “system” approved ways of furthering your cause. As we will read below in case law, courts will not tell the government how to spend their money when it’s connected to resources in dealing with inequity. The government is allowed to take a “one-step” at a time approach when addressing issues of inequality. They are allowed to determine how to spend society’s limited resources and create social policy when choosing between disadvantaged groups. Something to keep in mind, our system is set up as a separation of powers between the government and the court system. The “conversation” that happens back and forth between courts and the government creating laws is often referred to as the democratic dialogue. See the two Supreme Court of Canada decisions related to Charter Challenges below.

Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. N.A.P.E., 2004 SCC 66 (CanLII), [2004] 3 SCR 381

[75] [I]t is not realistic for the Court to assume that there are unlimited funds to address the needs of all.”

[79] While purely financial considerations are not sufficient to justify the infringement of Charter rights, they are relevant to determining the standard of deference for the test of minimal impairment when reviewing legislation which is enacted for a purpose which is not financial.

[83] It is also clear that while financial considerations alone may not justify Charter infringements . . . governments must be afforded wide latitude to determine the proper distribution of resources in society . . .  This is especially true where Parliament, in providing specific social benefits, has to choose between disadvantaged groups . . . .

Fraser V. Canada [2020] SCC 28

[ 207 ]                      Governments must be afforded the latitude to act incrementally when addressing a deeply ingrained, complex and persistent social phenomenon such as inequality. (This assumes that the inequality arises from factors in society; where the government itself has created the inequality, matters are, as we have already indicated, somewhat different.) There are processes by which a government must set its priorities, allocate its budget, and obtain parliamentary approval of its programs. In designing legislation to address a particular equality issue, a government can draw on far more internal and external expertise than we judges can. As a result, it is better positioned than we are to appreciate the consequences of a particular course of law‑making, both upon society and upon public resources. With these practical realities in mind, we must also recognize that, were a government expected to remove all inequalities for all groups on every occasion it acted, it may be disinclined to act, given that any remedial scheme will inevitably be under‑inclusive in some respect. Governments would, understandably, become “reluctant to create any new [remedial] benefit schemes because their limits would depend on an accurate prediction of the outcome of court proceedings under s. 15(1) of the Charter ” ( Egan v. Canada , [1995] 2 SCR 513, at para. 104, per Sopinka J.).

[ 208 ]                      To avoid this chilling effect, and to encourage governments to enact remedial legislation addressing pre‑existing disadvantage, this Court has (until now) judiciously accepted that governments may implement reforms “one step at a time, [and] address[s ] [the reforms] to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind” ( R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. , [1986] 2 SCR 713, at p. 772, quoting Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma , 348 US 483 (1955), at p. The focal point in assessing remedial legislation is not to ask whether the government has met “the gold standard” ( Auton , at para. 62; see also paras. 59-61), but to recognize that government should not be obliged to deal with all aspects of a problem at once. It must surely be permitted to take incremental measures. It must be given reasonable leeway to deal with problems one step at a time, to balance possible inequalities under the law against other inequalities resulting from the adoption of a course of action, and to take account of the difficulties, whether social, economic or budgetary , that would arise if it attempted to deal with social and economic problems in their entirety, assuming such problems can ever be perceived in their entirety. [Emphasis added.]

[ 213 ] …..This is because only legislatures have the institutional capacity to conduct the research and study necessary to assess how, and at what pace, its resources should be applied to most effectively address a particular pre‑existing equality issue (and ultimately, to oversee that implementation) . Courts are not well placed to define the nature and scope of an obligation to enact 
sufficiently remedial legislation (Ferrel v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1998), 42 OR (3d) 97 (CA), at p. 113).

[229 ] Similar issues will undoubtedly arise with any other social welfare legislation or government attempts to remedy systemic disadvantage. By reserving the right to arbitrarily second‑guess and undo any legislation that attempts to incrementally address systemic disadvantage, the Court makes it more practically difficult for legislatures and governments to implement policies that promote equality. Put simply, we see restricting the government’s ability to incrementally address disadvantage as a peculiar way to promote equality.

Human Rights Cases Involving Ministry of Education

4. Every single human rights case that I have read across Canada, that has included the provincial Ministry of Education in their complaint, has been dismissed. If their complaint continues, the Ministry of Education is never involved. I haven’t read one case where the Ministry of Education was included. The Ministry gives the funding to the districts and the districts decide how to allocate the money, which removes the Ministry of Education from decisions that would pull them into the human rights complaints about kids not accessing needed resources.

5. I know someone who had the opportunity to consult a lawyer regarding this matter. They were told a way to file a class action human rights complaint that could involve the Ministry of Education is if the Ministry have policy that is discriminatory. This route is still possible if they do this.

Human Rights Process

6. I have been asked, why can’t we just file a class action human rights complaint against the Ministry of Education? So we have established, it would need to be something like a discriminatory policy in order for it to be connected to the Ministry. If there is a group of parents who want to file a class action human rights complaint who wants to create a decision from the tribunal, we would need to find a group of parents who were potentially prepared for a 8-10-year fight. Right now, just for a single complaint to reach a hearing level at the BC HRT, it will take about 4-5 years according to flow chart produced by the BC Human Rights Clinic. It could take a year for the tribunal to write a decision, if not more. This case took 15 months for the tribunal to write up the decision. Especially if it was a class-action human rights complaint it could be long and complex. Class action lawsuits tend to be long. Lawyers fees for one parent I know, was given an estimate for $30,000 for hearing preparation and a $10,000 per day for a hearing. So this group of parents would need to be prepared to spend thousands of dollars, agree to not accept any settlement, and continue along to a hearing. OR they would need to be ready to self-represent themselves. OR they could find a unicorn of a lawyer willing to do pro-bono work. (So many parents have had their pro-bono lawyer drop them before a hearing. We would need to find someone willing to commit for the long haul for free.) After the BC HRT decision is posted, the Ministry could possibly file a judicial review after the decision. With a class action decision, the compensation money might be large enough or the precedent be enough that they view it worthwhile to pursue further. That would launch it now to the BC Supreme Court for more legal fees and more time…. and even with all that, a policy change would affect only those impacted by the policy and wouldn’t make the systemic change that parents are looking for when they ask the question, why can’t we just sue the government? If parents want a policy change, I wonder if it would be best to file a single complaint and get the policy change during a settlement mediation meeting. It would be so much faster and they could get the policy change that they need much faster so it could impact their children. Not 10 years later. The very system that is intended to resolve discriminatory issues can be a barrier itself.

Courts & Education

7. Generally, the courts don’t like education cases. It depends on what you are suing for and what the legal test is.

For example: Educational Malpractice

Gould v. Regina (East) School Division No. 77, 1996 CanLII 6807 (SK KB)

“The courts are an inappropriate forum to test the
efficacy of educational programs and pedagogical methods.
That judicial interference would be the inevitable result of
the recognition of a legal duty of care is clear from the fact
that in presenting their case, plaintiffs would, of necessity,
call upon jurors to decide whether they should have been
taught one subject instead of another, or whether one teaching
method was more appropriate than another, or whether certain
tests should have been administered or test results
interpreted in one way rather than another, and so on, ad
infinitum.  It simply is not within the judicial function to
evaluate conflicting theories of how best to educate.  Even if
it were possible to determine with exactitude the pedagogical
course to follow with respect to particular individuals, yet
another problem would arise.  Public education involves an
inherent stress between taking action to satisfy the
educational needs of the individual student and the needs of
the student body as a whole. It is not for the courts to
determine how best to utilize scarce educational resources to
achieve these sometimes conflicting objectives.  Simply
stated, the recognition of a cause of action sounding in
negligence to recover for “educational malpractice” would
impermissibly require the courts to oversee the administration
of the State’s public school system.“

Costs & Risk

8. If we did want to try and sue the government via the court system and not the human rights route, we would need to be prepared for it to possibly be tossed out. That wouldn’t be such a bad risk to take, however, if we lose the respondents will ask the courts that we pay their legal fees. Which can happen for the losing party in court cases. You’ll want to read this link. Costs are awarded to the successful party.

The Charter – Limited

9. What I learned from my human rights law class was that we don’t just have open-ended rights under the Charter, our rights are how they are DEFINED under the Charter. And that is case law. Case law tells us how our rights to not be discriminated against is defined. An example of this definition is the case Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, 1997 CanLII 366 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 241. This case famously defined reasonable accommodations and separate classes for students with a disability as a reasonable accommodation due to what is considered reasonable and best interest of the child. All of the human rights cases that make it to hearings are what define our rights under the law too. These definitions and interpretations of law are important. (Duty to accommodate) Each decision defines our rights.

10. Also an important part of the Charter to understand is Section One – Reasonable Limits. The purpose of this “Section 1 effects a balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of society by permitting limits to be placed on guaranteed rights and freedoms. “Most modern constitutions recognize that rights are not absolute and can be limited if this is necessary to achieve an important objective and if the limit is appropriately tailored, or proportionate.” (Canada (Attorney General) v. JTI-Macdonald Corp., [2007] 2 SCR 610, at paragraph 36).”

To take a Charter challenge all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada it would be a 10-year fight, we would need a pro bono lawyer, and based on the case law I have seen, I am not aware of any case law that would be substantial in helping us to force the government to increase funding and resources for kids with disabilities in education.

11. Law isn’t the magic bullet that people tend to think it is. Laws can come into force but they need to be APPLIED for them to have an impact. That means that advocacy around using these laws will still need to happen. Law is a tool for us to use. The system needs to uphold these laws through its systems and accountability design. If the system doesn’t uphold a new law, it won’t be the magic we want it to be. We have laws that say it’s illegal to discriminate, and yet it still happens every day. We still need to change people’s hearts and minds. Law is a start, but it is just the beginning of the work. We need to take these laws and apply them. Laws won’t fix everything, but they are hugely important. We need a social movement AND laws. We need to use every avenue we have. I think of the parachute activities I used to play with my kids at Strong Start centers. We’d all have a piece of the very large parachute to hold onto and put the ball in and bounce it around. We all need to lift and do the work together if we want to keep the ball of inclusion on the parachute. We all need to be in our own corners, all lifting together simultaneously. All of the work done at BCCPAC, parent advocacy groups, advocacy organizations, human rights work, BC Ed Access, School Trustees, BCTF, Teacher’s unions, Post-secondary teacher education programs, EA programs, Professional Support Staff, Counsellors, Ministry of Education and Child Care, accessibility committees, and individual parents, all of us.

So now what?

This part is my opinion and experience. The soft spot of the education system is money. The people in power care about money.

It needs to become more expensive and time-consuming to deal with the consequences of discriminating against students with disabilities. Providing an inclusive education needs to become easier and less expensive. Which means to me, through my lens…. human rights complaints. LOTS OF THEM.

I can tell you 100%, and I have witnessed these meetings, that when systems get too many human rights complaints and their litigation costs go through the roof, then and only then do they start to look at how they can make policy changes to reduce the number of human rights complaints. I don’t care what their motivation is, the results are still the same. Policy in the right direction. Staff training. This is what it seems to take.

Human Rights complaints have the potential of being very expensive, as we advance the purpose of the Code and create those gold nugget decisions.

Dealing with ableism is slow and painful work. But necessary. Social movements are like that.

Every little bit of advocacy we do, all adds up. It all matters. Every bit of human rights law advancements, every decision, every DPAC inclusion meeting, every email to your MLA or school Trustee, every advocacy advancement you make, every time you support another parent. All of it.

We need an army of informed and empowered parents, spreading out and reaching all the corners of the province.

For those of you who are willing and able to get in the ring and make discrimination expensive, hats off to you, we need you. File away.

SOCIAL MOVEMENT + HUMAN RIGHTS LAW = MORE EQUITY, LESS ABLEISM

Top 10 Truths – My Learnings

For parents of kids with disabilities/neurodiversities, our participation in our children’s education is WAAAAAYYYY different compared to parents of neurotypical/non-disabled children.

For blog post on that topic: The Non-Death Loss for Parents of Disabled Children in Education, All Over this Province

Here are my top 10 learnings for me.

  1. Teachers and counsellors aren’t nearly as educated in disability and mental health issues as I assumed. I gave them way more credit and trust than I should have.

2. My advocacy of applying the Duty to Accommodate was essential to my children getting an education. The difference between my advocacy efforts pre-using human rights law and post-using human rights law is night and day.

3. The human rights code supersedes classroom teacher’s autonomy.

4. Generally, education staff know very little about human rights law and education law. This is truly a failing. This type of education wouldn’t be complex to teach either. I think districts would save themselves so much money and complexities if their staff were more aware. This can all be taught in a simple 2-hour workshop.

5. Find an advocacy buddy. Another parent out there who knows what you are going through is essential for survival. I had no idea this was exactly what I needed and I am so glad she found me.

6. I had no idea learning about external complaint systems would be so vital.

7. Through everything, I would need to find the good people in the education system and stick to them like glue. There are really good people out there. Rare birds. Diamonds. And the system is killing them slowly.

8. We need our own care plans. Kids get IEPs for education. We need PCPs (Parent Care Plan). We need steps, strategies, and a review every few months.

9. I had no idea I was this strong, this determined, this capable. I have more layers to me than I ever thought.

10. I love my children. I love your children. And I will fight for both.

“this family needed help beyond what I’m trained for” (para 58)

This was a statement by made by the Acting VP in a human rights decision.

X by Y v. Board of Education of School District No. Z, 2024 BCHRT 72

[58]           Y asked the Acting VP in cross examination how the break from the classroom would have been restorative for X had it happened at home. The Acting VP replied that “Mom knows best”, noting that X was “totally dysregulated”, placed in a challenging classroom, and needed space. The Acting VP said that X spoke a lot about his Dad during this time, and how he missed him. He observed, “this family needed help beyond what I’m trained for.”

This has me asking…

What are educational staff trained for?

AND

When professionals, such as occupational therapists (OT), psychologists, or speech-language pathologists, make recommendations, why are some parents having issues with getting these recommendations placed in their child’s Individual Education Plan (IEP)?

The kinds of education that teachers have for disabilities vary greatly and in my opinion, extremely lacking. Huge gaps. They hold similar beliefs and biases as the general public. I have learned the hard way that some teachers have zero training in this area. There are educational staff who have, on their own, focused their professional development in this area and are extremely valuable. There is a huge sliding scale of knowledge and skill between educators and administrators.

We already know that the human rights code supersedes classroom teacher autonomy.

So above all, they need to provide an equitable education. If they are ignoring or refusing to implement professional recommendations, aren’t they taking a HUGE risk?

If by ignoring professional recommendations, the child isn’t able to access their education equitably and there is harm that occurs, I’d be filing a human rights complaint.

It has been quite a SHOCKING discovery to me, just how little education staff know about disabilities. Especially invisible ones. Some people are very knowledgeable. However, the number of people working in education who have little to zero knowledge is stunning. And scary. And makes complete sense how so many children experience real trauma at school, and so many are being homeschooled unable to return to school.

Here is a report compiled by Jenn Scharf titled Stories of Exclusion 2021. These are a collection of 60 stories told by parents.

I don’t think our education system is fair.

To anyone.

Everyone is being set up to fail. My heart goes out to the educational staff expected to create magic and miracles with such a scarce system. But, if you are ignoring professional recommendations and putting your own personal perspective in its place when you lack such training and expertise, I have no sympathy for you.

I do have sympathy for the child who may be harmed by your willful ignorance. I have sympathy for the family who will now be put in the position of continued advocacy, yet again, and may be considering filing a human rights complaint so their child can get an education.

Is the education system struggling with the concept of inclusion, or is it struggling because not enough people have the knowledge and skills to make it work?

And then add the impacts of scarcity in education

And then add ableism.

AAAAAHHHH ok…. now this all makes sense.

This is why we are all struggling.

This is systemic. Multi-dimensional systemic issues.

And if someone who is reading this thinks…. well they are now starting to have a class on the topic of disabilities in universities, isn’t that something?

It clearly isn’t enough.

Clearly.

Edit: A parent on my Facebook page commented after reading this blog “Not to mention a lot of the disability training they do get is outdated and ableist….” – Excellent point!!

The BC Human Rights Code Supersedes ALL other Laws, if Conflict Arises

This is the BC Human Rights Code.

“Code prevails

4  If there is a conflict between this Code and any other enactment, this Code prevails.”

This is why human rights law is our strongest form of advocacy.

It doesn’t matter what the school policies are.

It doesn’t even matter what the policies are that are written by the Ministry of Education and Child Care.

It doesn’t even matter what the School Act says.

The Human Rights Code supersedes everything.

The Supreme Court of Canada has already made it crystal clear. It supersedes all laws.

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. Heerspink, 1982 CanLII 27 (SCC), [1982] 2 SCR 145

“The Human Rights Code of British Columbia

When the subject matter of a law is said to be the comprehensive statement of the “human rights” of the people living in that jurisdiction,

[Page 158]

then there is no doubt in my mind that the people of that jurisdiction have through their legislature clearly indicated that they consider that law, and. the values it endeavours to buttress and protect, are, save their constitutional laws, more important than all others. Therefore, short of that legislature speaking to the contrary in express and unequivocal language in the Code or in some other enactment, it is intended that the Code supersede all other laws when conflict arises.”

Even the Accessible BC Act.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/…/accessibility/legislation/summary

Scroll down to almost the bottom.

“Why doesn’t the law mention the Human Rights Code?

In British Columbia, the Human Rights Code prevails over all other laws. This is written in the Human Rights Code. Repeating this in the proposed law would not change this and may cause further confusion.“

Not all education staff are aware of human rights and specifically human rights and how it is applied in education.

I offer you three links of education law.

Duty to Accommodate – https://www.kbpath.com/information/

Education Law – https://www.kbpath.com/education-law/

Understanding Exclusion – https://www.speakingupbc.com/understanding-exclusion/

All of our human rights education law is written in case law created by tribunal members when they make their decisions.

Yes, our children are protected by the human rights code, but these rights are not limitless. Our children’s rights are protected as they are DEFINED under the human rights code.

That means their rights are limited by the legal test that the BC Human Rights Tribunal uses, under the Code. You are not allowed to discriminate against our kids in school, without a bona fide and reasonable justification. And that leads us to read case law to find out, what that means. Lots of case law. That leads us to the Duty to Accommodate to explain what the school is responsible for and what we are responsible for.

So that means…

If the school is quoting their school district policy about not having parents attend an IEP meeting, that will conflict with the duty to meaningful consultation that is defined by case law. Hewko v. B.C., 2006 BCSC 1638 para 343-361.

It doesn’t matter what policy says what, they need to engage in meaningful consultation with us, as defined by human rights law.

In the same breath, I can assure you, that teacher classroom autonomy does not supersede the human rights code. So no matter what teachers think about their classroom autonomy rights, the Human Rights Code supersedes all of that, and your child’s human rights are above their preferences of how they manage their classroom.

It really is a systemic failure that education staff know so little about human rights and their responsibilities. It shouldn’t fall on parents to teach them this.

Accommodations are not extras. They aren’t optional. They aren’t earned with good behaviour. Your child’s teacher has the legal responsibility to provide your child with an equitable education. Period.

If you feel your child is facing discrimination, not getting the accommodations they need and the school isn’t consulting with you, use human rights law to advocate for your right to be consulted with regarding your child’s education. And, if you want to file a human rights complaint, I suggest you contact the BC Human Rights Clinic for help.

Schools fall under the SERVICE category.

*********

Discrimination in accommodation, service and facility

8   (1)A person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification,

(a)deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public, or

(b)discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public

because of the Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age of that person or class of persons.

(2)A person does not contravene this section by discriminating

(a)on the basis of sex, if the discrimination relates to the maintenance of public decency or to the determination of premiums or benefits under contracts of life or health insurance, or

(b)on the basis of physical or mental disability or age, if the discrimination relates to the determination of premiums or benefits under contracts of life or health insurance.

************

To read case law decisions connected to human rights law, visit www.speakingupbc.com and go to my Human Rights Decisions (Cases) tab. This is not all cases, but I think it’s a great starting point.

Human rights-based advocacy is our sword and our shield.

#Education#Advocacy#HumanRights#Disability