Hello dear readers. I’ve yet again been derelict in my children’s rights writing duties, due yet again to competing commitments. So, instead of a standalone children’s rights policy/politics piece, this time around you get a reprint of a newsletter article I put together recently for the Ontario Bar Association’s Education Law section. I hope you find it of interest.
On February 28, 2022, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) released its Right to Read report following its public inquiry into human rights issues affecting students with reading disabilities. The report includes 157 recommendations to the Ministry of Education, school boards and faculties of education. The recommendations address curriculum and instruction, early screening, reading interventions, accommodation, professional assessments, and systemic issues.
The OHRC grounded its report in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61, [2012] 3 SCR 360, which affirmed that access to meaningful education is a right. According to the OHRC, however, “The promise of Moore has not been fulfilled.” The OHRC found that “ableism and low expectations for students from certain [Ontario Human Rights] Code protected groups” were recurring themes.
Likely to be of particular interest to lawyers working in education are the following recommendations:
Supporting First Nations, Métis and Inuit pupils: Properly recognize distinctions between First Nations, Métis and Inuit (#1); ensure that each board have an Indigenous Education Advisory Council (#5); use the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a framework for implementation, along with relevant provisions of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (#6).
Supporting educators: Ensure that educators who advocate internally for measures to improve special education outcomes do not face reprisal (#47); avoid using pupil literacy screening results for teacher performance management (#65); educate educators and students about learning differences and available supports to prevent bullying and eliminate stigma (#86a).
Removing barriers to supports and accommodations: Avoid requiring formal psychoeducational assessments to access literacy supports (#75); provide accommodations as quickly as possible, provide interim accommodations where it will take time to develop permanent ones, and make sure accommodation supports are maintained during transition periods (#86a,100,101); simplify access to assistive technologies by removing requirements for formal assessment, identification and placement (#95); remove limits on when assessments can be conducted (#113,122,123).
Improving accountability for decision-making: Set timelines for accommodations (#102); implement meaningful complaints processes for students and parents (#103); establish mechanisms to promote parent involvement in decision-making (#154); develop, offer and broadly publicize non-adversarial dispute resolution programs (#157).
In the Ministry of Education’s response to the report, the Ministry stated that it will “engage with stakeholders in the education sector, parents, and Indigenous partners, and work with key experts so that every student, including students with learning disabilities, is supported to learn to read well.” The Ministry also stated that it is considering “how special education legislation and policy fit within the broader context of human rights and disability legislation and new ministry policy.” Moreover, the Ministry restated the fact that a lack of a formal assessment should not act as a barrier to a student receiving supports to access the curriculum.
The Ministry of Education’s statements about special education legislation and policy should also be read in the context of the Minister for Seniors and Accessibility’s K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s consultations on its initial recommendations that closed in November 2021. Lawyers contributing to policy development might want to keep an eye out on how the OHRC’s recommendations are reflected in the Committee’s final report, and how the eventual regulations under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005—and potentially under the Education Act depending on the direction policymakers may choose to take to address some of the Committee’s concerns—similarly address learning disabilities.
It is worth noting that the OHRC inquiry did not explicitly include French language school boards. According to Ontario’s French language school boards associations, there are “fundamental differences between reading instruction in a majority setting, in a minority and in immersion programs.” In this context, it will be important for those working with French language school boards to keep abreast of the Ministry of Education’s implementation of the OHRC’s recommendations to ensure that a Francophone lens is being applied to any program or policy measures that result.
While the Ministry of Education, school boards and faculties of education work to implement the OHRC’s recommendations, those providing special education advocacy for children—whether as a parent/guardian, community organization, lawyer, or other professional—may wish to consult the comprehensive special education resource recently developed by Justice for Children and Youth. It includes an introduction to special education in Ontario, and detailed information about Identification, Placement and Review Committees, appeals of identification and placement decisions, and how individual education plans work.
PS – If you happen to be an educator reading this, you might want to check out the Right to Read report for even more details about the OHRC’s vision of what literacy education looks like. There’s lots there about pedagogy and learning supports.