BCEdAccess Society

Our mission is to ensure equitable access to education for students with disabilities and complex learners in British Columbia.

Author: Kim Block

  • Exclusion Tracker Expands Nationally

    Family Support Institute has put out a press release about the exclusion tracker expanding across Canada.

    “Exclusion of children with disabilities is a national crisis, and the Exclusion Tracker is a tool to ensure every child can belong in school,” said Dr. Gordon Porter, Executive Director, Inclusive Education Canada.”

    “The provincial Tracker has been cited by the BC Ombudsperson, as well as by Canadian researchers in the Civil Society Parallel Report for Canada to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Committee (UN CRPD). Now, the Tracker’s national rollout—and the first childcare exclusion tracker of its kind—makes the hidden reality of systemic exclusion impossible to ignore.”

    The exclusion tracker was created by parents within BCEdAccess. They saw a need and they did something about it. You never know where your advocacy efforts will lead, and you never know how it will evolve. Their creation has now blossomed into a national tracking device, not just for schools but for child care too. I will always quote the BC Human Rights Commissioner when she was referring to the importance of data. “We need to be undeniable.” To read about the history of the exclusion tracker, click here.

     Ombudsperson has launched an investigation into exclusion titled “Fairness in BC Schools”. This investigation was triggered by parents filing complaints. Filing external complaints can lead to systemic change, and this is an example. BC Ombudsperson states:

    “We are looking into situations where BC’s public K-12 schools are asking or telling students not to come to school. Our ongoing investigation will look at whether these practices are fair. We want to hear from students, families and education professionals across the province.”

    Together, we can bring more awareness to the depth of these inequities. Thank you, Family Support Institute and a huge thank you to all of the families filling out the tracker. Your experiences matter and they will create the data needed for systemic change.

    If your child is experiencing exclusion, please fill out the exclusion tracker. To fill out the exclusion tracker, click on the link below.

    National Exclusion Tracker – Report an exclusion

    To read the press release from the Family Support Institute, click here.

  • Rights-Based Advocacy in Education

    BCEdAccess is a fully volunteer-run non-profit organization. We are a rights-based organization. Our mission is to ensure that all children with disabilities and diverse abilities have access to an equitable education. We do this by empowering, educating and supporting their parent(s)/guardians in advocating in the public education system. We have a parent(s)/guardian peer support group that has over 6,500 members. We provide information and support to families, as well as advocating for systemic change.

    We are in a chronically underfunded school system. Resources are spread very thin. We will need human rights law now more than ever to ensure our children’s rights will be upheld and the education system will follow the law and provide our children with an equitable education. Our children have certain protections under the Human Rights Code. We can use these protections as part of our collaboration and advocacy with schools. I am witnessing that families who use rights-based language in their advocacy are experiencing higher rates of success.

    The Human Rights Code is our most powerful form of advocacy as it supersedes all other laws, Ministry policy, school board policy, school district administrative procedures, and teacher classroom autonomy when in conflict with The Code. This blog is about these rights. I will warn you, this blog is long and doesn’t even include everything about education law and our child’s rights in general. This blog is specific to the duty to accommodate. We hope you use this information and return to this page as often as you need to read through it. Please use it as a launching pad for your own research and learning about human rights. For personal advice on your specific situation, please contact the BC Human Rights Clinic or Disability Alliance.

    Let us begin.

    Equitable education starts with the Moore case.

    Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61

    “The purpose of the School Act in British Columbia is to ensure that “all learners . . . develop their individual potential and . . . acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy, democratic and pluralistic society and a prosperous and sustainable economy”.

    The “service” to which J is entitled under s. 8 of the B.C. Human Rights Code is education generally.”

    From this human rights case decision, we know that kids with disabilities are entitled to a quality education, and this education is protected under Section 8, of the B.C Human Rights Code. The Human Rights Code, Section 8 is about discrimination in accommodation. Basically, a person cannot, without a reasonable justification, deny a person any accommodation, and they can’t discriminate. To be legally protected under The Code, you need a protected characteristic.

    Your child’s accommodations are the priority and will be more important than any other law, policy, administrative procedure, code of conduct, disciplinary process (including suspension), exclusion policy, school rules, or classroom rules in the school system, etc. etc.

    In the BC Human Rights Code, section 4, it states:

    ********

    CODE PREVAILS

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

    ********

    This means, teacher classroom autonomy, which some teachers will cite as a reason that they can uphold the decisions they make in the classroom, will not be upheld if discrimination is occurring. The Code supersedes teacher classroom autonomy.

    So, if a teacher is denying a student with ADHD breaks for regulation (denying an accommodation), then Section 8 of the Human Rights Code will step in. A child doesn’t need an IEP or a designation to be entitled to accommodations

    An Individual Education Plan (IEP) is not a suggestion. It, too, is backed by written authority.

    *********

    P (by KD) v. Board of Education of School District No. 61 (Greater Victoria) and another, 2025 BCHRT 62

    [70] However, the Ministry disagrees that just because IEPs do not require a parent’s signature the School District is not required to adhere to them. The Ministry says IEPs do have a legal effect and function, as there is a valid legislative and policy framework that provides both authority and guidance for IEPs.

    ********

    The legal test is the discrimination test. The discrimination test, comes from the Human Rights Code – human rights case law. The discrimination test will squash any Ministry or school policy. In Student (by Parent) v. School District 2023 BCHRT 237, the student had a diagnosis of Generalized Anxiety Disorder. At the time of the complaint, she did not have a designation or IEP. She was still protected under Section 8 of the Human Rights Code. The school had a duty to provide her with accommodations for her disability.

    Lots of kids with ADHD don’t get designations or IEPs. They are still protected under The Code. The Moore case is what set out the discrimination test and defined accommodations as “a ramp” so that our children are legally entitled to an accessible education.

    Family Status:

    And something else really important to know. It’s not just your kids who are provided a service and protected under the Human Rights Code. You are also as their parent(s)/guardian protected under family status connected to education as a service. These two decisions mean you can file a human rights complaint on behalf of yourself, and the discrimination test will apply to you too!

    Family Status Decisions

    The Parent v. The School District, 2024 BCHRT 113
    Independent School Authority v Parent, 2022 BCSC 570

    Here is the discrimination test from the BC HRT website:

    Leading cases: Test for discrimination

    *********

    “Moore v. BC (Education), 2012 SCC 61 To prove discrimination, a complainant has to prove that:

    1. they have a characteristic protected by the Human Rights Code [Code];

    2. they experienced an adverse impact with respect to an area protected by the Code; and

    3. the protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact.

    Once a complainant proves these three things, the respondent can defend itself by proving its conduct was justified. If the respondent proves its conduct was justified, then there is no discrimination. If the respondent’s conduct is not justified, discrimination will be found to occur (para. 33).”

    *********

    These 3 questions are asking us:

    1. Does your child have a disability/other protected characteristic?

    2. Did they experience harm?

    3. Was the harm connected to their disability/protected characteristic?

    The school district then has the opportunity to defend its decisions.

    Here is the “bona fide” and reasonable justification test.

    *********

    “British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights), [1999] 3 SCR 868 at para. 20. Once a complainant proves that a protected characteristic was a factor in adverse treatment regarding a service, the respondent can defend itself by proving that it had a “bona fide and reasonable justification” for its behaviour. It has to show:

    1. its behaviour was for a purpose or goal that is rationally connected to the function being performed;

    2. it behaved in good faith; and

    3. its behaviour was reasonably necessary to accomplish its purpose or goal, in the sense it cannot accommodate the complainant without undue hardship.”

    ********

    What does this actually mean?

    1. Based on the goals of the education system their decision made sense. It was rational behaviour. (**Remember their goals are a quality education for all students. So, based on this goal, was their behaviour rational?)

    2. The decision was in good faith. (honest)

    3. The denial of the accommodation was necessary to accomplish the goal of the education service and if they provided the accommodation, it would create an undue hardship for the organization/business. (Eg. They financially couldn’t sustain themselves, or it would be too much of a financial burden.)

    In human rights decisions, it is very common to see paragraphs like this before they explain their decision, reviewing the discrimination test.

    ********

    Mother obo Child v. Daycare, 2024 BCHRT 251

    [24] To prove their complaint at a hearing, the Child will have to prove that he has a characteristic protected by the Code, he was adversely impacted in services, and his protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33. If he does this, the burden would shift to the Daycare to justify the impact as a bona fide reasonable justification. If the impact is justified, there is no discrimination.

    ********

    Key word here is “impact”. This is important.

    From the Human Rights Code, Section 2

    *******

    DISCRIMINATION AND INTENT

    2 Discrimination in contravention of this Code does not require an intention to contravene this Code.

    ********

    It is clear, you don’t have to mean to discriminate, to discriminate. It’s not about the person’s intentions. It’s about the impact.

    A key point here is that you need to prove to the school your child has a disability with documentation. This documentation will lock them into the duty to accommodate. However, and this is really important. Perceived disability is also protected under the Human Rights Code.


    This case is from 1993 in BC.

    Silzer v. Chaparral Industries (86) Inc., 1993 CanLII 16481 (BC HRT)


    “54]    In any event, it is well-established that the protection against discrimination on the basis of disability includes perceived disability: Hamlyn v. Cominco Ltd. (1989), 1989 CanLII 9050 (BC HRT), 11 C.H.R.R. D/333; Biggs v. Hudson (1988), 1988 CanLII 8918 (BC HRT), 9 C.H.R.R. D/5391 (B.C.H.R.C.). It is clear that Chaparral perceived Silzer’s health problems, singly or in combination, as a significant disability, possibly impeding his ability to work without endangering himself and others and entitling him to long-term disability benefits. I find that these facts come within the scope of “mental or physical disability.”

    Even if your child is on a waitlist, it is really important to have that documentation that the school does perceive them to have a disaibility. You don’t need to wait for an assessment to be completed to receive accommodations.

    Now let’s move into some common justification arguments from school districts.

    Common Justification Arguments

    1. Hindsight

    If the school can say, they didn’t know. Then they are off the hook. For kids who mask, this is a big one.

    Student (by Parent) v. School District, 2023 BCHRT 237

    ********

    [99] Next, in B v. School District, 2019 BCHRT 170, the evidence supported that the school district provided the child with the recommended supports and accommodations. The Tribunal found that it was “only with hindsight” that it was possible to say that the child could have benefited from more support: para. 81. It dismissed the complaint in part because there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the school district reasonably ought to have known that the child required more: para. 98.

    ********

    So, in order to stop the school from arguing this, we must communicate when our child is struggling (harm) and link it to their disability. Send in those emails. Then they cannot claim hindsight. It will also trigger meaningful inquiry. More on this below.

    2. Reasonable accommodations

    They can argue that the accommodations are reasonable. They don’t need to provide the ideal accommodations, just enough for your kid to equitably access their education.

    *******

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

    [112] Accommodation requires a reasonable, not a perfect solution: Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud, [1992] 2 SCR 970 [Renaud]. While there may have been other approaches available to the District, this does not necessarily render the one taken unreasonable. What is reasonable and what constitutes undue hardship is fact specific and will turn on the specific circumstances of a particular case: Renaud.

    ********

    Kids are legally entitled to accommodations that provide a ramp. It doesn’t mean it needs to be perfect, but the ramp can’t go halfway up the stairs or be at a 90-degree angle, making it impossible to use. If the reasonable accommodations are not working and causing harm, this is where we need to continually document the harm and show the school that the ramp they provided isn’t really a ramp, and the access to education isn’t actually happening.

    3. Accommodation is a Process

    Accommodation is a collaborative process. They can argue that they are trying in good faith and that they aren’t giving up. And the other side of the coin is that if they aren’t doing this, then we can use this case as advocacy.

    *********

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

    [120] Ultimately, on a balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the District discharged its duty to accommodate X in his grade 2 year by reviewing the Diagnosis Report, developing an IEP, making various support people and strategies available that were incorporated into the classroom and outside, reviewing progress and changes, and adapting its approach in response……

    ********

    The duty to accommodate is a collaborative, ongoing process that requires the participation of both parties to be engaged in good faith. The school was doing that by continually adapting their approach. So if they want to claim they are doing this, it means they can’t give up on your kid. This case is the written authority that will back up your arguments that they have to keep going and keep trying different accommodations. And since they have a duty to consult, and the duty to co-operate in good faith is already there, then as long as they are working, collaborating with you and consulting with you and they keep on trying, they may be able to argue successfully that this is part of the accommodation process.

    4. Self-Advocacy

    Many times, they blame the student for not advocating enough, and therefore, they didn’t know and can claim hindsight. I offer you this case.

    *******

    Student (by Parent) v. School District, 2023 BCHRT 237

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

    *******

    It’s not on the child. It’s on the adults. We need to keep communicating via email so that they know that your child is struggling.

    5. Parents are not facilitating the school’s decision

    The School Act gives the school the authority to make the final decision regarding your child’s education. They have a duty to meaningfully consult with you (more on this later), but the final say is theirs. If parents don’t “facilitate” that decision, your human rights complaint may be dismissed.

    ********

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

    [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.

    [249] I find that, at all times, the school was complying with the terms of the Child’s IEP by providing him with, among other things, sensory breaks and one-on-one support from the School Counsellor. The challenges associated with the Child’s interactions with D, however, required a different approach. The Principal and other school employees attempted to work with the Parents to develop an approach that would take into account the Child’s needs. The parents were apprised of each incident, but this only seemed to elicit more conflict rather than constructive dialogue. The Principal and other school officials attempted to engage the parents in discussions about reducing conflict with D, and developing a safety strategy for the Child, but the parents refused to consider the solution. This was an unreasonable position, which failed to account for the fact that the District also had obligations towards D: McCreath v. Victoria Taxi (1987) Ltd., 2017 BCCA 342.

    *******

    6. Safety

    Schools need to provide a safe environment for everyone. In this case we have a student who was “included physically aggressive behaviour towards other students an staff” and the tribunal is still looking at the school district to see if there was “anything else reasonable or practical to avoid the negative impact on the individual”.

    *******

    Student Y by Grandparent S v. Board of Education of School District No. X, 2024 BCHRT 353

    [8] During kindergarten, Student Y was referred to the school’s inclusion support team due to her escalated behaviour, which the School District says included physically aggressive behaviour towards other students and staff, escaping, and verbally protesting classroom activities. At that time, the school designated Student Y as Category H: Intensive Behaviour/Severe Mental Health. The designation remained in place for the duration of Student Y’s attendance at the school. The materials before me do not further explain the meaning or consequences of this designation.

    52] From the materials before me, I am satisfied that the School District was actively and intensively involved in attempting to accommodate Student Y’s disabilities from the time that Student Y was in grade one up until the time that she was excluded from school in grade three. However, the question before me on this application is whether the School District is reasonably certain to prove that it “could not have done anything else reasonable or practical to avoid the negative impact on the individual”: Moore at para. 49 [Emphasis mine]. In my view, there is a lack of information in the materials before me that would allow me to conclude that the School District is reasonably certain to do so.

    *********

    Please note that “anything else” is very open-ended and trying different placements that you may not agree with may still be viewed by the tribunal as part of the accommodation process and may fit the justification test. School districts need to balance the needs of staff and students AND still provide your child with an accessible education. This will be VERY context-specific and case-by-case. I suggest you reach out to an advocate at Inclusion BC or Family Support Institute if you need assistance with advocating.

    7. We don’t have the money or staff

    We all know the school system is chronically underfunded and struggling with staffing constraints. Legally, when resources are limited, they must be spread around equitably. When we think of the undue hardship test in terms of a financial hardship, this case is very important to keep in mind.

    *********

    Kerber v Alberta, 2025 ABKB 98

    [152] The Charter guarantees equal access to education for all students; the corollary effect is that that the equitable principle must be applied in times of labour or resource shortages. Here, what is apparent is that there was no consideration of how the reduced resources could be redistributed among all students. It was assumed that minimal disruption to the system would result by targeting only a sub-set of students – those who use an EA. However, this approach failed to consider that non-disabled students might suffer the least amount of harm since they do not have the same disadvantages as the students with disabilities and could adapt to an at-home learning program more easily, i.e., some non-disabled students switch to at-home learning to free up more resources for complex-needs students, or some of them, to attend school in-person even with the EAs presently unavailable.

    **********

    The moral of this court story is that resources need to be spread around equitably among all the students. Not everyone is going to get the same size slice of the pizza. But each person should get the size of the pizza slice that they will need to fill their hunger. Some will need more. Some will need less. Equitable distribution.

    Something to just keep in mind that has been pointed out in a human rights decision:

    Not all negative experiences are discrimination.

    *********

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

    [110] ….I accept that these incidents which X relayed to Y were upsetting to X. I appreciate that the interactions may have fed into X’s general feelings of unease at school, but the fact alone that these events may have happened is not enough, in itself, to establish that X’s disability factored into them. Not all negative experiences are discrimination. Even accepting that these incidents occurred, I did not hear evidence that could establish, on a balance of probabilities, that X’s disability was a factor in the conduct of the adults involved in these interactions.

    ********

    This is why, when there is a connection to the harm and our child’s disability, we are going to need to be very explicit about it in our email communication.

    Duty To Accommodate

    We are now entering the process of the duty to accommodate.

    Do schools have a duty to inquire?

    Yes! And it has been referred to as meaningful inquiry.

    Meaningful Inquiry

    *******

    Student (by Parent) v. School District, 2023 BCHRT 237

    [75] The “duty to inquire” is a human rights obligation which arises where the student is facing some adverse impact in their education – ie. discipline, poor grades, lack of meaningful access – and the school is aware, or ought reasonably to be aware, that a student’s disability may be a factor in that impact: eg. Martin v. Carter Chevrolet Oldsmobile, 2001 BCHRT 37 at para. 29; Aydogmus v. York University, 2021 HRTO 176 at para. 59. The purpose of this inquiry is to identify and remove disability-related barriers to a successful education, likely through the process of accommodation.

    ********

    So we have the school being aware of harm connected to a students disability, and the point of the “inquiry” is to identify AND remove barriers that are “disability-related” through the accommodation process.

    This kicks off the accommodation process. We have our foot in the door by disclosing our child’s disability and identifying the school disability-related harm.

    Also pointed out in this case, as by now we all know:

    *******

    [89] …………the respondent is not responsible to accommodate disability-related needs that it was not aware of or could not reasonably have been aware of.

    ********

    Something important to note here, too, is that when we are expressing our kids’ struggles:

    *******

    [96] On balance, I am not persuaded that the District’s response to the situation after April 24, 2019, was a reasonable one. The Parent had brought forward relevant facts of the Student’s diagnoses and the toll that school was taking on her. I do not accept that the onus was entirely on the Parent or Student to utter the magic word of “accommodation” before the school took steps to explore the reasons that the Student’s mental health was being so impacted by school. Nor do I accept that the simple fact that a 13-year-old child with anxiety says they are “fine” is enough to end a school’s obligations. At this point, the school had enough information to understand that something at school was adversely impacting the Student in connection with her disabilities, and it was in the best position to investigate the causes. If it felt it needed more information from the Parent or the Student, it could have and should have asked. Again, the goal is to ensure that the Student is afforded equitable access to an education.

    ********

    We don’t need to specifically say: Can my child have accommodations? The school should be identifying this and the school needs to ask us for more information so that they can do their job in giving our kids an equitable access to an education. Bottom line, they need to fulfill their obligations to the student as they are responsible for providing the service.

    Ok, so now let’s move into meaningful inquiry and how this case locked in the duty to inquire in an education setting.

    ********

    [99] Next, in B v. School District, 2019 BCHRT 170, the evidence supported that the school district provided the child with the recommended supports and accommodations. The Tribunal found that it was “only with hindsight” that it was possible to say that the child could have benefited from more support: para. 81. It dismissed the complaint in part because there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the school district reasonably ought to have known that the child required more: para. 98. In contrast here, I have found that the District had sufficient information to trigger some kind of inquiry or response beyond asking the Student how she was doing and, assuming the counsellor did this, advising of available supports.

    [100] In short, I agree with the District that the Parent and Student were obliged to bring forward information relating to accommodation. The Parent did that, when she communicated that the Student had anxiety and trichotillomania and that school was taking a significant toll on her physical and mental health. That information should have been enough to prompt a meaningful inquiry by the school to identify what was triggering the Student’s symptoms and what supports or accommodations may be appropriate to ensure she was able to meaningfully and equitably access her education. The failure to take that step was, in my view, not reasonable. As a result, the disability-related impacts on the Student, arising from conditions in her Language 10 class between April 24 and June 27, 2019, have not been justified and violate s. 8 of the Human Rights Code.

    [104] In sum, I have found that the conditions in the Student’s grade 8 Language 10 class exacerbated the Student’s anxiety and trichotillomania, and that the District failed to take reasonable steps to investigate and address those conditions during the period between April 24, 2019, and June 27, 2019 (the last day of school). I find this is a violation of s. 8 of the Human Rights Code, and warrants a remedy, which I address below.

    ********

    It is on the school to INVESTIGATE and address the conditions.

    They can’t just accept that they are witnessing students struggling. They need to be actively investigating to figure out what the barriers are (not parents’ responsibilities to identify these as we aren’t in school with our kids) it is them that need to investigate, figure out the barriers and address them.

    We express disability-related harm that our kids are experiencing in school and we are now engaged in the duty to accommodate.

    Kids are not responsible for bringing forward their own accommodation needs.

    ******

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

    ******

    Meaningful Consultation

    How the duty to consult (meaningful consultation) is defined in education came from a human rights case decision. For some people, they would really like meaningful consultation to be more defined, but it is going to be different for every student. One student may only need a 30-minute IEP meeting. Another student may need multiple IEP meetings. IEPs are also living documents that can be updated and adapted at any time of the year. You don’t need to wait for IEP season to come around in the fall to meet with the school team. Some schools have been sending out notices that say each parent gets a 30-minute IEP meeting. Or, they aren’t even getting a meeting. The staff are meeting and they are sending home the IEPs and getting parents to offer feedback on the already created IEP through email.

    We all understand that schools are under constraints.

    BUT. It doesn’t matter.

    The human rights code prevails. And meaningful consultation is attached to human rights case law. Meaningful consultation will trump a 30-minute restriction on an IEP meeting. If you think that you haven’t been consulted on items and the IEP is incomplete or your child needs accommodations that they aren’t receiving, you have the Human Rights Code behind you. At the bare minimum, they need to consult with you. It needs to be “meaningful”.

    *******

    Hewko v. B.C., 2006 BCSC 1638

    Duty to Consult

    [342] The relevant statutory provisions with respect to a School District’s obligation to consult with parents and students are found in the School Act, and in particular, ss. 4 and 7.

    [343] Section 4 of the School Act provides that: “A student is entitled to consult with a teacher, principal, vice principal or director of instruction with regard to that student’s educational program”.

    [345] Section 7(2) affords the parent the right to consult with school staff regarding their child’s educational program:

    A parent of a student of school age attending a school may, and at the request of a teacher, principal, vice principal or director of instruction must, consult with the teacher, principal, vice principal or director of instruction with respect to the student’s education.

    ********

    So, to start us off, we have the School Act. This is a law. The Ministry wants school districts to be consulting with students and parents.

    Also, note that students are entitled to consultation too. So if they are receiving a suspension and your child didn’t get a chance to explain their side of the story before the decision was made, you can take this section of the School Act and request a meeting, or it can be part of the Section 11 appeal you file.

    Continuing in the same case,

    *********

    [346] The Individual Education Plan Order and the Mandate for the School System adopted by B.C. Order-in-Council 1280 (August 30, 1989), also require that the parents of special needs students be afforded the opportunity to be consulted about the nature of their children’s education. Pursuant to s. 4 of the Individual Education Plan Order, school boards are required to consult with the parents of special-needs students about the content of the individual education plan for each student. It provides:

    Where a board is required to provide an IEP for a student under this order, the board…must offer a parent of the student…the opportunity to be consulted about the preparation of the IEP.

    [347] The Mandate for the School System reiterates that parents have the right and responsibility to participate in the process of determining the educational goals, policies and services provided for their children. Teachers have the responsibility to ensure that each student is provided with quality instruction, permitted to participate in all normal school activities and to monitor the behaviour and progress of each learner in accordance with provincial and local policies.

    ********

    So, where the School Act is a law, we have now moved on to orders by the Ministry. And this is all from the same human rights case that I listed above.

    Now we get into the details of what all of this means. This is also from the same case.

    ********

    [361] It is possible to summarize some very general principles which inform or provide content to the duty to consult from the above cases.

    1. Before any decision is made regarding the placement of a child within the school system and the persons who will have the responsibility to implement an IEP, the parents must be consulted.

    2. The depth of consultation and the concomitant obligations for the parties to accommodate the requirements of the other will vary with the known need of a child’s requirement for a modified curriculum.

    3. All necessary information in regard to either parties’ position on a proper placement and IEP must be provided in a timely way so that each will have an opportunity to express their interests and concerns and sufficient time to ensure that their representations are seriously considered and wherever possible demonstrably integrated into the proposed plan.

    4. Each party to consultation has an obligation to provide timely information and an obligation to make whatever accommodations are necessary to effect an educational program which is in the best interests of the child.

    5. In coming up with a placement and an IEP for a child with autism or Autism Spectrum Disorder, Dr. Foxx’s opinion as set out below should be regarded as the most significant underlying principle for meaningful consultation “the program will not work unless everybody sign on to it. And the reason they sign on to it is because it’s a program that makes absolute sense to all parties. It has to be designed as a win-win for everyone so that all the parties understand.”

    6. The parents of a special needs child do not have a veto over placement or the IEP. Meaningful consultation does not require agreement by either side – it does require that the school district maintain the right to decide after meaningful consultation.

    7. The bottom-line requirement for each side in a meaningful consultation is to be able to demonstrate that the proposal put forward can produce instructional control of the child.

    ********

    Lots of stuff from here. Parents don’t have the final decision-making say, but before a decision is made, parents must be consulted. There should be enough time given to ensure parents can express their concerns and for them to be considered. That time will vary depending on the needs of the student. The British Columbia Council of Administrators in Inclusive Education put out a whole guide on meaningful consultation.

    So if you run into any issues with the school not consulting with you, you have this guide from the administrator organization, Ministry orders and school law and what trumps and enforces all of that is the duty to consult in this human rights decision. In theory, no one should be having consultation issues. In reality, we know this is not the case. We need to take what is a legal right, all of this written authority, and apply it.

    Duty to Facilitate

    The duty to accommodate is a collaborative process. The school district must consult with us and seriously consider our concerns, but the School Act gives them the power to make the final decision. Whether we like it or not.

    Having hard conversations is still collaborating. Respectful disagreement is still collaborating.

    Collaborating in good faith means you need to be honest, genuine, without trying to deceive, take advantage. It’s just really about having the best intentions from everyone when all engage in consultation, for the best interest of the child.

    We can have respectful conversations and advocate fiercely at the exact same time. It’s not one or the other. Both parties have the expectation to collaborate in good faith as part of the accommodation process. At the same time, our advocacy conduct cannot be used against our child to deny them an equitable education.

    “Fierce advocacy” is even supported in case law.

    ********

    L.B. v. Toronto District School Board, 2015 HRTO 1622

    [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.

    *********

    So whether we fulfill our duty to work in collaboration with the school district the bottom line is that they are still required to meet an exceptional student’s needs. They cannot use our conduct against our child to not fulfill their duties to provide an equitable education.

    However…..

    Keeping that in mind, if we want to file a human rights complaint without at least giving their reasonable accommodation suggestions a chance, we will likely have our complaint dismissed. So our advocating or lack of can’t be held against our child, but if we don’t accept a reasonable accommodation, that can be.

    *******

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

    [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.

    *********

    The running theme is this:

    We need to continually document any harm we are witnessing and email our concerns to the school. We need to connect the harm to any disability-related needs.

    While we do have the duty to facilitate a reasonable accommodation, if that reasonable accommodation doesn’t provide the ramp they think it will, they have the responsibility of continually adapting, reviewing and providing alternatives. They aren’t allowed to give up.

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

    [120] Ultimately, on a balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the District discharged its duty to accommodate X in his grade 2 year by reviewing the Diagnosis Report, developing an IEP, making various support people and strategies available that were incorporated into the classroom and outside, reviewing progress and changes, and adapting its approach in response……

    Summary

    Rights-based language

    Disability-related needs
    Removing barriers
    Adverse effect/harm
    Accommodation
    Collaborate in good faith
    Equitable education

    Power of the Human Rights Code

    The Human Rights Code is very powerful. Our most powerful form of advocacy. It is the law above all laws. It supersedes all of other laws, Ministry policy, IEP policy, designation standards, administrative procedures, teacher autonomy, when in conflict.

    Students don’t need a designation or an IEP to be protected by the Human Rights Code and get accommodations for their disability related needs.

    ANYTIME the schools give you a reason for denying your child an accommodation, or are not protecting them from bullying, or they use policy in a way that you think is harmful to your child…. in steps the discrimination test.

    Parents are protected too, and can file a complaint under family status and the discrimination test applies to them.

    Discrimination Test

    1. Does your kid have a disability?

    2. Were they harmed

    3. Is the harm linked to their disability?

    Yes + Yes + Yes = Discrimination

    Impact is the focus. The harm your child has experienced. Not intent. They don’t need to intend to discriminate in order for their actions to create discrimination.

    The code protects students with disabilities and even perceived disability.

    Reasonable Justification Test

    Schools may be able to justify the reasonable accommodations your child is offered, or maybe not. It is going to be very context-specific to your situation.

    The school will use arguments to justify their behaviour that could include hindsight, safety, collaborative process (they are trying in good faith – not lack of resource related), reasonable accommodation, lack of resources or staffing, blame your child for not self-advocating enough etc. Whether these arguments are grounded in any truth, that is another question. Just because they have arguments doesn’t mean they are strong arguments or that they have evidence to back up what they are saying. We aren’t the only ones who need evidence.

    We need to always be communicating the harm that we are witnessing and how trelated to their disability.

    Meaningful Inquiry

    We need to disclose with documentation (ideally) to the school to protect our kids with the Human Rights Code and the Duty to Accommodate process.

    Once the disclosure is communicated to the school, they are now locked in and required to provide our children with a quality, equitable access to an education.

    We don’t need to use the word “accommodation” in order to trigger an investigation. We need to communicate that our child is struggling or experiencing harm due to “disability-related” needs.

    The school has the responsibility to investigate, figure out what the barriers are, and address them.

    The responsibility of bringing forward their accommodation needs does not fall on the shoulders of the student.

    We need to keep communicating and telling the school the harm we are witnessing and are aware of, and how this is connected to their disability. That’s our job. That’s how we engage the duty to inquire (Meaningful inquiry) that will start off the duty to accommodate.

    Emailing our concerns is creating that document trail that we need.

    Duty-to-consult

    You have lots of written authority to back up your right and your child’s right to be consulted on decisions that impact the quality and their participation in their education.

    Parents don’t have the final decision-making say, but before a decision is made, parents must be consulted. There should be enough time given to ensure parents can express their concerns and for them to be considered. That time will vary depending on the needs of the student.

    Duty-to-facilitate

    Schools have the final decision, and if we don’t facilitate that then we can have our human rights complaint dismissed. We may be seen as unreasonable.

    However, if their plans for reasonable accommodations don’t work, they have to keep on reviewing and adapting. They can’t give up. That will require us to keep collaboratively working with them, and documenting and communicating the harm.

    Final Message:

    As we are aware, our chronically underfunded education system resources are even more scarce over the years. We must remember that the district has the responsibility to spread resources equitably for all students. Rights-based advocacy is our most powerful form of advocacy. All children are entitled to a quality education. I suspect the need to lean into the Human Rights Code to uphold our children’s rights under the law will become more necessary this school year and following school years still to come. We are simply expecting the education system to follow the law.

    To join our support group, please find us on Facebook, join our mailing list or donate to support our work.

  • Parent Advocacy Letter to the Ministry of Education and Child Care

    I have heard from people in positions of power that if people don’t complain, the system assumes everything is fine. If people are not happy, they are certain they will hear about it. Well, the education system is not fine. By making our stories and experiences known to those in positions of power, it can make our experience count. Otherwise, to the system, it’s like it never happened.

    The Ombudsperson investigation into exclusion is an example of how filing complaints is a form of advocacy.

    Writing letters to the Ministry of Education and Child Care can be very powerful. We are the ones with lived experience. Without us telling them what it’s like from our perspective, what our children are experiencing, how are they to know? They work in their offices, but they aren’t in our children’s classrooms. They aren’t in our homes when our kids come home and have meltdowns from trying to survive school.

    If you decide to write a letter to the Ministry of Education and Child Care, you may want to consider cc: the Human Rights Commissioner. Many of our children are dealing with systemic discrimination. We need everyone to pay attention to what is happening in education.

    This parent wanted to make their experience and perspective count. They have written an advocacy letter to the Ministry of Education and Child Care. I am so thankful they have allowed us to share this with all of you. Thank you, for your advocacy!

    LETTER TO MOE – POSTED ANONYMOUSLY

    As a result of our experiences with the school system, I am writing to express my deep concern about the systemic ableism and lack of adequate support for neurodivergent students in British Columbia’s public education system. Despite public commitments to diversity and inclusion, neurodivergent students face marginalization, exclusion, and disciplinary disparities that undermine their rights, well-being, and educational success. Urgent systemic reforms are needed to create truly inclusive, respectful, and supportive school environments.

    Recognizing and Valuing Neurodiversity

    Neurodiversity, which includes autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, and other cognitive variations, is a natural and valuable part of human diversity (Singer, 1999). Yet, our education system often frames these differences through a deficit-based lens. Neurodivergent students are often expected to conform to neurotypical norms rather than being supported through inclusive practices that honour their ways of processing and engaging with the world. They are told to sit still in prolonged assemblies, unable to move to regulate, and labelled ‘naughty’, or ‘disrespectful’ when their impulses to regulate result in fidgeting, movement, or chattiness.

    As Dr. Stephen Shore famously stated, “If you’ve met one person with autism, you’ve met one person with autism.” The individuality of neurodivergent students demands flexibility and respect in educational environments and is sorely lacking. This lack of consideration leads children to ‘mask’, or to repress their own needs, urges, and wants, simply to fit into a system that shames and punishes them if they step out of what is deemed ‘normal’ and ‘accepted’. 

    Addressing Systemic Ableism in Schools

    Ableism is defined as discrimination, prejudice, or a systemic bias against individuals with disabilities (Loeppky, 2023). Casual ableism exists throughout our schools; it is not an occasional oversight — it is systemic and ongoing. Practices such as informal exclusions, isolation, denial of participation, and lack of accommodations persist in many BC schools. In 2023, BCEdAccess Society documented over 1,300 parent-reported incidents of exclusion of students with disabilities across BC schools, including shortened days, unsafe restraint, and barriers to basic participation. I suspect that this is scraping the surface of the true number of incidents that occurred in BC, and given my knowledge of the lack of staff education regarding the needs of these children, the societal and systemic expectations for them to conform,  and the inflexibility of the school system – and many of those who work within it, I suspect this number has increased in 2025.

    These exclusionary practices violate students’ rights to education and safety and contradict Canada’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD, 2006). How can this be allowed to continue? They have the right to be respected, heard, included, and supported in achieving their fullest educational potential. The system’s tendency to treat these children as lesser individuals impacts their sense of identity, sense of self,  self-confidence, and motivation to succeed.

    Disproportionate Discipline and Exclusion

    Neurodivergent students are significantly more likely to face discipline, suspensions, school-based policing, and absenteeism than their peers (BCEdAccess Society, 2023; John et al., 2022). School staff do not appear to have consistent appreciation and understanding that behaviour is communication. As such, “disruptive” behaviour is again viewed as the child purposely being disruptive, violent, inappropriate, noisy, or restless. There appears to be little understanding that behaviour is a means to communicate distress, sensory overload, or unmet support needs (Garey, 2023). Time and again, my son has been blamed, and time and again I have asked what the antecedent was, and no one knows… they only know the ‘bad’ behaviour that is always the focus.

    Research from Inclusion BC (2022) and Opini (2022) highlighted that autistic and ADHD students in BC are disproportionately excluded, both formally and informally, without due process or restorative approaches. Again, we come back to the impact of this on the child and the narrative that they are left with; I’m the bad one, I’m the problem; I’m at home while the other kids are at school – what does that make me? Understand the impact on these kids and families if parents need to take more and more time off work to be with their child, and because they need to take more and more time off, stress increases, emotions in the house increase – yet the child is expected to go back to school, sit still, and regulate. And when they don’t, they are to blame.

    Silencing of Children Through Power Dynamics

    The structural power imbalance between adults and children means that children, especially those who are neurodivergent, are frequently excluded from decisions about their support. These dynamics silence the lived experience of the child and perpetuate a model where children are seen as objects of intervention rather than participants in their learning journey. Throughout all but those recent incidents at my son’s school, his account, thoughts, or perspectives were rarely sought from school staff. The only reason they have been of late is my advocacy and insistence for the staff to do so. Canada has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), which upholds the right of children to express their views in matters affecting them and to have those views taken seriously. A commitment to inclusion must also mean inclusion of student voices.

    Research by Wood (2020) and Kapp (2020) also shows that autistic children in particular are at heightened risk of being misunderstood, mischaracterized, or blamed for behaviors arising from distress. I have experienced firsthand the dismissal and disbelief from responsible adults when my son reported discomfort or mistreatment. I can imagine this is exacerbated in cases where a child’s communication differs from neurotypical norms. The cultural assumption that adults are inherently more reliable narrators leads to missed opportunities for early intervention and justice.

    It also teaches our children lifelong lessons: “my voice doesn’t matter”, “I don’t matter”, “if I stay quiet, then I’ll be safe”. Abuse thrives in silence. When educational environments dismiss children’s reports or needs, particularly those of neurodiverse students, they risk reinforcing trauma responses such as fawning (Vermani, 2025). Without intentional efforts to elevate student voice, especially from marginalized neurotypes, schools may unknowingly perpetuate these harmful dynamics.

    Lack of Transparency Between School Administration and Parents

    Parents frequently report being the last to know when their child is struggling, removed from class, or subjected to seclusion or restraint. In kindergarten, my son was banned from playing with any of the girls in his class by an EA who created this rule. No one told us. My son casually remarked one Friday evening that this rule had been made, commenting how unfair he thought it was. BCEdAccess Society (2023) found that many families in BC receive no formal documentation when children are excluded from class, and some are even pressured to keep their children home without formal suspension procedures. This lack of consistent and clear communication and the use of vague language around incidents undermine trust and hinder families’ ability to advocate effectively (Buchanan & Clark, 2019). Understandably, parents feel uncertain about trusting the system or staff to care for their children when they do not have clear information or an understanding of the system. Yet, we still have to send our children back there every day.

    I have personally discussed these concerns multiple times with my son’s principal. After each school-based incident, I have requested follow-up information describing the steps taken to prevent recurrence, only to be told that this information is confidential. Consider how it feels for a parent whose child is repeatedly ignored, dismissed, or shamed, when they seek assurance that a respectful and supportive environment will be ensured, they are met with confidentiality and uncertainty. The resulting feelings of guilt, worry, and frustration are deeply exhausting.

    Building True Family-School Partnerships

    In my experience, families of neurodivergent students are often treated as adversaries rather than collaborators. We have been positioned as allies of the school team, but when an incident occurs, it always appears to become a ‘them versus us’ situation; one where we are not told what happens behind the scenes, or where a principal stands beside her staff and tells you to “think with your head and not your heart”. For most of my son’s experience, my feeling is that we have been perceived as obstacles rather than collaborators. This adversarial dynamic can create barriers to effective communication, diminish trust, and ultimately hinder the student’s educational experience.

    Research consistently shows that when families are engaged, students do better. Kim (2022) and Cosso et al. (2022) found that family involvement is a key factor in student success, leading to better grades, improved social skills, and higher attendance. Epstein’s (2011) model also highlights how important strong connections between families, schools, and communities are for a child’s growth. A paradigm shift is needed to position parents and caregivers as expert partners in their child’s education, recognizing their unique knowledge of the child’s strengths, challenges, and needs.

    To truly support neurodivergent students and their families, schools need to move away from focusing only on deficits and instead adopt trauma-informed, family-centered approaches. These recognize that many neurodivergent kids and their families have faced marginalization or tough experiences within the education system. Family-centered models build trust by valuing families’ perspectives, working together on education plans, and offering supports that respect culture and identity (CanChild, 2002; Maynard et al., 2019)

    Inadequate Education of School Staff About Neurodiversity

    Most educators receive minimal, if any, formal training in neurodiversity, trauma-informed practices, or inclusive pedagogy and rely on self-directed learning through books, websites, and personal experiences to understand and support neurodivergent students (Schatz et al., 2021). Adam W. McCrimmon’s (2015) study discusses the inadequacies in Canadian teacher education programs concerning inclusive education, emphasizing the need for improved training to support students with diverse needs, including those who are neurodivergent.

    Furthermore, research involving Canadian teacher candidates reveals a pervasive sense of lack of preparedness when it comes to teaching students with developmental disabilities and neurodivergence (Kumar & Hamer, 2012). Many candidates report lacking both theoretical knowledge and practical experience, which negatively impacts their confidence and perceived efficacy in inclusive classrooms. This gap in teacher preparation highlights a systemic issue where inclusive education remains more an ideal than a practical reality (Mintz et al., 2021).

    The consequences extend beyond the classroom. In our family experience, when educators lack the necessary knowledge and skills to recognize and accommodate neurodivergence, our son has experienced misunderstanding, marginalization, bullying, and unmet educational needs, which have contributed to increased anxiety, limited self-worth, and academic underachievement. Despite his intelligence, he truly believes he is stupid—a heartbreaking belief, especially knowing that the education system and those within it have helped shape that view. Professional development needs to become mandatory and emphasize practical strategies for inclusive teaching and neurodiversity-affirming practices that foster understanding and acceptance. This approach could create classrooms where all students feel seen, supported, and empowered – and motivated – to succeed.

    Intersectionality: The Compounded Impact of Marginalization

    As a neurodivergent child, my son already navigates a school system that often struggles to understand his needs. For students who are also racialized, Indigenous, LGBTQIA2S+, or from low-income families, these barriers multiply. While my son does not hold all of these identities, schools must recognize how overlapping forms of discrimination compound harm. Systemic racism, settler colonialism, and classism intersect with ableism to create particularly harmful and exclusionary school experiences. These intersecting oppressions intensify feelings of isolation, misunderstanding, and marginalization, undermining both academic success and emotional well-being.

    As Kimberlé Crenshaw’s foundational work on intersectionality (1991) makes clear, single-axis approaches to equity fail to capture the layered realities many students face. Recent research reinforces the need for intersectional frameworks in education to challenge overlapping systems of oppression and foster truly inclusive environments (Varsik & Gorochovskij, 2023). The emotional impact of intersecting marginalizations on neurodivergent students can be profound. Many experience chronic stress, anxiety, and lowered self-esteem as they move through systems that fail to acknowledge their full humanity. Yet when they react, or communicate through behaviour, they are the problem, they are seen to be at fault, rather than as children asking for help in a system that does not yet know how to listen.

    Mental Health Impacts of Educational Exclusion

    Neurodivergent students often face significant mental health challenges stemming from systemic failures within educational environments. Behaviours stemming from sensory overload or communication differences are frequently misunderstood as intentional misconduct (“bad behaviour”), which leads to punitive disciplinary measures rather than supportive interventions. I see this play out constantly with my son, where his actions are treated as deliberate defiance instead of what they most likely are: signs of distress, overwhelm, or a need for connection.

    This approach not only overlooks the underlying needs of neurodivergent students but also fuels a cycle of exclusion and psychological harm—manifesting as school avoidance, heightened anxiety, depression, and trauma symptoms (John et al., 2022; Kane, 2025). These outcomes are not isolated personal struggles; they reflect systemic inequities and a persistent failure to accommodate the diversity of human neurodevelopment. The pervasive stigma and misunderstanding surrounding neurodivergent behaviour further intensify feelings of isolation and distress for both students and their families (Kane, 2025; Milner et al., 2025). As a parent, it is painful to know that the lens through which my son is seen so often misses the child I know—the one trying his best to make sense of a world that rarely makes room for him.

    Arslan (2021) emphasized that a strong sense of belonging within schools is one of the most powerful protective factors for children’s mental health. When students are seen, heard, and accepted for who they are, they are more likely to experience emotional safety, build resilience, and engage meaningfully in learning. I want that for my son; not just to survive school, but to feel like he belongs there, to thrive.

    Unfortunately, research suggests that many neurodivergent students in Canada do not experience this sense of inclusion. A 2024 report by Children First Canada found that children and youth who report low levels of school belonging are significantly more likely to experience depression, anxiety, self-harm, and suicidal ideation. These risks are further amplified for those who experience additional marginalization based on race, gender identity, disability, or socioeconomic status. This tells us that inclusion is not just a moral imperative; it is essential to safeguarding youth mental health and preventing long-term harm.

    The Promise of Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

    UDL is a research-backed framework that builds flexibility into curriculum and environments, supporting all learners without needing retroactive accommodations. Although supported by CAST (2023) and federal accessibility strategies, BC’s implementation is inconsistent and lacks accountability.

    Several barriers hold BC back: there’s no enforceable mandate for UDL, limited professional development for educators, competing priorities within the education system, and fragmented, uneven adoption across districts. Additionally, a culture focused on reactive accommodations rather than proactive inclusion persists.

    BC has a clear opportunity to lead by creating stronger policies, investing in training and resources, and partnering authentically with families and neurodivergent communities. Without this, it is likely that many students and their families will continue to face avoidable barriers to success.

    I urge the Ministry to:

    1. Begin by mandating neurodiversity and disability inclusion training for educators and school personnel in select districts, to expand this requirement province-wide within three years.
    2. Phase in the implementation of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles across curricula and instructional planning, supported by ongoing professional development and appropriate resource allocation.
    3. Develop and require transparent and timely communication protocols with families regarding exclusions, challenges, and supports, starting with a standardized framework that can be adapted locally.
    4. Establish clear and accessible channels to hear and act on student voices, prioritizing neurodivergent youth, through student advisory groups or feedback mechanisms, with pilot programs in diverse school settings.
    5. Address intersecting forms of discrimination by partnering with community organizations to support neurodivergent students from marginalized backgrounds and integrate equity-focused practices in schools.
    6. Create robust accountability mechanisms to monitor and eliminate ableist practices, beginning with data collection and annual reporting to ensure transparency and progress.

    As a health professional, I understand the dynamics of power and oppression, the importance of relationship and co-regulation, the neurophysiology of trauma and how this impacts learning, the necessity of culturally responsive teaching to honour diverse identities, the role that executive function supports in fostering student autonomy, and the critical need for ongoing staff training to build neuroinclusive educational environments.

    While I hold this understanding as a clinician and as a parent, I also recognize that most families are navigating these challenges without the same lens or language to make sense of what’s happening.

    Imagine being a parent who doesn’t have these understandings—no clear explanation for why your child struggles, no framework to make sense of the trauma or the behaviours that others see as “problems.” You might feel isolated and unheard, trapped in a system that dismisses your child’s experience and your family’s pain.

    Regardless of a parent’s education, understanding, or support, can you imagine carrying the constant weight of advocacy, the fear that your child’s needs will never be met, and the heartbreak of feeling like you’re failing them—even when you’re doing everything you can. Every day brings anxiety and frustration as you fight to be seen and understood, while watching your child face judgement, exclusion, or punishment. Can you imagine?

    I respectfully urge the Ministry to take meaningful, systemic action to address these injustices and create an education system where neurodivergent children are not merely tolerated but genuinely included, valued, and empowered. The time for incremental change has passed. Our children deserve better—now. I welcome the opportunity to support these efforts and would be happy to connect further.

  • June – the Month of Exclusion

    We are coming up to the final month of the school year, June. June is a well-known month in our community as exclusion skyrockets. Countless parents and guardians receive last-minute phone calls or emails telling them that the school cannot support their child, or that it is in the best interest of their child not to join their class on the field trip. 

    June has a celebratory feel to it. With warmer weather, classes are heading outside more often to benefit from outdoor learning. Students are excited and looking forward to sports day activities, class field trips, overnight camps, and swim trips. 

    Suddenly, all of the barriers become evident, and schools take the easy way out – offloading their responsibilities onto families, hoping they won’t kick up a fuss. Many schools put expectations on parents to attend the field trip, and only then will their child be allowed to join the rest of the class. Parents are left scrambling to, yet again, take time off work. 

    It’s extremely upsetting to get those dreaded decisions from the school, made without consultation. Parents are then forced into last-minute and unexpected advocacy situations. Some parents, out of desperation, have taken their issues to the media, wanting to help others and raise public awareness. 

    Here are a couple of media articles on exclusion and field trips:

    Vancouver Sun – June 21st, 2023 – Langley girl with autism excluded from class field trip – until she wasn’t 

    Daily Hive News – June 9th, 2022 – Boy with autism excluded from kindergarten field trip

    Tracking exclusion is an important part of advocacy. We need data. 

    I will always remember attending a workshop where the Human Rights Commissioner was speaking. She talked about how important data was, and said, “We need to be undeniable.”

    The Exclusion Tracker was created by two mothers from the Surrey school district who recognized the issue, the need, and the importance of tracking this information. It is because of their ingenuity that exclusion has been tracked since 2018 – parents taking matters into their own hands and getting the work done. 

    BCEd Access now partners with the Family Support Institute in the management of our Exclusion Tracker. Family Support Institute has the staff and capacity to fully realize the tracker’s potential. 

    You can find the Exclusion Tracker through our website:

    Exclusion Tracker

    or directly on the FSI website:

    Exclusion Tracker on FSI Website

    We understand the emotional labour involved in filling out these surveys. We appreciate every parent who is somehow able to fit in one more task after already tackling what feels like a never-ending list of things to do each day. It is because of all of you that we can be undeniable. 

    Exclusion happens. The experience of having your child rejected and explicitly told they don’t belong with their class is heartbreaking. 

    Schools have a duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship. 

    It is because of parent advocacy – filing BC Ombudsperson complaints – that the Office of the BC Ombudsperson decided to start a systemic investigation, the first of its kind in Canada into school exclusion. 

    The survey for parents and guardians was originally set to close on April 1st, 2025. Due to the overwhelming response, it has been extended. As of May, the survey is also open to school staff. It is confidential; their employers will never know they filled it out. For the Fairness in Schools link to both surveys for parents and education staff, click here. 

    Filing complaints and completing exclusion surveys are a form of advocacy. They collect data. They let the larger systems know what is really happening. If we don’t speak up, no one will know. Exclusion cannot be a secret that no one talks about. From a systemic perspective, when you fill out the Exclusion Tracker, you make your experience count. The system now sees you and hears you.

    We thank all the parents who have filled out the Exclusion Tracker throughout the school year. If your family experiences any exclusion in the month of June – an especially high time for exclusion – please consider reporting it. If you have the capacity, we encourage you to submit to both the Exclusion Tracker and the BC Ombudsperson’s survey. But even completing just one makes a meaningful difference. Every story shared helps make exclusion visible and undeniable.

    If you want support, strategies to deal with exclusion, and insights from parents and guardians with lived experience, please join our Facebook group of over 6,400 members.

    Here is the Exclusion Tracker link. Thank you, FSI, for continuing this important work – and a huge thank you to the creative, driven mothers who started it. We stand on the shoulders of giants, carrying on their work and using it as a stepping stone to push our advocacy even farther. 

  • EAs Are Essential for Equitable Education

    The education system is in critical condition. After decades of chronic underfunding and COVID, we still haven’t recovered. The lower-hanging fruit on the tree was picked years ago. There is nothing left. So now we need to go deeper into – and higher up into – the tree.

    What does that actually mean? What does that look like day to day?

    It means districts are closing programs that support equitable learning for children who are neurodivergent, like CORE in Vancouver, MACC in Burnaby, learning centres in Surrey, etc. It also means education assistants (EAs) who are retiring or leaving are not being replaced. Surrey is expecting not to replace 50 EAs. (Media article – That’s not inclusive education.) New Westminster is looking to cut 20 EA roles.

    These program cuts are devastating. They connect students. They help students realize they aren’t alone in the world and that there are other kids who are just like them. That is worth a million dollars. To see yourself mirrored in someone else is priceless. It can be lifesaving.

    We have a few issues. The Ministry of Education does not allow school districts to categorize portable costs as capital expenses; they only allow them to be operational. Portables cost are close to $250,000 each for a new portal with installation. School districts receive funding from the Ministry for operational costs based on the number of students who attend and the designations of students with disabilities. So, if you are a parent with a child who has a funded designation – which all parents would love to have, by the way – your child’s support money could potentially be part of purchasing a new portable. A parent from the district has reported to us that Surrey spent around $7 million dollars just moving portables last year.

    EAs are already being assigned to multiple students in various classrooms. So when one EA role is cut, the impact is on multiple students.

    Please keep in mind that after a day of supporting students at school, many EAs are also parents – and many are parents of kids with disabilities. I was one of those parents, and I have to say, it was exhausting. You give everything at work, and then your transition time is travelling from work to home to start your second shift. I had to leave my EA role because I felt completely depleted at the end of the workday, and I didn’t have enough left to give to my kids. So I transitioned to an office role. I already had the background to make that possible – not something available to everyone. What a difference it made. For a while…

    I had a conversation with an EA a couple of years ago who had been working in the field for 30+ years, and she said the mental health of children since COVID is scary. She said to me, “I know this is going to sound horrible, but I don’t want grandchildren. I don’t want my grandbabies entering the school system.” I said to her, “Don’t feel bad. I feel exactly the same.” And I meant it. Everyone in our family is neurodivergent. I feel like I barely got my kids through this system. I don’t know that I have the capacity to support my grandchildren. How brutal is that?

    If you’re a parent and you feel like that conversation is a little bit much, and I’m being a little extreme, then you truly do not know what classrooms are like nowadays. Children are mirrors of how our society is functioning. It’s pretty clear: as a society, we are struggling. Some school areas are struggling more than others, but kids with disabilities are being pushed out of the system, and people are being traumatized across the province – staff included.

    Budgets are a hot topic right now. Parents who weren’t paying attention to budgets before are suddenly getting a slap of reality. Their kids’ band and school trips are being cancelled. If you are a parent of a child with a disability or diverse ability, you have most likely been struggling with advocacy for years, trying to grasp every resource you can for your child – and there just isn’t enough. Exclusion is high, and the Ombudsperson is launching a formal investigation. We cannot express our gratitude enough. It has felt like the Titanic has been sinking, and everyone up to this point has been checking to see if there’s lead in the paint and if the doorknobs are still working. Great. Meanwhile, the Titanic continues to sink.

    Parents have been pulling their kids out of brick-and-mortar schools and enrolling them in online options as a way to toss their children onto a lifeboat. Realizing there were no other options, many have left. Many parents, unable to work, are racking up their credit cards to pay for food, wondering how they will pay rent. Single mothers with a child facing exclusion – what are they supposed to do? Tell me. How are they supposed to live? On disability? Funded by the government? Legislated poverty. How does that make logical sense? People in our Facebook group post about these issues.

    I have had parents in various professions call me. They tell me how nervous they are about making a mistake at work because they work in pharmacies counting pills, as nurses giving medications, or as front-line emergency staff. They are so preoccupied mentally – constantly thinking about their child’s education problems – and they are lacking so much sleep because of the stress. They are barely hanging on. They love their jobs and don’t want to leave, but they are terrified of making a mistake. This is good for society?

    My husband had someone new start at his work a couple of years ago. They came from the USA. They lasted in Canada for a month. They moved back to the States because their son is Autistic and he gets more support in the U.S. than he did in Canada. The difference was such a shock to this family. This person was a rockstar in their profession, but they couldn’t stay here. So they left.

    Here are a list of some of the tasks that parents are reporting their child need EAs for:

    Scribe support, note taking, pull out academic support for kids with learning disabilities

    –          Communication (Signing EAs for Deaf/Hard-of-hearing/Deaf-Blind students, using communication boards and pic symbols, implementing communication programs designed by SLPs)

    –          Support for accessing washrooms and other physical and medical needs

    –          Safety – eloping, medical reasons, supervision at lunch for all children

    –          Supervision – for everything required to keep a child physically, mentally and emotionally safe

    –          Emotional regulation – co-regulation, de-escalation

    –          Facilitating communication and socialization between the student and their peers

    –          Implementation of academic strategies in elementary – if students are lucky

    –          Chunking and breaking down work; support for academics in high schools

    –          Sensory breaks – if these didn’t happen, some kids would not be able to be in school

    –          Braille translation

    –          Supervision of movement breaks

    –          Anxiety management

    –          Reading support

    –          Math support

    –          Social support

    Remove the adult, and none of this would be possible, which means many kids would not be able to physically attend school.

    AND – I would like to add that there is a whole host of things that EAs do every day that are not part of their job. They are filling the holes in the system. Lots of things land in their lap, and they are doing them because – if not them, then who?

    Here are some things that parents from our Facebook group have commented that their child needs an EA for:

    “Without EA’s, my daughter wouldn’t be able to go to public school. She would have to be home and isolated from friends, as kids who had Type 1 Diabetes before her did. Our EA’s take on enormous responsibility with a steep learning curve. Without their courage, their understanding, and their patience- we’d have no alternative. Like parents do at their child’s diagnosis, EA’s suddenly become nurses (with no degree or pay to reflect this) and they’re suddenly doing medical therapies they likely never thought they’d have to do. Kids with Type 1 often have medical emergencies at school, where acting fast and knowing what to do is very key to the child’s survival. They’re being asked to provide injections of a very potent medicine into kids, to stab their little fingers to read their blood sugars, to learn to count carbohydrates and how to calculate insulin doses. They’re being asked to create routine in one of the most chaotic environments possible, and they manage to make it work. These EA’s are also helping kids cope with the emotional backpack they’ll forever have to carry, which allows them to just be kids for a while, without worrying about taking on this burden of care while at school. EA’s don’t ever seem to get the recognition from their employers on how important they are to children in their care – they’re keeping them alive! There isn’t enough wine & chocolates in the world that I could buy them to thank them for everything they do for us. ” – Anonymous parent

    “My son requires access to sensory room daily. It is in his IEP. This year it took until November to get an EA available to be able to give him and another student in his class access to sensory room daily.” – Anonymous parent

    “EA support was pulled in January 2025 when EA left the district and has not been replaced. My son requires access scribe support. It’s in his IEP. Teacher is unable to accommodate being regular scribe and there is no EA available for his classroom. This means he cannot complete or participate in classroom work.” – Anonymous parent

    “Son was referred to Gifted enrichment program. He requires EA support to attend. Including access to scribe. There is no EA support available for this program and so he could not participate this year.” – Anonymous parent

    “My kids have stopped attending school but the only way they were able to attend was with one-to-one EA support. They needed someone to greet them and help them find their way in and get settled, and they needed the co-regulation and the option to leave the room as needed with a safe and trusted adult.” – Anonymous parent

    “If my kiddo didn’t have his full time EA’s he wouldn’t be going to public school period. They help him achieve his best every day he’s at school, through good and difficult times. They help with him being able to stay in the classroom, they help with scribing , helping with social situations on the playground, so much that they do.” – Anonymous parent

    “My son is in gr 5 and at a gr 1 reading / writing level.. EAs are essential in assisting with academics, breaking down the questions, scribing. Helping organize thoughts with and putting it onto paper, clarifying instruction, engaging/ encouraging social encounters with peers.” – Anonymous parent

    “My son grade 6, has a lot of safety concerns, Constantly needs reminders as he likes to feel certain texture in his mouth, he forget to wash his hands after using the washroom, He has few words, but he doesn’t ask for help, or request for food and water, without 1:1 support, he will be completely lost.” – Anonymous parent

    “Our morning transition can be very challenging, with heightened anxiety and often school refusal. EA support for transition help from the parking lot into the school can mean the difference between attending or not”. – Anonymous parent

    “EAs are 100% essential to both my sons attending school and learning. One who uses a wheelchair and has low vision and nonspeaking – his EAs need to help with everything, help him be included, and adapt learning to his needs. There is no way a classroom teacher could do that – and the rest of their job. My other guy has behaviour concerns that require at least 1:2 support and without EA support, I know he would be suspended or otherwise excluded from school. My kids’ EAs are the reason they are learning and thriving at school- it’s an absolutely essential job… legally essential to provide an equitable education! Plus – peace of mind for me because I trust our EAs so I can carry on with my workday knowing my kids are in good hands. We need MORE EAs and give em all a big fat raise too!” – Anonymous parent

    “We had a huge cuts last year in our district and the school I primarily work at has 90 IEP‘s and eight education assistance. My son who is one to one was not getting his work done at school because of “staffing breaks, and not enough coverage“ the shortage also resulted in the school, not loading his AAC device with appropriate vocabulary so he could participate in all his classes. So now we are doing academics at home and he is only going to brick and mortar part time. this week because of further shortages and looking into the future with more EA cuts, LRT‘s are actually giving children who are neurodivergent the choice of support or suggesting to the students they can do it on their own. these students technically are given the choice of whether or not they won’t support if they choose not to have support. These are kids that will do nothing and likely learn nothing without having support.” – Anonymous Parent

    EAs play a very important role. Our children need EAs who are properly trained—not just a two-week program. That is nowhere near enough. We need EA standards. We need EAs to receive the training, investment, and respect that their profession deserves. They are professionals.

    Every child has a human right to access an equitable education. This is supported by legislation and case law. The law needs to be applied and upheld – absorbed by the system – in order for it to be enforced and acted upon. Children who are neurodivergent should not have their programs cut first. They are not the lower-hanging fruit.

    David Eby made an election promise for an EA in every class from Kindergarten to grade 3. How does the provincial government plan on implementing this and when?

    BCEdAccess is placing a call out for human rights lawyers. We are looking to expand a referral list for parents. This is where we are. With no options left, we need to use external complaint systems to enforce our children’s rights. Class action human rights complaints are being considered.

    Parents took the Ministry of Education in Alberta to court. The EAs were on strike.

    Kerber v Alberta, 2025 ABKB 98 

    https://www.ctvnews.ca/edmonton/article/parents-take-province-to-court-over-order-keeping-some-kids-out-of-classrooms-during-strike

    [152]      The Charter guarantees equal access to education for all students; the corollary effect is that the equitable principle must be applied in times of labour or resource shortages.  Here, what is apparent is that there was no consideration of how the reduced resources could be redistributed among all students.  It was assumed that minimal disruption to the system would result by targeting only a subset of students – those who use an EA. However, this approach failed to consider that non-disabled students might suffer the least amount of harm since they do not have the same disadvantages as the students with disabilities and could adapt to an at-home learning program more easily, i.e., some non-disabled students switch to at-home learning to free up more resources for complex-needs students, or some of them, to attend school in-person even with the EAs presently unavailable.

    EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES MUST BE APPLIED IN TIMES OF LABOUR OR RESOURCE SHORTAGES. 

    So this tells us: whatever the resources are that are being handed out by the government, they must be equitably distributed.

    We know from The Student (by the parent) v. The School District, 2025 BCHRT 17

    Not having an EA can be an accepted human rights complaint.

    So…we can see from these cases we have protections in place under the Human Rights Code and the Charter that apply to access to EAs in education.

    If there are any lawyers who would like to be added to our referral list, please contact BCEdAccess at secretary@bcedaccess.com (Please add our email address as a contact so that our response to you does not go in your spam).

    Please reach out to BCEdAccess and let us know. We are always actively seeking consultation and advisory services.

  • Scarcity in Education = Harmful Work & Learning Environments

    Our education has been chronically underfunded by our provincial government for decades. There are multiple points of impact.

    “According to that 2021 data, BC allocates just 3 percent of its GPP to K-12 education, while Manitoba allocates 4.9 percent, Nova Scotia 4.4 percent, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island 4.2 percent, Quebec 4.1 percent, New Brunswick 4 percent, Ontario 3.8 percent and Alberta 3.3 percent. This smaller percentage means BC school boards have less funding available for student support and to provide up-to-date, adequate and safe school buildings.” As stated by Patti Bacchus in her article for CCPA Feb 5th, 2025.

    Beyond the obvious impacts on children, systems function differently when resources are scarce. Limited resources change how people interact and behave at the most primal survival levels. There are already many scholarly reports on how scarcity affects decision-making and neuropathways.  Scarcity is when there are limited resources and people are not getting what they need.  Animal and human behaviour change in these environments. When something is scarce, people will put a higher value on it. People use social capital, aggression, secrecy or whatever strategies they can to obtain those limited resources for their own unfulfilled needs. This is evolution and not a personality deficit.

    Whittling the education system to bare bones and creating such a stressful environment of such limited resources turns Mary Poppins into Cruella Deville.  Work environments become toxic. People are set up to fail. It is not personal: it is systemic design. Evolutionary instincts kick in, and not the kind ones. Stress bubbles burst. Pushed to their limits, constantly trying to regulate in impossible environments – people snap. Children included. Recruiting and retaining quality educators for any length of time is challenging. This will have more of an impact on students with disabilities and those in marginalized communities. I repeat: this will have MORE of an impact on students with disabilities and those in marginalized communities.

    Understaffing is a form of scarcity. When there are not enough people to fill the job duties that are required for functioning, and people need to step over their own job description boundaries to fill in for other people’s work, that has multiple direction points of impact. If it is chronic, then you’ll see the ripple effects of scarcity.  Work environments become unhealthy and over time people become very dissatisfied with their work, ultimately pushing them out of the system and creating a deeper wedge in the cycle. It just goes on and on.  Underqualified staff just filling “the body” in the role, is not the solution.  Take a look at the number of job postings for school districts and take a look at the ones that are just continuously on repeat.  The districts are all in the same basket. When you are struggling with high rates of staff absenteeism, that is an indication of a sick work environment. People are decreasing the amount of time they come to work just to keep themselves afloat and try and sustain themselves in such a stressful environment.

    Parents are very aware that a teacher’s working environment is our children’s learning environment. We want happy teachers and EAs. We NEED happy teachers and EAs. We don’t want stressed-out educators who are pushed to their emotional capacity limits. This benefits no one.

    This current education environment is not sustainable. We are in a crisis. There are multiple factors creating all of this, and it all comes back and lands in the lap of the government. They have not kept up with capital funding for the enrollment growth that school districts are experiencing. This has forced districts to implement a 5-day block schedule for some high schools to avoid paying for portables. The Ministry won’t allow portables to be a capital expense, and it has to come from their operating budgets. Schools are overcrowded. Portable costs are massive expenses removed from funding originally designated for students. This year, operating grant amounts are also only increasing by 1%. Typically they are 2 or 3%. Don’t be misled by statements of additional funding. That is because the number of students with disabilities and diverse abilities is also increasing. More staff are needed, and instead, districts are forced to cut supports.

    Articles have been written about the financial crisis in education for years. This is not something coming down the line, something in our future; we are here. It has already arrived, and it is only getting worse. The budgets that school districts are being forced to manipulate will ensure that our children’s days are more complex and they have more unmet needs. Students with disabilities and neurodiversity are seriously harmed, and parents are dealing with children who are traumatized. Members in our Facebook group are reporting that their children are showing symptoms of PTSD.

    The chronic underfunding is creating a petri dish of mental health issues for students and staff. The limited support cannot keep up with the demand, complexity and intensity.

    Crowded classrooms push kids with disabilities and neurodiversity out the door. Lack of properly trained staff and staff emotionally struggling to manage their jobs pushes kids with disabilities and neurodiversity out the door.  We are the canary in the coal mine. We are telling you, screaming at all of you, the canary is dying, and the government is still continuing on.

    I am embarrassed to be an adult right now. I feel the need to apologize to every student on behalf of adults my age who are in government, making decisions. Failed election promises. I can’t justify their decisions, and I can’t explain why they do not understand the short-term and long-term effects on society by not properly funding an education system. The education system is designed by human beings. It’s not a natural phenomenon that occurs in nature. We are making conscious decisions every day to maintain this current system. It is THE system of all systems that creates and shapes our society. The decision-making of those in power who decide on policy and legislation directly impact how the money is spent in education and how much is given out. It defies all logic. It’s not even logical decision-making. I shake my head and throw my hands up in the air because it makes zero sense. I cannot explain this, and school trustees cannot explain it either.

    To all of the students out there who are struggling, wondering why the world thinks it’s okay to just watch you float away. Parents, guardians, teacher organizations, other adults…we are all trying.  We are trying so hard. No one is giving up. We see that you are trying too! I can’t promise you anything, I can just promise you that I will never give up. Lots and lots of people are not giving up. The number of people advocating in education is growing.

    To the adults out there who are working so hard trying to make a difference. This is the final hour. We ride at dawn. What does riding at dawn with people who already work 9-5 look like? Our pen is our sword. We need to be relentlessly communicating our concerns to our MLA. They need to listen to their constituents and voice our concerns through their position. They are the ones who step through the wormhole and enter the legislative building. They are the ones communicating behind closed doors with their political party members. If they don’t hear from us, they assume there aren’t any issues.

    Find out who your MLA is and email, call or visit their offices. Effectively communicating our needs is the art of advocacy. Holding our politicians accountable for broken election promises is a part of democracy.

    The pipeline from a failed education system to the prison system is alive and well. I see it at my work every single day.

    Contact your MLA. If you don’t have the spoons to write a letter yourself, send them the link to the blog and tell them that you support the message behind this blog.

    Every adult in a position of power and privilege needs to be talking about the topic of a chronic, underfunded, toxic education system functioning in scarcity. Lowest funding in all of Canada. By human design. Completely illogical.

  • In the Media

    The Tyee, wrote an article that was posted today April 8th, 2025.

    BCEdAccess was invited to weigh in on a subject that parents have been struggling to see changes in from school districts across this province, with previous suggestions for changes in the survey often being ignored or justified to parents. We thank the parents who contact The Tyee. It was time to bring this issue out into the public.

    “Ranking spending decisions for children with disabilities and diverse abilities against infrastructure maintenance in a public voting system is offensive and should not be socially acceptable,” wrote Kim Block, chair of BCEdAccess’ board of directors, in a statement emailed to The Tyee.“

    With budget submissions due to the Ministry, these kinds of conversations can reveal what society considers socially acceptable.

    Survey Says… Inclusive Education Shouldn’t Be a Budget Question

    Asking if supports for disabled students are a priority sends the wrong message, say critics.

    Read the article to see what parents, BCEdAccess and school districts have to say about the subject.

    https://thetyee.ca/News/2025/04/08/Survey-Says-Inclusive-Education/

  • BCEdAccess Extends their Gratitude to the BCSTA

    On March 18th the BC School Trustee Association released a new resource guide.  This is the first of its kind.


    From the BCSTA website:

    “[Vancouver, BC – March 18, 2025] – The BC School Trustees Association (BCSTA) is pleased to announce the release of its report, Improving Student Outcomes: For Students with Disabilities and Diverse Abilities, developed by the BCSTA’s Inclusion and Accessibility Working Group. This report is an essential tool in educating school boards about inclusive education, providing critical insights into the current challenges and opportunities in supporting students with disabilities and diverse abilities.”

    This is a big deal.

    It’s not just another resource manual.

    This is coming from the top.  We vote our school trustees into their leadership roles. Voting for anti-oppressive trustees is one of the most influential moves we can make to impact our children’s education.

    School trustees are the ones who set the tone and the expectations of school districts. They create the policies, make section 11 decisions, and balance the budgets. Just to name a fraction of their responsibilities and impact. They are involved in community committees that extend beyond the walls of the classrooms. If school districts were ponds, trustees are the ones setting the temperature of the water.

    Systemic change takes a long time. It is continuous emotional labour. It takes multiple teams of people. An all hands on deck approach. We need allies. The disability community can’t do this work alone, and we shouldn’t be the only ones shouldering the responsibility of advocating for inclusivity and the rights of children with disability and neurodiversity. There isn’t going to be one solution. It takes a multi-layered approach involving many points of impact.

    Improving the lives of children with disabilities and neurodiversity in schools and providing them an equitable education is going to involve school trustees, administration associations, teachers’ associations, teacher training programs, all unions, PACs, parents, students, etc, etc etc. Every group is going to need to do their part to create inclusive environments.

    The BCSTA just took a big leap in trying to change the temperature of the water.

    We all need to work together. 

    It sounds cheesy, but it’s true.  There is no other way. Otherwise, our pursuit for inclusion will never really be. Changing the hearts and minds of people, the whole education system and everyone in it takes dedication from all connected groups.  We are impacted by so many teams of people who are all decision makers, all with their own stake in education. Envision gears all interlocked together. Change one gear and it will impact the others. We need to be embraced by all of these groups. The topic of ableism that is acknowledged in this report is unique from other resources and guides. The focus and acknowledgement of human rights is powerful rights-based advocacy.

    BCEdAccess is grateful for the high quality of work that went into this resource. The disability community clearly wasn’t just a passing thought in this creation. We hope that this resource propels conversations forward and is embraced by all school boards across BC. Let this inspire and model to other provinces across Canada, a call to action.

    Here is the full report. https://bcsta.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2024-Inclusion-and-Accessibility-Working-Group-Report-Final-Release.pdf

    Here is their website outlining the intentions behind the creation of this resource guide. https://bcsta.org/new-resource-for-school-boards-to-improve-outcomes-for-students-with-disabilities-and-diverse-abilities/

    Movement is happening. We have the Ombudsperson BC investigation for exclusion happening. Teacher associations have been speaking up for inclusion. Human rights decisions in education are advancing the Human Rights Code. Accessibility committees in school districts have established processes. Accountability will be in place in the future connected to the Accessibility Act. School boards have this new resource guide. While we acknowledge their is much work to do, gears are shifting.

    Many thanks,

  • Lived Experience as Evidence of Systemic Neglect

    The parents who are part of our BCEd Access community are all wanting an equitable education for their children. Our goals are just like all parents. We all want our kids to learn, play and thrive at a school with their peers, just like everyone else. 

    The report that was released on January 29th at 11 am by the Office of The Representatives for Children and Youth, exposes the reality that our families are facing. This report should be shocking to society, but it is not shocking to us. Our Facebook group is a space where parents post questions and seek information and advice about how to respond to the issues they are dealing with in their child’s school. We see the statistical data and qualitative stories of the report live out in front of our eyes.  

    We need action. The awareness piece has been achieved. The RCY has written many comprehensive reports.  In fact, as noted in this report, they have written 18 of these reports in the last 20 years (p. 15).

    We need government systemic action. This report shows the conscious systemic neglect. It’s inhumane, discriminatory and ableist. 

    From the report:

    “The lack of a timely assessment means that many children are not diagnosed before they enter school. Therefore, they miss out on receiving essential early intervention services prior to school entry because many of the key services within the current MCFD CYSN system such as the At Home Program or Autism Funding require a diagnosis or an assessment of eligibility to access.” (p. 32)

    “The absence of early intervention services before entering school often leaves many children unprepared. It also can delay their inclusive education designation, which could grant access to additional educational support. This further burdens teachers, who are already stretched beyond reasonable capacity and unable to fully address these children’s needs.” (p.33)

    “When more children enter the school system unprepared, schools are often unable to provide the services they need. Families have told RCY that, as a result, some of these children may be allowed to attend school only part-time, others are excluded for months, and still others are excluded altogether. The latest report on public school exclusions of children and youth with disabilities from BCEd Access reveals that there was a 173 percent increase in reported exclusions lasting over 4 months in 2022/23, compared to 2021/22.43 In addition the BC Ombudsperson has recently announced that they are undertaking an investigation into school exclusion, which is an indication of the significant systemic concern.” (p.33)

     “Once a child is excluded from school, it not only impacts their future educational and social development opportunities but also places additional pressure on families who must once more take on additional responsibilities and stressors to care for their children, while often not being eligible for supports provided by other systems.” (p.33)

    “79 percent of caregivers reported they either had to leave their job or reduce their hours of work to care for their child with a disability, or they had to increase their employment to pay for the services their child needs, pushing families into poverty and impacting caregivers’ future career development, mental health, and well-being;”  (p.35)

    Whatever short-term financial savings the government may be making from continuing to ignore addressing these systemic problems in our education system, surely cannot compare to the enormous long-term economic and social costs of not supporting children with disabilities and their families.

    We deeply appreciate the work and commitment that RCY has for producing these reports as they are documenting the systemic neglect from our government.

    A part of advocacy is shining a light on what those in power want to shove in the dark. 

    Here are some media links.

    The Tyee – Report’s Recommendations for Disabled Kids are ‘Urgent,’ Advocate Says

    Vancouver Sun – Staggering number of families struggle in B.C.’s system for disabled kids: advocate

    IndigiNews – With families ‘beyond their breaking point,’ watchdog calls on ‘B.C’ to support young people with disabilities

    Here is the recent Ombudsperson announcement with their recent systemic investigation on exclusion. 

    https://bcombudsperson.ca/news_release/ombudsperson-investigating-exclusion-of-students-from-bc-public-schools/

    “Whenever one person stands up and says ‘wait a minute, this is wrong,’ it helps other people do the same” – Gloria Steinem

    BCEd Access stands with the RCY and other organizations advocating for an equitable accessible society. It’s time for the government to respond with a plan and action. They have a long list of recommendations to choose from. Pick a few. Start somewhere.  

    Here is the full report:

    Click to access CYD_Final_Jan29.pdf

  • Investigation by Ombudsperson BC – Exclusion

    BC Ed Access is deeply appreciative of the announcement made by the Office of the Ombudsperson BC today.

    This is hope.

    A piece of the puzzle, that offers hope of awareness.  The investigation is questioning whether the exclusions of students with disabilities were “fair”. With a public report to come.

    Judith Heumann, the late disability activist has said “Change never happens at the pace we think it should. It happens over years of people joining together, strategizing, sharing and pulling all the levers they possibly can. Gradually, excruciating slowly, things start to happen, and then suddenly, seemingly out of the blue, something will tip.”

    Families, it is time to get loud.

    To be heard.

    To share our stories and give Ombudsperson BC a peak into the education system that we are all exposed to. The reality that is specific to our lived experience. Often hidden in the shadows, it is our time to be heard beyond the community organizations on the front lines that are hearing our stories all the time.

    Advocating to change systemic issues requires relentless focus from multiple teams of people.

    It has required parents to make complaints. Filing external complaints is a form of advocacy. By advocating for our own children, we create awareness of systemic issues. If one person filed a complaint, it might not matter. But if 500 people complain, now we get someone’s attention.

    As stated on the Ombudsperson website,

    “Our office has received complaints from across the province about children, including those with disabilities, being excluded from school with little or no instruction,” said Chalke. “We will examine the extent to which K-12 students are being excluded from schools across the province and whether those exclusions are fair. We will assess the role of the Ministry of Education and Child Care and school districts in these exclusions.”

    Each parent who filed an Ombudsperson complaint had no idea how many other parents were also filing for the exact same reason. But they did it anyway. This is evidence that your voice matters. That every complaint builds up over time.

    And then…something tips…

    Here is the news announcement

    https://bcombudsperson.ca/news_release/ombudsperson-investigating-exclusion-of-students-from-bc-public-schools/

    Here is the questionnaire – OPEN UNTIL APRIL 1st

    https://bcombudsperson.ca/school-exclusion

    Please share this far and wide.

    You can also phone in or email if the questionnaire doesn’t work for you, and they are open to other options of receiving your information.  

    BC Ed Access will be making this announcement and questionnaire a permanent page on our website for as long as they are investigating and gathering information. 

    To the many parents who filed the Ombudsperson complaints, to make this happen… we thank you!

    Media

    https://globalnews.ca/video/10961518/allegations-some-kids-excluded-from-education-in-b-c-prompts-investigation

    https://thetyee.ca/News/2025/01/16/BC-Ombudsperson-Investigating-Exclusion-Kids-School/

    https://vancouversun.com/feature/inhumane-bc-children-disabilities-excluded-from-school-classes-activities

Recent Posts

All posts

Translate

Support Our Work

Donate

Top Posts & Pages