The school says interventions must be ‘evidence-based.’ What does that mean?

The conventional model of evidence-based practice brings together three sources of knowledge:

1. Research evidence: What credible studies tell us about an intervention’s effectiveness, limitations and potential risks.
2. Professional expertise: The judgement required to interpret research and apply it appropriately.
3. Individual evidence: The student’s needs, preferences, circumstances, experiences and responses to the intervention.

These sources of knowledge are intended to inform one another. A study might demonstrate that a particular intervention improves classroom participation for a group of students. That finding can help educators decide whether the approach is worth considering. But the study cannot establish in advance whether the intervention will work for every student, whether it addresses a particular child’s barriers, or whether its outcomes are meaningful to that child.

Evidence that an intervention can produce a particular result is not the same as evidence that it is appropriate for everyone.

Peer-reviewed research is an important source of evidence, but it is not the only information relevant to accommodation decisions. Research may be limited, particularly for students with complex or overlapping disabilities, uncommon support needs, or circumstances that differ from those represented in published studies.

The absence of a published study examining a particular accommodation does not automatically mean that the accommodation is inappropriate. For example, a student may need access to a quiet space, flexible attendance, an alternative communication method or permission to eat during class. The appropriateness of these accommodations depends on the student’s disability-related needs and the barriers they encounter, not simply on whether a controlled study has evaluated that exact arrangement.

Schools should consider the best available evidence, including professional knowledge, the student’s experiences, family observations, and information from relevant healthcare professionals. Research should inform individualised decision-making, not replace it.

An intervention may be effective for some students without being appropriate for every student. Research typically examines outcomes across a particular population. Individual students may differ in their disability-related needs, communication, sensory experiences, learning profiles, and responses to stress.

For example, a reward system intended to increase classroom attendance may work well for some students. But for a student whose classroom avoidance is related to sensory overload, anxiety or previous experiences of humiliation, rewards may not address the underlying barrier.

The school may be attempting to increase attendance when the more important question is what makes attendance inaccessible. The relevant question is not simply whether the intervention has worked elsewhere, but whether it is appropriate and effective for this student.

Families can ask what evidence the school is using to determine that the intervention is suitable, how the student’s response will be monitored and what alternatives will be considered if it is not working.

This is an important consideration when evaluating whether an accommodation is effective. Imagine a school introduces a behavioural intervention intended to increase the amount of time a student remains in class. The student begins staying in class longer. By the intervention’s chosen measure, this appears successful. But the student also develops escalating anxiety, becomes increasingly reluctant to attend school, experiences stomach pain. and struggles to eat because of stress. The intervention may have improved one measurable outcome while creating several additional barriers.

These outcomes cannot be evaluated independently.One useful way to think about this is net accessibility: whether an intervention improves the student’s overall access to education after considering both its benefits and the barriers it creates.

An intervention that increases classroom attendance temporarily but contributes to prolonged school avoidance may ultimately reduce educational access. Likewise, a strategy that produces quiet compliance while increasing distress may make a classroom easier to manage without making it more accessible.

Not every difficult experience constitutes harm, and the cause of emerging difficulties may require investigation. But significant or persistent distress should prompt the school to reconsider whether the intervention remains appropriate.

An intervention should not be considered successful simply because it achieves its target. We must also ask what it costs the child to achieve it.

A disability justice approach begins by asking what prevents the student from accessing education and what needs to change. A student who repeatedly leaves the classroom may be experiencing sensory overload, communication barriers, social exclusion, unmet learning needs, or distress associated with previous experiences. Leaving the classroom may be the most visible behaviour, but it is not necessarily the underlying problem.

If the school responds with consequences for leaving, it may suppress the student’s response without addressing the conditions that made leaving necessary.

A barrier-removal approach might instead involve:

• Adjusting the sensory environment.
• Changing how instructions are communicated.
• Providing reliable access to a trusted adult.
• Allowing flexible participation or breaks.
• Addressing harmful interactions with peers or staff.
• Changing expectations or routines that create disability-related barriers.

These changes may not produce immediate compliance. They may, however, create the conditions in which participation becomes possible and sustainable. The purpose of accommodation is not to make disability less visible. It is to remove or reduce barriers that prevent disabled students from participating equitably.

Learn more in Understanding the Duty to Accommodate.

Yes. In British Columbia, disability discrimination in public education is prohibited under section 8 of the BC Human Rights Code. Schools have a duty to provide reasonable accommodation for disability-related needs, up to the point of undue hardship.

This obligation requires consideration of the individual student’s circumstances. Following a standard program, using a recognised intervention or implementing a strategy supported by research does not automatically establish that the school has met its duty.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61, is foundational. The Court recognised that special education is a means by which students with disabilities obtain meaningful access to general education. The relevant issue is not simply whether a school offers some form of support, but whether the student has meaningful access to education.

This does not mean that schools must guarantee a particular outcome or provide every requested accommodation. The law asks us to consider the disability-related impact, the circumstances, the school’s response, and whether any failure to accommodate can be justified. However, a school cannot rely solely on the fact that an intervention is evidence-based to establish that it is appropriate for a particular student.

For more information, see Understanding the Duty to Accommodate.

Information from students and families is relevant evidence when assessing disability-related barriers and the effectiveness of accommodations. Published research can tell educators what tends to work across a population. It cannot establish exactly how an individual student will respond. A student’s account of distress, a parent’s observations about deteriorating attendance, or changes in the student’s ability to eat, sleep or participate may provide important information about the consequences of an intervention. These observations do not automatically prove that the intervention caused the difficulties. They do provide reasons to investigate.

Where a school knows, or reasonably ought to know, that a student may be experiencing disability-related barriers, its responsibility may include making further inquiries rather than simply continuing its existing approach. Schools do not necessarily have to agree with every interpretation or implement every requested change. They should, however, meaningfully consider relevant information and respond appropriately.

Schools may refer to implementation fidelity, which means delivering an intervention consistently with its intended design. Fidelity can be important when evaluating whether an intervention is being implemented effectively. However, it is not the same as demonstrating that the intervention is appropriate for an individual student.

For example, staff might believe they must continue a behavioural intervention consistently before deciding whether it works, even though the student is experiencing increasing distress. This creates a risk that the intervention’s prescribed process becomes more important than the student’s experience. Consistency does not remove the duty to consider individual disability-related needs. Where an intervention creates barriers, the school may need to adapt it, select an alternative or reconsider its underlying objective.

The intervention is supposed to serve the student. The student is not supposed to endure an inappropriate intervention to preserve the integrity of a program.

Teachers exercise professional judgement when selecting instructional methods, classroom strategies, and assessment approaches. However, professional autonomy does not override a student’s human rights. A strategy that is generally appropriate for a classroom may require modification when it creates disability-related barriers for an individual student.

Teachers should communicate relevant concerns, implement agreed accommodations within their responsibilities, monitor how students respond, and work with the school team when changes are needed. This does not mean that teachers must independently solve every accommodation problem. School districts retain responsibility for delivering educational services in accordance with human rights law, and teachers require appropriate support and resources.

The question is whether the school team is responding to the student’s needs, rather than simply maintaining a preferred intervention.

See BCEdAccess’s Understanding the Role of Teachers and EAs.

An Individual Education Plan (IEP) can help identify barriers, document accommodations, and establish meaningful goals. But measurable goals are not necessarily appropriate goals. For example, an IEP might state that a student will remain in class for 80% of instructional time. This is measurable, but it does not explain why the student leaves, whether remaining in the classroom is accessible, or whether increased attendance improves learning.

If the student stays in class while experiencing escalating distress, the goal may be achieved without addressing the underlying barrier. A more useful approach may include identifying the conditions that support participation and evaluating whether those conditions are improving.

For example:

• Does the student have reliable access to agreed sensory or regulation supports?
• Can the student communicate when the environment becomes overwhelming?
• Are staff responding consistently and respectfully to signs of distress?
• Is the student developing greater safety, connection, and agency at school?
• Is participation becoming more sustainable over time?

The goal is not to abandon measurable outcomes. It is to ensure that the outcomes being measured reflect meaningful educational access.

Families do not need to reject the research behind an intervention to question whether it is appropriate for their child.

Useful questions include:

1. What barrier is this intervention intended to address? Is it addressing the underlying accessibility issue or simply changing visible behaviour?
2. What evidence supports its use for my child? Does the research apply to students with comparable needs and circumstances?
3. How are you measuring success? Are you evaluating meaningful educational access or only compliance, attendance, or task completion?
4. What unintended effects are being monitored? Are you considering anxiety, physical symptoms, eating, school avoidance, and other aspects of participation?
5. How is my child’s experience being considered? What opportunities does the student have to communicate whether the intervention is helping?
6. When will the intervention be reviewed? What evidence would lead the school to change or discontinue it?

Families can ask that the answers be documented in the student’s accommodation plan or IEP, including who is responsible for reviewing progress and when that review will happen.

Start by documenting the barriers and explaining how the intervention appears to be affecting your child’s access to education. Describe specific observations where possible, such as changes in attendance, increased anxiety, physical symptoms, difficulty eating, loss of participation, or the student’s own account of their experience. Ask the school to review the intervention, consider alternatives, and explain how it is meeting your child’s disability-related needs.

You can also request a meeting to review the IEP or accommodation plan. If the school maintains that the intervention must continue, ask for its reasons in writing, including how it has considered the new barriers, and what steps it will take to address them. Where concerns remain unresolved, families may consider the school district’s complaint and appeal processes or other available remedies, depending on the circumstances.

See BCEdAccess’s Filing Complaints and Appeals.