(Halifax, NS) Liberal Education Critic Leo Glavine will today
introduce a bill in the legislature that would continue and expand
tuition support for special needs students until the public education
system can provide an equivalent level of support.
Tuition support assists students with special needs by contributing to
the cost of education at three designated private special education
schools. Students are currently eligible for three years of funding, at
which time they are transitioned back into the public system.
In August, the education minister’s review panel on special education
recommended that tuition support be phased out by 2010 and funds
redirected back into the public school system.
“The government has an obligation to meet the requirements of the
Education Act and provide equal education to all students, regardless of
their abilities. As a former educator, I believe in a strong public
school system. But the reality is that the system is failing those that
need our help the most.”
Liberals want tuition support agreements amended so that school boards
are required to provide financial support to eligible students, until it
is determined that their needs can be met in a public school.
Glavine says the three year limit is inadequate. “We’re talking
about special needs students, including those with learning
disabilities, who may require more than three years of specialized
services. The government is trying to squeeze child into the same mold
and it isn’t working. Some of our children are falling through the
cracks. Every student deserves access to an education that meets his or
her needs but the current program makes every student fit into the same
inadequate program.”
Liberals have been calling on the government to address the
shortcomings of the public education system, beginning with a full range
of assessment in the primary year of schooling for early detection of
learning disabilities. They have also proposed restoring special
educators to the public system for those students with severe learning
disabilities requiring special one-on-one education.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
EEANS PRESENTATION TO THE MINISTER’S SPECIAL EDUCATION REVIEW COMMITTEE-APRIL 23, 2007
The Equal Education Association of Nova Scotia was formed in January 2006 and represents numerous parents and professionals in Nova Scotia. We are advocates for children with learning disabilities to help ensure that they receive a fair and equal education.
The Tuition Support Program
“We want to ensure that each student is receiving a quality education. This review team will identify our successes and where we can do more.” Minister of Education, Karen Casey
The Tuition Support Program is one of those successes. And as such a success, we need to strive to expand it to benefit more children.
No doubt you have heard stories of children in the back of classrooms struggling to keep up, of children who lost their hunger to learn, of waiting lists for resource class help, and of parents who were denied IPP’s even though their child has been professionally diagnosed with a learning disability. Why?
Designated Special Education Schools
Many of our members have children who attend Designated Special Education Schools in Nova Scotia. The Department of Education say’s that it is a parent’s choice to have our children attend these schools. This isn’t a choice. We don’t want to send them because we want a better education than other children. We send them there because we want them to get an equal education to other children.
These schools are designed to meet the difficult challenges of teaching children with learning disabilities who have been left behind by a failing pubic school system.
Children who attend these schools are often 3 to 5 years behind grade level even after years of attending public school with special education services and support.
The fact is, children who where floundering in public school are now succeeding in Designated Special Education Private Schools.
Time Limits
Is the limiting of funding to a time limited three years (to effectively force students back to public school) in the child’s best interest or the departments?
The fact is, children do not grow out of a learning disability. They have it for life.
The fact is, not all children can gain the grade level back after three years. Some can. Some can’t.
Why does the Department of Education, who knows these schools are making a difference in the lives of children, limit the support it provides to only three years? Does the department have any data or reasons based on educational evidence that supports a limit to funding of these children? They are arbitrarily cutting off the only thing that is working for these children.
Funding
Does it costs the Department of Education more to support these children using the Tuition Support Program? Can they only afford three years? No. In fact the government saves money with this program to he tune of 500,000 per year.
Each student enrolled in an approved special needs private school eliminates the expense of providing special needs programs to that student in public school. EEANS believes it is reasonable to assume the public system special education costs are at least equal to that of the service provided by an approved special needs school. Assuming an average tuition per student of $11,200.00 minus a $6200.00 funding unit, equals a very conservative $5000.00 associated with special needs programming. Therefore, the 116 students currently enrolled in the tuition support program saved the department $580,000.00 this year alone.
It is no secret that special needs programs from resource class to SLD programming in the public system is over-subscribed/under funded. So the fact that some LD students are being serviced outside the public system is good news for students needing the space who are presently waiting for services.
So if these children are showing improvement by attending these Designated Special Education Schools and it saves the government money, why does the government limit it to three years? Why does the government make it very difficult to qualify for the program with unnecessary red tape? Why does it deny the one approach and environment that is succeeding?
The answer? Pride. Paradigms from the past.
EEANS Recommendations Regarding the Tuition Support Program
“Every Student needs opportunities to attain his or her greatest potential, every student can achieve success, and all students need adequate time to learn.” Learning for Life II Executive Summary
No Time Limit On Funding
EEANS fundamentally disagrees with any time limit on funding for students with LD’s. We are of the opinion that any student who is at the point of needing to leave the public school system to receive the appropriate education and setting, should not be forced back to the public system by virtue cutting off their funding unit.
“Student success must be everyone’s first priority” Learning for Life II Executive Summary
EEANS believes that what’s best for the student should be the only deciding factor to their return to public school.
“Every person over the age of five years and under the age of twenty-one years has the right to attend a public school serving the school district or school region in which that person resides, as assigned by the school board.”
Section 5.2 of the Education Act.
Because the department of education has a monopoly, it can be argued that the right to education, is also a right to access the associated funding unit when the department cannot best meet the needs of the student. This funding unit is not a burden to the taxpayer in any way.
Modify Tuition Support Criteria
Each student approved for tuition support has been diagnosed with a learning disability. A disability that is not healed with medication, but one that with hard work and the right strategies may be compensated for.
It is not the responsibility of the student to prove he or she is still disabled. That diagnosis has already been made by an expert. Nor is it the responsibility of the student to prove he or she is still significantly behind in grade level, again this is determined by an expert. The expert in this case is clearly the approved special needs school staff who have worked with the student for the previous 3 years.
The criteria should include:
1. The special needs school recommendation must be key in student assessment and the subsequent decision on student placement. These schools are approved for 3 year term by the department. As a delegate of the department of education, the recommendations of the approved special needs school must be considered as though they came from the department itself.
2. IPP’s from Designated Special Education Schools are created by qualified staff working solely in a learning disabled environment, who have had additional training to meet the needs of these students. As such, the IPP generated at the Designated Special Education School should carry significant weight when evaluating the students future needs.
3. If there is any doubt as to the best place for the student to continue his/her education, we must default to the special needs school and the tuition support program. It would contravene the commitments of the education act and the minister to do otherwise. As we all know, the program is revenue neutral to the taxpayer, and unloads the special needs programs within the public system. There is no reason to risk the student’s welfare if in doubt.
The onus is therefore on the system to show the student is ready to transition to the public school system, and most importantly, for the public school system to commit the specific resources needed to support the student in the public system.
It is clear the Tuition Support Program benefits everyone involved. Forcing a student back to the public system by cutting off funding can be detrimental to the student’s academic development and self esteem. Further, if we cannot substantiate it as the best option for the student, we would contravene the commitments of the education act to do otherwise.
On the Transition Planning Process
A Designated Special Education Private School may recommend a student for transition back to the public school system (even prior to that student reaching the grade level of his/her same age group) if the special needs school feels this would be in the best interest of the student. In all cases, a transition plan to integrate the student back to public school must be developed and the public system must resume responsibility for providing appropriate special needs education.
A transition planning meeting with the school principal, qualified staff and a representative from the Designated Special Education Private School must take place. The receiving public school must provide a written commitment to the level of resources recommended by the special needs school for successful integration. If the receiving public school is unwilling or unable to commit to provide these resources to the student, then the student must be allowed to return to the approved special needs school and tuition support extended so the student can continue his or her education. It is unacceptable to have a student who is on an upward trend of academic development return to the public system only to be denied adequate resources.
“Inclusive Education”
The goal of inclusion is for all students to be allowed to be educated with their peers, ensuring that the disabled are not excluded or segregated out. But “peer” does not only mean age, it can mean similar abilities or similar situations, like having a learning disability. Surely, the true aim of inclusion is a feeling that “I belong”. Designated Special Education Private Schools offer children a safe environment. They can connect and learn with others like them. Isn’t this inclusion too? We should therefore recognize Designated Special Education Private School as being inclusive.
If a child sneaks home rather that stay at school with his “peers”, is this inclusion?
If a child hides at recess, delaying return to class does she feel included?
When a child is discovered crying under their desk, because they can’t cope with school expectations, how can we say they are included?
These are real stories of real children. Some department administrators refer to these as anecdotal, suggesting they are interesting comments, but have little bearing on the “big picture”. What we have failed to acknowledge, is the “big picture” includes these students, and it is far from the best we can offer to paint all our students with the same inclusion brush. The most common comment from parents lucky enough to have sent a troubled LD child to a Designated Special Education Private School, is not the dramatic improvement in math, language arts, or even behaviour. It’s the sense of inclusion that the student feels from the first day, in an environment where all the kids are working to overcome a LD, and therefore all are included.
“For the first time, I feel I belong”
Who Should “Inclusive Education” Benefit?
The Department of Education supports an inclusive philosophy. EEANS also supports the concept of “inclusion” as do most Nova Scotians. But the Department of Education’s version of “Inclusion” is not child-centric. Their version is really about teaching all children in public school because it is more convenient. And at a time of declining enrolment and school closings, they are very interest in keeping bodies in schools.
Everyone say’s they are acting in the child’s best interest. It is their duty to act in the chills best interest. It is the law. And it should be the primary focus of this committee. The child, not ideology of inclusion should be protected.
Thoughts On “Inclusive Education” By Others.
“So when we talk about an inclusive school system, or inclusion, we are not referring to a specific program, service, or methodology. We are referring to a school system that in both its design and its effect continually strives to ensure that each student has access to and is enabled to participate in the school community, to be part of the community in positive and reinforcing ways an whose identity is reflected in the operations of the school community.” (MacKay & Burt-Garrans, 2004)
“There is no longitudinal, validated research available that full inclusion can
provide superior services for all children with disabilities regardless of the nature
of the disability. There is, indeed, much research to the contrary.”
(Henteleff, 2004)
“My view is society is fragmented and people’s commitment to common values is
weakening. It’s happening in schools. You’ve got financial cutbacks and all sorts
of diversity and stress, and all of those things conspire to make people kind of
jittery, and look at each other funny.”
(School administrator, quoted in Gaskell, 2001)
“The question must be posed: are we prepared to support the learning success of
those who struggle most within the systems we have created? Unfortunately, the
dream of having an individually appropriate education is still elusive to most and
despite the rhetoric of inclusion of students who are at-risk, the reality is that we
still have a long way to go before these students are truly, authentically included
in our schools and our communities.”
(Lupart & Odishaw, 2003)
“Well it (inclusion) hasn’t worked. Classrooms are disrupted, teachers are stressed
and students who need help don’t get it. The BCTF won’t say anything, and
neither will the government, for fear of being accused of being callous and
indifferent to special needs students. As far as I am concerned, the school system
has given the mainstream model a fair chance. It doesn’t work. Time to try the
alternative.”
(Ian Cameron, Victoria Times Colonist, September 23, 2005)
Legal Analysis of Inclusion
A very different analysis of the legal context is provided by Henteleff (2004). Before examining legal decisions and history, Henteleff argues that full inclusion is a discriminatory concept, because it limits the choices concerning placement and approach that some people with disabilities may wish to make. He argues that separate provision of educational services can in some cases provide a better option than full inclusion, especially in educational systems where optimal levels of training, conditions, and funding are rarely adequately realized. His analysis includes a consideration of both systemic factors and “clusters of educational expertise” which he believes necessary to make inclusion a reality. He provides four systemic factors that he considers crucial to the success of inclusive approaches:
• manageable class size
• adapted curriculum to meet diverse needs
• pre-service teacher training and in-service
• availability of specialists to support classroom teachers.
In addition, Henteleff lists the six clusters of educational expertise required by every classroom teacher that he also believes necessary to achieve success:
• full comprehension of exceptional conditions and appropriate accommodations to meet such conditions
• ability to apply Individual Education Plans (IEP / IPP) and to function within the system that creates them
• skills in managing students in complex activities and through transitions
• skills in making systematic observations of students and in making appropriate referrals
• expertise in creating social structures in classrooms appropriate to diverse needs
• understanding of family dynamics and capacity to interact with parents.
He also references a range of research that supports the continuation and utility of ‘pull-out’ services for students, especially for those with learning disabilities. Henteleff states that Canadian courts have supported this argument, in cases such as Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, where the Supreme Court justice stated that:
“Disability as a prohibitive ground differs from enumerated grounds such as race
or sex, because there is no individual variation with respect to these latter
grounds. Disability means vastly different things, however, depending on the
individual and the context. This produces amongst other things the ‘difference
dilemma’ whereby segregation can be both protective of equality and violative
of equality, depending on the persons and the state of disability.”
In other words, separate provision can be discriminatory but it need not be, depending on what services are required for a given area of disability. Henteleff offers three reasons why inclusion has been promoted while the courts have allowed for separate provision in appropriate circumstances. The first concerns what he believes to be confusion about the meaning of equality, where inclusion is synonymous with equality in the view of its proponents. The second deals with what he believes to be the mistaken assumption that inclusion is the only way to achieve social integration. His third argument for the promotion of inclusion concerns fiscal savings that he argues accrue to governments if they provide inclusive services. Both MacKay’s and Henteleff’s papers illustrate that there are disparate views about inclusion within what might be termed the ‘disability community’ – those with disabilities in receipt of services, and/or their families, and the community organizations that advocate on their behalf. One group, perhaps represented by national and provincial Community Living organizations, argues vehemently for inclusion as a fundamental human right and supports litigants’ law suits in pursuit of such rights. A second group, represented in part by those supporting students with learning disabilities, argues that the very goal of the proponents of inclusion contravenes their fundamental right to access separate educative services.
Conclusion
We are encouraged that the Minister put this review in place. This committee has the influence, the experience, and the wisdom to make a difference in the lives of these wonderful, bright, and talented children. Please don’t let them down. Send a message to them. That Nova Scotia supports them. That Nova Scotia believes in them. Send a clear message to the Minister that by investing a little today, not only in the TSP but also in adequate special education funding based on statistics, not on blind formulas, the Minister and the people of Nova Scotia will receive gifted, bright and positive citizens in return.
Wade Brummet -Chair, EEANS
Brian Hickling -Vice Chair, EEANS
The Tuition Support Program
“We want to ensure that each student is receiving a quality education. This review team will identify our successes and where we can do more.” Minister of Education, Karen Casey
The Tuition Support Program is one of those successes. And as such a success, we need to strive to expand it to benefit more children.
No doubt you have heard stories of children in the back of classrooms struggling to keep up, of children who lost their hunger to learn, of waiting lists for resource class help, and of parents who were denied IPP’s even though their child has been professionally diagnosed with a learning disability. Why?
Designated Special Education Schools
Many of our members have children who attend Designated Special Education Schools in Nova Scotia. The Department of Education say’s that it is a parent’s choice to have our children attend these schools. This isn’t a choice. We don’t want to send them because we want a better education than other children. We send them there because we want them to get an equal education to other children.
These schools are designed to meet the difficult challenges of teaching children with learning disabilities who have been left behind by a failing pubic school system.
Children who attend these schools are often 3 to 5 years behind grade level even after years of attending public school with special education services and support.
The fact is, children who where floundering in public school are now succeeding in Designated Special Education Private Schools.
Time Limits
Is the limiting of funding to a time limited three years (to effectively force students back to public school) in the child’s best interest or the departments?
The fact is, children do not grow out of a learning disability. They have it for life.
The fact is, not all children can gain the grade level back after three years. Some can. Some can’t.
Why does the Department of Education, who knows these schools are making a difference in the lives of children, limit the support it provides to only three years? Does the department have any data or reasons based on educational evidence that supports a limit to funding of these children? They are arbitrarily cutting off the only thing that is working for these children.
Funding
Does it costs the Department of Education more to support these children using the Tuition Support Program? Can they only afford three years? No. In fact the government saves money with this program to he tune of 500,000 per year.
Each student enrolled in an approved special needs private school eliminates the expense of providing special needs programs to that student in public school. EEANS believes it is reasonable to assume the public system special education costs are at least equal to that of the service provided by an approved special needs school. Assuming an average tuition per student of $11,200.00 minus a $6200.00 funding unit, equals a very conservative $5000.00 associated with special needs programming. Therefore, the 116 students currently enrolled in the tuition support program saved the department $580,000.00 this year alone.
It is no secret that special needs programs from resource class to SLD programming in the public system is over-subscribed/under funded. So the fact that some LD students are being serviced outside the public system is good news for students needing the space who are presently waiting for services.
So if these children are showing improvement by attending these Designated Special Education Schools and it saves the government money, why does the government limit it to three years? Why does the government make it very difficult to qualify for the program with unnecessary red tape? Why does it deny the one approach and environment that is succeeding?
The answer? Pride. Paradigms from the past.
EEANS Recommendations Regarding the Tuition Support Program
“Every Student needs opportunities to attain his or her greatest potential, every student can achieve success, and all students need adequate time to learn.” Learning for Life II Executive Summary
No Time Limit On Funding
EEANS fundamentally disagrees with any time limit on funding for students with LD’s. We are of the opinion that any student who is at the point of needing to leave the public school system to receive the appropriate education and setting, should not be forced back to the public system by virtue cutting off their funding unit.
“Student success must be everyone’s first priority” Learning for Life II Executive Summary
EEANS believes that what’s best for the student should be the only deciding factor to their return to public school.
“Every person over the age of five years and under the age of twenty-one years has the right to attend a public school serving the school district or school region in which that person resides, as assigned by the school board.”
Section 5.2 of the Education Act.
Because the department of education has a monopoly, it can be argued that the right to education, is also a right to access the associated funding unit when the department cannot best meet the needs of the student. This funding unit is not a burden to the taxpayer in any way.
Modify Tuition Support Criteria
Each student approved for tuition support has been diagnosed with a learning disability. A disability that is not healed with medication, but one that with hard work and the right strategies may be compensated for.
It is not the responsibility of the student to prove he or she is still disabled. That diagnosis has already been made by an expert. Nor is it the responsibility of the student to prove he or she is still significantly behind in grade level, again this is determined by an expert. The expert in this case is clearly the approved special needs school staff who have worked with the student for the previous 3 years.
The criteria should include:
1. The special needs school recommendation must be key in student assessment and the subsequent decision on student placement. These schools are approved for 3 year term by the department. As a delegate of the department of education, the recommendations of the approved special needs school must be considered as though they came from the department itself.
2. IPP’s from Designated Special Education Schools are created by qualified staff working solely in a learning disabled environment, who have had additional training to meet the needs of these students. As such, the IPP generated at the Designated Special Education School should carry significant weight when evaluating the students future needs.
3. If there is any doubt as to the best place for the student to continue his/her education, we must default to the special needs school and the tuition support program. It would contravene the commitments of the education act and the minister to do otherwise. As we all know, the program is revenue neutral to the taxpayer, and unloads the special needs programs within the public system. There is no reason to risk the student’s welfare if in doubt.
The onus is therefore on the system to show the student is ready to transition to the public school system, and most importantly, for the public school system to commit the specific resources needed to support the student in the public system.
It is clear the Tuition Support Program benefits everyone involved. Forcing a student back to the public system by cutting off funding can be detrimental to the student’s academic development and self esteem. Further, if we cannot substantiate it as the best option for the student, we would contravene the commitments of the education act to do otherwise.
On the Transition Planning Process
A Designated Special Education Private School may recommend a student for transition back to the public school system (even prior to that student reaching the grade level of his/her same age group) if the special needs school feels this would be in the best interest of the student. In all cases, a transition plan to integrate the student back to public school must be developed and the public system must resume responsibility for providing appropriate special needs education.
A transition planning meeting with the school principal, qualified staff and a representative from the Designated Special Education Private School must take place. The receiving public school must provide a written commitment to the level of resources recommended by the special needs school for successful integration. If the receiving public school is unwilling or unable to commit to provide these resources to the student, then the student must be allowed to return to the approved special needs school and tuition support extended so the student can continue his or her education. It is unacceptable to have a student who is on an upward trend of academic development return to the public system only to be denied adequate resources.
“Inclusive Education”
The goal of inclusion is for all students to be allowed to be educated with their peers, ensuring that the disabled are not excluded or segregated out. But “peer” does not only mean age, it can mean similar abilities or similar situations, like having a learning disability. Surely, the true aim of inclusion is a feeling that “I belong”. Designated Special Education Private Schools offer children a safe environment. They can connect and learn with others like them. Isn’t this inclusion too? We should therefore recognize Designated Special Education Private School as being inclusive.
If a child sneaks home rather that stay at school with his “peers”, is this inclusion?
If a child hides at recess, delaying return to class does she feel included?
When a child is discovered crying under their desk, because they can’t cope with school expectations, how can we say they are included?
These are real stories of real children. Some department administrators refer to these as anecdotal, suggesting they are interesting comments, but have little bearing on the “big picture”. What we have failed to acknowledge, is the “big picture” includes these students, and it is far from the best we can offer to paint all our students with the same inclusion brush. The most common comment from parents lucky enough to have sent a troubled LD child to a Designated Special Education Private School, is not the dramatic improvement in math, language arts, or even behaviour. It’s the sense of inclusion that the student feels from the first day, in an environment where all the kids are working to overcome a LD, and therefore all are included.
“For the first time, I feel I belong”
Who Should “Inclusive Education” Benefit?
The Department of Education supports an inclusive philosophy. EEANS also supports the concept of “inclusion” as do most Nova Scotians. But the Department of Education’s version of “Inclusion” is not child-centric. Their version is really about teaching all children in public school because it is more convenient. And at a time of declining enrolment and school closings, they are very interest in keeping bodies in schools.
Everyone say’s they are acting in the child’s best interest. It is their duty to act in the chills best interest. It is the law. And it should be the primary focus of this committee. The child, not ideology of inclusion should be protected.
Thoughts On “Inclusive Education” By Others.
“So when we talk about an inclusive school system, or inclusion, we are not referring to a specific program, service, or methodology. We are referring to a school system that in both its design and its effect continually strives to ensure that each student has access to and is enabled to participate in the school community, to be part of the community in positive and reinforcing ways an whose identity is reflected in the operations of the school community.” (MacKay & Burt-Garrans, 2004)
“There is no longitudinal, validated research available that full inclusion can
provide superior services for all children with disabilities regardless of the nature
of the disability. There is, indeed, much research to the contrary.”
(Henteleff, 2004)
“My view is society is fragmented and people’s commitment to common values is
weakening. It’s happening in schools. You’ve got financial cutbacks and all sorts
of diversity and stress, and all of those things conspire to make people kind of
jittery, and look at each other funny.”
(School administrator, quoted in Gaskell, 2001)
“The question must be posed: are we prepared to support the learning success of
those who struggle most within the systems we have created? Unfortunately, the
dream of having an individually appropriate education is still elusive to most and
despite the rhetoric of inclusion of students who are at-risk, the reality is that we
still have a long way to go before these students are truly, authentically included
in our schools and our communities.”
(Lupart & Odishaw, 2003)
“Well it (inclusion) hasn’t worked. Classrooms are disrupted, teachers are stressed
and students who need help don’t get it. The BCTF won’t say anything, and
neither will the government, for fear of being accused of being callous and
indifferent to special needs students. As far as I am concerned, the school system
has given the mainstream model a fair chance. It doesn’t work. Time to try the
alternative.”
(Ian Cameron, Victoria Times Colonist, September 23, 2005)
Legal Analysis of Inclusion
A very different analysis of the legal context is provided by Henteleff (2004). Before examining legal decisions and history, Henteleff argues that full inclusion is a discriminatory concept, because it limits the choices concerning placement and approach that some people with disabilities may wish to make. He argues that separate provision of educational services can in some cases provide a better option than full inclusion, especially in educational systems where optimal levels of training, conditions, and funding are rarely adequately realized. His analysis includes a consideration of both systemic factors and “clusters of educational expertise” which he believes necessary to make inclusion a reality. He provides four systemic factors that he considers crucial to the success of inclusive approaches:
• manageable class size
• adapted curriculum to meet diverse needs
• pre-service teacher training and in-service
• availability of specialists to support classroom teachers.
In addition, Henteleff lists the six clusters of educational expertise required by every classroom teacher that he also believes necessary to achieve success:
• full comprehension of exceptional conditions and appropriate accommodations to meet such conditions
• ability to apply Individual Education Plans (IEP / IPP) and to function within the system that creates them
• skills in managing students in complex activities and through transitions
• skills in making systematic observations of students and in making appropriate referrals
• expertise in creating social structures in classrooms appropriate to diverse needs
• understanding of family dynamics and capacity to interact with parents.
He also references a range of research that supports the continuation and utility of ‘pull-out’ services for students, especially for those with learning disabilities. Henteleff states that Canadian courts have supported this argument, in cases such as Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, where the Supreme Court justice stated that:
“Disability as a prohibitive ground differs from enumerated grounds such as race
or sex, because there is no individual variation with respect to these latter
grounds. Disability means vastly different things, however, depending on the
individual and the context. This produces amongst other things the ‘difference
dilemma’ whereby segregation can be both protective of equality and violative
of equality, depending on the persons and the state of disability.”
In other words, separate provision can be discriminatory but it need not be, depending on what services are required for a given area of disability. Henteleff offers three reasons why inclusion has been promoted while the courts have allowed for separate provision in appropriate circumstances. The first concerns what he believes to be confusion about the meaning of equality, where inclusion is synonymous with equality in the view of its proponents. The second deals with what he believes to be the mistaken assumption that inclusion is the only way to achieve social integration. His third argument for the promotion of inclusion concerns fiscal savings that he argues accrue to governments if they provide inclusive services. Both MacKay’s and Henteleff’s papers illustrate that there are disparate views about inclusion within what might be termed the ‘disability community’ – those with disabilities in receipt of services, and/or their families, and the community organizations that advocate on their behalf. One group, perhaps represented by national and provincial Community Living organizations, argues vehemently for inclusion as a fundamental human right and supports litigants’ law suits in pursuit of such rights. A second group, represented in part by those supporting students with learning disabilities, argues that the very goal of the proponents of inclusion contravenes their fundamental right to access separate educative services.
Conclusion
We are encouraged that the Minister put this review in place. This committee has the influence, the experience, and the wisdom to make a difference in the lives of these wonderful, bright, and talented children. Please don’t let them down. Send a message to them. That Nova Scotia supports them. That Nova Scotia believes in them. Send a clear message to the Minister that by investing a little today, not only in the TSP but also in adequate special education funding based on statistics, not on blind formulas, the Minister and the people of Nova Scotia will receive gifted, bright and positive citizens in return.
Wade Brummet -Chair, EEANS
Brian Hickling -Vice Chair, EEANS
Monday, September 24, 2007
Help save Tuition Support Program: Please write a letter.
One of the recommendations of the Ministers Review Committee’s Report was to eliminate the Tuition Support Program.
EEANS is asking every concerned person, parents, grandparents, education professionals, friends and neighbours to help save the Tuition Support Program by providing input and their point of view on the Minister’s Review of Special Needs report to Ms. Casey before the deadline of September 28th.
I would hope you can take the time to participate in letting your views be know to the Minister and government.
The Tuition Support Program is very much in jeopardy. We need to all rally support to not only protect this important program, but too in fact, expand it.
We also would recommend that you send a copy of their letter to the appropriate MLA as well.
We are also asking people to get friend and family to also write a response so the Minister can understand that it is just not parents who are upset with this recommendation.
Here is where people can send their letters to response:
Should you have any comments with respect to the Report you may provide your input electronically, through email at: reportresponse@gov.ns.ca
Responses can also be faxed to 902-424-0519.
Comments with respect to the Report may also be submitted by mail to:
Nova Scotia Department of Education
Corporate Policy Branch
P.O. Box 578
Halifax NS B3J 2S9
Deadline for providing any comments will be Friday, September 28, 2007.
Submissions will be considered by the Minister as she develops her response to the Report.
EEANS is asking every concerned person, parents, grandparents, education professionals, friends and neighbours to help save the Tuition Support Program by providing input and their point of view on the Minister’s Review of Special Needs report to Ms. Casey before the deadline of September 28th.
I would hope you can take the time to participate in letting your views be know to the Minister and government.
The Tuition Support Program is very much in jeopardy. We need to all rally support to not only protect this important program, but too in fact, expand it.
We also would recommend that you send a copy of their letter to the appropriate MLA as well.
We are also asking people to get friend and family to also write a response so the Minister can understand that it is just not parents who are upset with this recommendation.
Here is where people can send their letters to response:
Should you have any comments with respect to the Report you may provide your input electronically, through email at: reportresponse@gov.ns.ca
Responses can also be faxed to 902-424-0519.
Comments with respect to the Report may also be submitted by mail to:
Nova Scotia Department of Education
Corporate Policy Branch
P.O. Box 578
Halifax NS B3J 2S9
Deadline for providing any comments will be Friday, September 28, 2007.
Submissions will be considered by the Minister as she develops her response to the Report.
Re: Minister’s Review of Special Needs report recommendation to eliminate the Tuition Support Program
Dear Ms. Casey:
I was very disappointed in the Minister’s Review of Special Education report that the committee submitted to you at the beginning of September. I was especially disappointed at the committee’s recommendation that the Tuition Support Program be shut down after so many parents took the time to be involved and tell their story. The idea of cutting off funding to effectively send children with serious learning disabilities back to the public school’s that failed them in the first place is disturbing. Mr. Farmer’s suggestion that if we force these children back to their schools the Department and boards will “really have to fix things now” is ridiculous. Children should not have to pay the price for inadequate service offerings and techniques with their future and self esteem to motivate positive change in the public school system.
I have heard allot of rhetoric about protecting “Inclusion” as if it is in jeopardy or under threat. This is a smokescreen issue intended to garner public support and to confuse the issue. You will not find me or anyone else who would what to get rid of inclusion. Inclusion works great! Children have the right to attend their local school and sit in a regular classroom. But what if that regular classroom is not the best place for some kids? What the committee is suggesting is the concept of “TOTAL & FULL INCLUSION” which means ALL children who are publicly funded must attend a public school regular classroom. The concept of a “one size fits all” solution offered only by public schools is misguided.
The Supreme Court of Canada demands that “Inclusion” be interpreted from the child’s point of view. The child should be put in the least restrictive environment. Put another way, if there is a place (in the province) that can offer specialized educational services in a better environment, you, as Minister of Education, must follow the spirit of education act and do what is in the best interest of a child from their point of view. Because of this duty, you have an obligation to allow them access to the best services available until undue hardship can be proved. Accepting the recommendation to shut down a vital lifeboat like the Tuition Support Program is ignoring fact that there is a better way out there that is working in right now for our kids. It doesn’t cost you any more money, so it is not undue hardship for the government. As Minister of Education you have the duty do what is right and just for the children of this province. To offer them the very best education available regardless of whether it is public or private. Your responsibility is not to protect unions, jobs or the Deputy Ministers outdated idea of “Inclusion”. Your responsibility is to make sure schools are safe and happy places to learn. Your responsibility is to make sure curriculums are followed and outcomes are achieved. In all schools whether private or public.
The dream of a perfect system where all services are offered in a local public school is a noble aim. It is just not a reality today or for the foreseeable future. Mr. Cochrane said in a meeting I attended that he will never permit special needs kids to be excluded, to be “sent to the room in the basement of schools”. This recommendation will do just that. “Basements of schools” for many children can also be sunny filled regular classrooms in their local public school.
I ask you to reject the recommendation of the report and continue to support the Tuition Support Program. I ask you eliminate a fixed limit on support in favour of one designed to support a child until they are able to return to public school.
Sincerely,
Brian Hickling
I was very disappointed in the Minister’s Review of Special Education report that the committee submitted to you at the beginning of September. I was especially disappointed at the committee’s recommendation that the Tuition Support Program be shut down after so many parents took the time to be involved and tell their story. The idea of cutting off funding to effectively send children with serious learning disabilities back to the public school’s that failed them in the first place is disturbing. Mr. Farmer’s suggestion that if we force these children back to their schools the Department and boards will “really have to fix things now” is ridiculous. Children should not have to pay the price for inadequate service offerings and techniques with their future and self esteem to motivate positive change in the public school system.
I have heard allot of rhetoric about protecting “Inclusion” as if it is in jeopardy or under threat. This is a smokescreen issue intended to garner public support and to confuse the issue. You will not find me or anyone else who would what to get rid of inclusion. Inclusion works great! Children have the right to attend their local school and sit in a regular classroom. But what if that regular classroom is not the best place for some kids? What the committee is suggesting is the concept of “TOTAL & FULL INCLUSION” which means ALL children who are publicly funded must attend a public school regular classroom. The concept of a “one size fits all” solution offered only by public schools is misguided.
The Supreme Court of Canada demands that “Inclusion” be interpreted from the child’s point of view. The child should be put in the least restrictive environment. Put another way, if there is a place (in the province) that can offer specialized educational services in a better environment, you, as Minister of Education, must follow the spirit of education act and do what is in the best interest of a child from their point of view. Because of this duty, you have an obligation to allow them access to the best services available until undue hardship can be proved. Accepting the recommendation to shut down a vital lifeboat like the Tuition Support Program is ignoring fact that there is a better way out there that is working in right now for our kids. It doesn’t cost you any more money, so it is not undue hardship for the government. As Minister of Education you have the duty do what is right and just for the children of this province. To offer them the very best education available regardless of whether it is public or private. Your responsibility is not to protect unions, jobs or the Deputy Ministers outdated idea of “Inclusion”. Your responsibility is to make sure schools are safe and happy places to learn. Your responsibility is to make sure curriculums are followed and outcomes are achieved. In all schools whether private or public.
The dream of a perfect system where all services are offered in a local public school is a noble aim. It is just not a reality today or for the foreseeable future. Mr. Cochrane said in a meeting I attended that he will never permit special needs kids to be excluded, to be “sent to the room in the basement of schools”. This recommendation will do just that. “Basements of schools” for many children can also be sunny filled regular classrooms in their local public school.
I ask you to reject the recommendation of the report and continue to support the Tuition Support Program. I ask you eliminate a fixed limit on support in favour of one designed to support a child until they are able to return to public school.
Sincerely,
Brian Hickling
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Protecting a fortress of idealism with children's lives.
The Minister's Review of Services for Students in Nova Scotia report was released a week ago and in it the panel recommended to scrap a program that was very important for many children in the province who have learning disabilities. Called the Tuition Support Program, it diverts a standard funding unit (approximately $6,200) the child's local public school to a private school.
I, along with many parents and professionals are very disappointed to say the least with.
Many people who attended input sessions around the province talked passionately about how their child suffered and failed in public school, yet succeeded in a small class private setting. They asked and begged the review committee to understand this. EEANS showed them evidence that children where thriving. Yet the panel chose not to look at special education needs from a child point of view, but instead from high up in their fortress.
There are a few reasons I think the review panel and the Department of Education included the recommendation to scrap the Tuition Support Program.
1. Children who receive education at a Designated Special Education Private School do well. They thrive. This is very embarrassing for the department and school boards.
2. The department thinks that letting parents divert their funding unit to a Designated Special Education Private School will lead to parents of non LD children to want the same right to send their child to a private school.
3. The union is well represented in the department of education. Protect the union at at all costs. Enrollment is down so they want every child they can get and the money that comes with them.
4. The Department of Education actually believes they can service 100% of all educational needs of our children. They must be much better than the department of Health, who sends patients out of province regularly for specialized services they cannot provide in province.
5. They can't offer the TSP in every corner of the province. OK, so let's scrap heart operations or MRI's on the same basis.
The fact is the department and their review panel suffer from a disability as well. A listening disability.
The report refuses to deal with the merits of why the program is literally saving the lives of students and why it is working and simply says they do not think it is appropriate. I guess it is better to have children fail in the public school system then it is to succeed at Bridgeway or Landmark. This is more about egos, pride and professional arrogance then it is about children. This recommendation sacrifices the children's future on the altar of someones trumpeted up view of what is or is not "appropriate" for the public school system.
The day when the public school system appropriately meets the needs of severe and moderate learning disabled students in a appropriate environment and where they can succeed is the day the tuition support program will cease to have any relevance, it will sunset itself. Parents will have no need or desire to spend the other half of private school tuition cost.
The department has used a smoke screen issue. It has said many times that they support the "Inclusion philosophy". Who doesn't? Their definition of inclusion is all children "must go to a public school!" when in fact it is "all children should have the right to attend public school".
The Department of Education will try to imply to the general public that to continue with the Tuition Support Program would put "Inclusion" in jeopardy. This is false and very dirty pool. The children who attend a private school are in an inclusive setting. They are accepted by their peers. They are in a safe and caring environment. They are learning and laughing with other children.
We have some beautiful fortresses in Nova Scotia, and one very old ugly one.
Brian Hickling
Vice Chair
Equal Education Association of Nova Scotia
I, along with many parents and professionals are very disappointed to say the least with.
Many people who attended input sessions around the province talked passionately about how their child suffered and failed in public school, yet succeeded in a small class private setting. They asked and begged the review committee to understand this. EEANS showed them evidence that children where thriving. Yet the panel chose not to look at special education needs from a child point of view, but instead from high up in their fortress.
There are a few reasons I think the review panel and the Department of Education included the recommendation to scrap the Tuition Support Program.
1. Children who receive education at a Designated Special Education Private School do well. They thrive. This is very embarrassing for the department and school boards.
2. The department thinks that letting parents divert their funding unit to a Designated Special Education Private School will lead to parents of non LD children to want the same right to send their child to a private school.
3. The union is well represented in the department of education. Protect the union at at all costs. Enrollment is down so they want every child they can get and the money that comes with them.
4. The Department of Education actually believes they can service 100% of all educational needs of our children. They must be much better than the department of Health, who sends patients out of province regularly for specialized services they cannot provide in province.
5. They can't offer the TSP in every corner of the province. OK, so let's scrap heart operations or MRI's on the same basis.
The fact is the department and their review panel suffer from a disability as well. A listening disability.
The report refuses to deal with the merits of why the program is literally saving the lives of students and why it is working and simply says they do not think it is appropriate. I guess it is better to have children fail in the public school system then it is to succeed at Bridgeway or Landmark. This is more about egos, pride and professional arrogance then it is about children. This recommendation sacrifices the children's future on the altar of someones trumpeted up view of what is or is not "appropriate" for the public school system.
The day when the public school system appropriately meets the needs of severe and moderate learning disabled students in a appropriate environment and where they can succeed is the day the tuition support program will cease to have any relevance, it will sunset itself. Parents will have no need or desire to spend the other half of private school tuition cost.
The department has used a smoke screen issue. It has said many times that they support the "Inclusion philosophy". Who doesn't? Their definition of inclusion is all children "must go to a public school!" when in fact it is "all children should have the right to attend public school".
The Department of Education will try to imply to the general public that to continue with the Tuition Support Program would put "Inclusion" in jeopardy. This is false and very dirty pool. The children who attend a private school are in an inclusive setting. They are accepted by their peers. They are in a safe and caring environment. They are learning and laughing with other children.
We have some beautiful fortresses in Nova Scotia, and one very old ugly one.
Brian Hickling
Vice Chair
Equal Education Association of Nova Scotia
Friday, May 25, 2007
The Rights of Special Needs Children
Under the Education Act every child in the Province of Nova Scotia between the age of 6 and 16 must attend school. In regard to students with special needs, it is stated that school boards are obligated to "develop and implement educational programs for students with special needs within regular instructional settings with their peers in age, in accordance with the regulations and the Minister's policies and guidelines". [s. 64(2)(d)]
All children in the Province are entitled to an "appropriate education", this means an education appropriate to their particular needs. References in the Special Education Policy Manual refer to "programming in a variety of educational settings" and :school boards providing a continuum of programming options and services to meet the special needs of students". Support services are to be co-ordinated within the neighbourhood school and to the extent possible, within grade level/subject area classrooms.
School boards are also obligated to provide necessary medical treatment during school hours, including the administration of oral medication and the health care and comfort of physically disabled students. Although students with special needs in Nova Scotia are entitled to an appropriate education and in theory parents are considered an integral part of the process of forming an education for such children, the actual reality is far from rosy. There are numerous children with special needs in this Province who have been pulled out of school by their parents. Some because the parents feel that the children's needs for physical safety are not being met, some due to the fact that the parents strongly believe that their children are not getting a proper education in school and having their diverse needs properly met. Some of these children are placed in private schools at great expense to the parents, some are officially signed up for home schooling and some are informally educated at home while the parents work very hard to get their children back in school with the type of programming to which they are legally entitled. It is for this reason that for a parent with a child with special needs in the school system, its important to know what the parents' and child's rights are and what tools are available to a parent when despite repeated discussion and negotiation, a school board refuses to provide a child with what they require to obtain an appropriate education.
The IPP
We have heard from many members of EEANS that they have trouble getting IPP's. Unfortunately school staff dissuade parents from obtaining an IPP by telling that putting a child on one will jeopardise their chances of attending post secondary education. This is false. The fact is, if a child is not given an IPP to help them regain their grade level and self confidence, they will be more in jeopardy of dropping out of school early and getting into trouble.
In Nova Scotia, students who cannot meet grade level outcomes, even with various accommodations, are entitled to be put on an individualized program plan, better known as an IPP. An IPP will set out the goals for the student, the strategies which will be used to achieve those goals and the roles and responsibilities of teachers and others, such as Speech Language Pathologists or teachers' assistants. The Program Planning Team is responsible for creating the IPP and reviewing and modifying it as the student's needs change. This team includes the student's teachers any teacher assistants or other specialist teachers involved and the parents or guardians of the child. The parent or guardian of a special needs child is, by law, a member of that child's Program Planning Team. The Policy provides a detailed description for the Program Planning team process stating that the program planning meeting should not be a forum for teachers, administrators, and other agency personnel to present a completed program to the parents. [pg.38] Although the parent is only one member of the Team, the legislation makes it clear that the parents' legal role in the education of a special needs child is not merely because they hold the title of "parent", but because parents, as such, are legislatively considered to possess a wealth of knowledge and experience about the special needs of their children. It is clear that decisions about Program Planning and services should be reached by mutual agreement among team members including parents / guardians. [pg.56]From a parent's point of view, the IPP is often the place where the rubber hits the road as it lays out how and what the school will teach their child. In a sense, its a child's lifeline, from where he is now to where we hope he will some day be. Parents are not only to be afforded the opportunity to participate in the development of an IPP for their special needs child but also to have access to a procedure to appeal that document if they disagree with. It is for that reason that the IPP appeal process is so important for parents- it gives them a process to follow if they do not agree with what the school proposes to teach the child, where they propose to teach him or the methods that they propose to use. From the parent's perspective its very important to know what steps must be followed in order to initiate an appeal of a child's IPP, how much time both the school board and Minister have to respond and set up an appeal hearing and what the parents' rights are at such hearings.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
With or without the IPP appeal process, the best protection afforded to students with special needs in Nova Scotia appears to be that offered in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter is part of Canada's Constitution and as such, every federal or provincial law must comply with it. For our purposes, the most relevant section of the Charter is sec. 15 which provides that "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination and in particular, without discrimination based on mental or physical disability'. There has been one major case where the Supreme Court of Canada has applied this section of the Charter in the context of the rights of a special needs child in the school system (Eaton v. Brant (County) Board of Education (1996) 142 D.L.R. (4th)385). In that case, the parents of a multiply-handicapped child, Emily, appealed her "placement" - although she had initially been placed in a regular kindergarten class with a special assistant, after two years the school wanted Emily to be placed in a segregated special education class. The parents wanted her to remain in a regular grade level classroom. Through the IPP appeal process, the case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The argument centred around s. 15 of the Charter - was it discriminatory to place Emily in a special education classroom? The Court found that in the facts of that particular case, it was not. It would be in Emily's "best interests" to be placed in a special classroom. Although some people view this case as a step backwards for equality and perspective is, of course, everything, I see this case as an important step forward for special needs children. The court noted that true equality requires the recognition of differences and focused upon a lack of accommodation as the real threat to disabled people in Canada. It was found that segregation could both protect or violate equality depending on the very individual characteristics of the child in question. Although integration was accepted as the general norm due to the benefits it provides, the court found that a presumption in favour of integrated schooling should be rejected on the basis that it may operate to deprive pupils that do require special education services that are best provided in a segregated setting (p. 407). The idea that each individual child, the strengths and needs of that particular child and where those needs are best met are the controlling factors in determining placement makes sense, at least to me. The court held that in some cases segregation would constitute discrimination; in other cases, inclusion in a regular classroom would be discriminatory. It all depends on the particular childHowever, the potential pitfall that I see in this analysis is how we determine (and perhaps more importantly, who determines) what is in a particular child's best interests. Unfortunately, the courts often display a high degree of deference to the "specialized tribunals" that represent school boards, whether it be the Identification Placement and Review Committee which determined placement in Emily's case or the Ministerial Appeal Board we find in Nova Scotia. To date, not only in Nova Scotia, but across the country, the courts definitely tend to come down on the side of the education system as being the best party to make such decisions. It will definitely be an uphill battle for parents as long as the courts operate with this unspoken presumption that the educational system "knows best". However as more and more special education cases are brought before the courts, they will eventually realize that the system, at least here in Nova Scotia, is not working "as it should", and they will become more interventionist. We should also realize that "placement" need not be an all or nothing proposition. Insisting that all special needs children must be placed in a special education setting 100% of the time is as ridiculous as asserting that all special needs children must be in a regular classroom 100% of the time. If we look at the individual child, and their particular needs, we may often find that the real answer is somewhere in between. As long as the governing rule is what is best for this particular child, a program planning team should be able to decide whether a combination of settings within a public school or a separate setting such as offered in Nova Scotia's Special Designated Private School would be most valuable for the child. Another Supreme Court of Canada decision which will likely eventually impact the rights of special needs students is Nova Scotia is that in Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624. In Eldridge, the plaintiffs, who were deaf, argued that because of the communication barrier that exists between deaf person and health care providers, deaf people received a lesser quality of medical services than hearing persons. The Supreme Court of Canada accepted this argument and found that the health care system was obligated to provide sign language interpreters to individuals in such circumstances. From the point of view of special education, this opens the door for special needs students to argue that where the Nova Scotia's Department of Education and their school boards fail to sufficiently accommodate their disabilities, such students will be receiving a lesser quality of educational services. In such a case, action might also be brought against the Province on the basis that the Province has and exercises the obligation to set policy and standards, evaluate programs and provide any potential funding to school boards for certain types of expenditures. If a student was successful in establishing that they were discriminated against in the quality of education provided to them, they might also be able to establish that the general policy standards and guidelines, and the funding parameters set by the Province failed to meet the constitutional standard.
There is also a very important case soon to be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.
In December 2006, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the B.C. Ministry of Education and the District School Division discriminates against children with learning disabilities by making cutbacks that disproportionately impacted children with learning disabilities and by failing to provide them with necessary programs and services.
The B.C. Ministry of Education has appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Canada. Should the Supreme court uphold the ruling, that the B.C. Ministry of Education did in fact discriminate, and suggest remedies, the remedies would be for all children regardless of which province they lived. This would be a big and positive step to force the Nova Scotia Department of Education to start living up to their obligations of equal education for all children including those with learning disabilities.
The Human Rights Act
Students with special needs should also be protected under the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act. All provincial legislation, including the Education Act and regulations made under it, must be in compliance with the Human Rights Act. It contains a provision similar to Sec. 15 of the Charter, stating that "No person shall in respect of the provision of or access to services or facilities discriminate against an individual or class of individuals on account of …. physical disability or mental disability. (s. 5(1)) However, within the past two years, the Human Rights Commission has taken the position that before proceeding to the Commission with respect to a complaint in respect of discrimination against a special needs child in the educational system, the parents must first exhaust all dispute resolution procedures available to them in the education system. This could mean following to its completion the IPP appeal process or any parent concern protocols which various school boards might have. From the point of view of the parent, it often looks like just another roadblock placed in front of them as they try to obtain an appropriate education for their child.
Conclusion
Due to the courts' reluctance in Canada to embrace the concept that a student, or a parent, can bring an action for a school board's negligence in providing, or failing to provide, an appropriate education to a special needs child, the best tool that parents and their special needs children have in attempting to obtain an appropriate education in Canada at this point is clearly the Charter. The Department of Education's Special Education Policy Manual, which has the effect of law, provides that "School Boards are required to provide an appropriate education for all students who reside within their jurisdiction who are of school age." (Policy 1.5) By relying on the right of every individual to have the equal benefit of this law and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of either physical or mental disability, parents should be in a position to resort to the courts, when necessary, to obtain an education appropriate to their individual child's needs.
All children in the Province are entitled to an "appropriate education", this means an education appropriate to their particular needs. References in the Special Education Policy Manual refer to "programming in a variety of educational settings" and :school boards providing a continuum of programming options and services to meet the special needs of students". Support services are to be co-ordinated within the neighbourhood school and to the extent possible, within grade level/subject area classrooms.
School boards are also obligated to provide necessary medical treatment during school hours, including the administration of oral medication and the health care and comfort of physically disabled students. Although students with special needs in Nova Scotia are entitled to an appropriate education and in theory parents are considered an integral part of the process of forming an education for such children, the actual reality is far from rosy. There are numerous children with special needs in this Province who have been pulled out of school by their parents. Some because the parents feel that the children's needs for physical safety are not being met, some due to the fact that the parents strongly believe that their children are not getting a proper education in school and having their diverse needs properly met. Some of these children are placed in private schools at great expense to the parents, some are officially signed up for home schooling and some are informally educated at home while the parents work very hard to get their children back in school with the type of programming to which they are legally entitled. It is for this reason that for a parent with a child with special needs in the school system, its important to know what the parents' and child's rights are and what tools are available to a parent when despite repeated discussion and negotiation, a school board refuses to provide a child with what they require to obtain an appropriate education.
The IPP
We have heard from many members of EEANS that they have trouble getting IPP's. Unfortunately school staff dissuade parents from obtaining an IPP by telling that putting a child on one will jeopardise their chances of attending post secondary education. This is false. The fact is, if a child is not given an IPP to help them regain their grade level and self confidence, they will be more in jeopardy of dropping out of school early and getting into trouble.
In Nova Scotia, students who cannot meet grade level outcomes, even with various accommodations, are entitled to be put on an individualized program plan, better known as an IPP. An IPP will set out the goals for the student, the strategies which will be used to achieve those goals and the roles and responsibilities of teachers and others, such as Speech Language Pathologists or teachers' assistants. The Program Planning Team is responsible for creating the IPP and reviewing and modifying it as the student's needs change. This team includes the student's teachers any teacher assistants or other specialist teachers involved and the parents or guardians of the child. The parent or guardian of a special needs child is, by law, a member of that child's Program Planning Team. The Policy provides a detailed description for the Program Planning team process stating that the program planning meeting should not be a forum for teachers, administrators, and other agency personnel to present a completed program to the parents. [pg.38] Although the parent is only one member of the Team, the legislation makes it clear that the parents' legal role in the education of a special needs child is not merely because they hold the title of "parent", but because parents, as such, are legislatively considered to possess a wealth of knowledge and experience about the special needs of their children. It is clear that decisions about Program Planning and services should be reached by mutual agreement among team members including parents / guardians. [pg.56]From a parent's point of view, the IPP is often the place where the rubber hits the road as it lays out how and what the school will teach their child. In a sense, its a child's lifeline, from where he is now to where we hope he will some day be. Parents are not only to be afforded the opportunity to participate in the development of an IPP for their special needs child but also to have access to a procedure to appeal that document if they disagree with. It is for that reason that the IPP appeal process is so important for parents- it gives them a process to follow if they do not agree with what the school proposes to teach the child, where they propose to teach him or the methods that they propose to use. From the parent's perspective its very important to know what steps must be followed in order to initiate an appeal of a child's IPP, how much time both the school board and Minister have to respond and set up an appeal hearing and what the parents' rights are at such hearings.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
With or without the IPP appeal process, the best protection afforded to students with special needs in Nova Scotia appears to be that offered in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter is part of Canada's Constitution and as such, every federal or provincial law must comply with it. For our purposes, the most relevant section of the Charter is sec. 15 which provides that "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination and in particular, without discrimination based on mental or physical disability'. There has been one major case where the Supreme Court of Canada has applied this section of the Charter in the context of the rights of a special needs child in the school system (Eaton v. Brant (County) Board of Education (1996) 142 D.L.R. (4th)385). In that case, the parents of a multiply-handicapped child, Emily, appealed her "placement" - although she had initially been placed in a regular kindergarten class with a special assistant, after two years the school wanted Emily to be placed in a segregated special education class. The parents wanted her to remain in a regular grade level classroom. Through the IPP appeal process, the case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The argument centred around s. 15 of the Charter - was it discriminatory to place Emily in a special education classroom? The Court found that in the facts of that particular case, it was not. It would be in Emily's "best interests" to be placed in a special classroom. Although some people view this case as a step backwards for equality and perspective is, of course, everything, I see this case as an important step forward for special needs children. The court noted that true equality requires the recognition of differences and focused upon a lack of accommodation as the real threat to disabled people in Canada. It was found that segregation could both protect or violate equality depending on the very individual characteristics of the child in question. Although integration was accepted as the general norm due to the benefits it provides, the court found that a presumption in favour of integrated schooling should be rejected on the basis that it may operate to deprive pupils that do require special education services that are best provided in a segregated setting (p. 407). The idea that each individual child, the strengths and needs of that particular child and where those needs are best met are the controlling factors in determining placement makes sense, at least to me. The court held that in some cases segregation would constitute discrimination; in other cases, inclusion in a regular classroom would be discriminatory. It all depends on the particular childHowever, the potential pitfall that I see in this analysis is how we determine (and perhaps more importantly, who determines) what is in a particular child's best interests. Unfortunately, the courts often display a high degree of deference to the "specialized tribunals" that represent school boards, whether it be the Identification Placement and Review Committee which determined placement in Emily's case or the Ministerial Appeal Board we find in Nova Scotia. To date, not only in Nova Scotia, but across the country, the courts definitely tend to come down on the side of the education system as being the best party to make such decisions. It will definitely be an uphill battle for parents as long as the courts operate with this unspoken presumption that the educational system "knows best". However as more and more special education cases are brought before the courts, they will eventually realize that the system, at least here in Nova Scotia, is not working "as it should", and they will become more interventionist. We should also realize that "placement" need not be an all or nothing proposition. Insisting that all special needs children must be placed in a special education setting 100% of the time is as ridiculous as asserting that all special needs children must be in a regular classroom 100% of the time. If we look at the individual child, and their particular needs, we may often find that the real answer is somewhere in between. As long as the governing rule is what is best for this particular child, a program planning team should be able to decide whether a combination of settings within a public school or a separate setting such as offered in Nova Scotia's Special Designated Private School would be most valuable for the child. Another Supreme Court of Canada decision which will likely eventually impact the rights of special needs students is Nova Scotia is that in Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624. In Eldridge, the plaintiffs, who were deaf, argued that because of the communication barrier that exists between deaf person and health care providers, deaf people received a lesser quality of medical services than hearing persons. The Supreme Court of Canada accepted this argument and found that the health care system was obligated to provide sign language interpreters to individuals in such circumstances. From the point of view of special education, this opens the door for special needs students to argue that where the Nova Scotia's Department of Education and their school boards fail to sufficiently accommodate their disabilities, such students will be receiving a lesser quality of educational services. In such a case, action might also be brought against the Province on the basis that the Province has and exercises the obligation to set policy and standards, evaluate programs and provide any potential funding to school boards for certain types of expenditures. If a student was successful in establishing that they were discriminated against in the quality of education provided to them, they might also be able to establish that the general policy standards and guidelines, and the funding parameters set by the Province failed to meet the constitutional standard.
There is also a very important case soon to be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.
In December 2006, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the B.C. Ministry of Education and the District School Division discriminates against children with learning disabilities by making cutbacks that disproportionately impacted children with learning disabilities and by failing to provide them with necessary programs and services.
The B.C. Ministry of Education has appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Canada. Should the Supreme court uphold the ruling, that the B.C. Ministry of Education did in fact discriminate, and suggest remedies, the remedies would be for all children regardless of which province they lived. This would be a big and positive step to force the Nova Scotia Department of Education to start living up to their obligations of equal education for all children including those with learning disabilities.
The Human Rights Act
Students with special needs should also be protected under the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act. All provincial legislation, including the Education Act and regulations made under it, must be in compliance with the Human Rights Act. It contains a provision similar to Sec. 15 of the Charter, stating that "No person shall in respect of the provision of or access to services or facilities discriminate against an individual or class of individuals on account of …. physical disability or mental disability. (s. 5(1)) However, within the past two years, the Human Rights Commission has taken the position that before proceeding to the Commission with respect to a complaint in respect of discrimination against a special needs child in the educational system, the parents must first exhaust all dispute resolution procedures available to them in the education system. This could mean following to its completion the IPP appeal process or any parent concern protocols which various school boards might have. From the point of view of the parent, it often looks like just another roadblock placed in front of them as they try to obtain an appropriate education for their child.
Conclusion
Due to the courts' reluctance in Canada to embrace the concept that a student, or a parent, can bring an action for a school board's negligence in providing, or failing to provide, an appropriate education to a special needs child, the best tool that parents and their special needs children have in attempting to obtain an appropriate education in Canada at this point is clearly the Charter. The Department of Education's Special Education Policy Manual, which has the effect of law, provides that "School Boards are required to provide an appropriate education for all students who reside within their jurisdiction who are of school age." (Policy 1.5) By relying on the right of every individual to have the equal benefit of this law and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of either physical or mental disability, parents should be in a position to resort to the courts, when necessary, to obtain an education appropriate to their individual child's needs.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Notice:EEANS AGM May 22nd
EEANS will be holding it’s Annual General Meeting 7pm, Tuesday, May 22nd at the Bedford Presbyterian Church-
49 Nelson's Landing Boulevard, Bedford.
We will be discussing progress made during the 2006-07 year including the status of the Tuition Support Program as well as providing an overview of EEAN’S goals for the 2007-08 school year.
This will be a great chance for you to have input on EEANS, as well as meet other members who are interested in making sure children with learning disabilities get a fair and equal education in Nova Scotia.
If you are interested in having a more active roll in supporting EEANS goals, a election of directors will take place. We would encourage anyone with a little spare time to participate by volunteering to sit on our board executive or by getting involved in a sub-committee project. Your involvement can be tailored to your availability and any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
We hope you can make it.
49 Nelson's Landing Boulevard, Bedford.
We will be discussing progress made during the 2006-07 year including the status of the Tuition Support Program as well as providing an overview of EEAN’S goals for the 2007-08 school year.
This will be a great chance for you to have input on EEANS, as well as meet other members who are interested in making sure children with learning disabilities get a fair and equal education in Nova Scotia.
If you are interested in having a more active roll in supporting EEANS goals, a election of directors will take place. We would encourage anyone with a little spare time to participate by volunteering to sit on our board executive or by getting involved in a sub-committee project. Your involvement can be tailored to your availability and any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
We hope you can make it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
