Special Education Legislation in Ontario's Elementary School System

Category: Education

Presentation Description

No description available.


Presentation Transcript

Special Education Legislation in Ontario’s Elementary Schools : 

Special Education Legislation in Ontario’s Elementary Schools Inclusion and Exclusion of Special Needs Pupils in Regular Classrooms Lisa Lahey, B.Ed. 23/11/2010 1

Egerton Ryerson : 

Egerton Ryerson “Education among the people is the best security of a good government and constitutional liberty, it yields a steady unbending support to the former, and effectually protects the latter.”Egerton Ryerson (1803 – 1882) In 1844, Ryerson accepted the post of Superintendent of Education for Upper Canada (Ontario). From 1844 to 1876 he devoted himself to the formation of the Ontario Public School System. 23/11/2010 2

Slide 3: 

Ryerson incorporated the best of the school systems of the United States and Europe into Upper Canada’s system. Ryerson visited more than 20 countries during 1844 and 1845 when he was developing his proposals for a public school system. What Ryerson could not have known at the time was that by borrowing from the educational curriculum worldwide he set the stage for significant curriculum similarities in a global education in 21st century Ontario. 23/11/2010 3

Slide 4: 

The changing nature of children’s lives strongly influenced Canadian education. The 17th and 18th centuries were a labour-intensive economy. Children learned skills such as gardening, spinning and land clearing. Young males were trained for various trades through an APPRENTICESHIP system. Prairie School Coldridge School, circa 1905 (courtesy Saskatchewan Archives Board). 23/11/2010 4

Slide 5: 

mid-19th century Canadian education By the late 19th century, girls attended HOME ECONOMICS programs to learn cooking and cleaning skills while boys learned manual skills related to factory work. The similarity among school systems in Canada emerged throughout the mid-19th century, and the willingness of most parents to send their children to school whenever possible. 23/11/2010 5

Slide 6: 

The paucity of employment opportunities for females contributed to the widespread feminization of the elementary-school teaching force. Parents decided to have fewer children so as to invest more time and money in their children’s education. Children’s final departure from school seldom resulted in a diploma. Compulsory attendance legislation was passed in the Canadian provinces during the later 19th century. 23/11/2010 6

Slide 7: 

School promoters believed that mass schooling could be effective for teaching appropriate behaviour, not the acquisition of knowledge. School systems solved problems from crime to poverty, and idleness to vagrancy. Children’s attendance varied depending upon sowing ad harvesting seasons. Read The History of Education, The Canadian Encyclopedia Watch History of Education from the Progressive Movement to the Present Video 23/11/2010 7

Slide 8: 

Toronto Catholic District School Board originated in 1841, a momentous event for the Catholics of Toronto. The Board received the common school fund in the same amount on a per-pupil basis as the Toronto Common (Public) School Board. The Catholic supporters had to pay common school taxes and tuition fees for their children to attend St. Paul’s, the first Catholic elementary school. History of individual Ontario school boards: TCDSB 23/11/2010 8

separate school board rights : 

The Board opened a second school--St. Mary--in 1847, and a third one--St. Patrick--in 1849. In 1850 Armand de Charbonnel was appointed as Bishop of Toronto. Charbonnel battled with Egerton Ryerson for improved rights for the separate schools of Toronto and Ontario. He managed to have most obstacles to Catholic education removed. separate school board rights 23/11/2010 9

Introduction to Special Education Legislation in Ontario’s Elementary and Secondary Schools : 

Introduction to Special Education Legislation in Ontario’s Elementary and Secondary Schools Special Education Legislation in Ontario Schools The authority to create and regulate educational policy in Ontario is divided among two levels of government as set out in s.91 and s.92 of the Constitution Act 1867. In Ontario, our schools are shaped by policies made by Provincial politicians and local school boards as authorized by the Constitution and delegated via legislation and regulation. Read Policy and History of Education in Ontario 23/11/2010 10

The Origin of Special Education Programs : 

The Origin of Special Education Programs During the thirty years from 1950 to 1980, the needs of exceptional students were largely ignored. In 1980, SEACs became a major revision to the education system and specifically its support for students with special needs. That year, An Act to Amend the Education Act, (Bill 82), was passed requiring that exceptional pupils receive special education programs and services. Read SEAC Learning Special Education Advisory Committees 23/11/2010 11

Ruthie - 1957 : 

Ruthie began attending school at the age of eight. The chairman of S.S.#12 school board told the teacher that she didn’t have to accept Ruthie in her class since that was an education regulation. The teacher accepted Ruthie. Gradually, Ruthie recognized her name in print; understood and followed routines; counted up to ten and she stopped wandering off without supervision. Ruthie - 1957 23/11/2010 12

Slide 13: 

Ruthie didn’t do so well the following year. Her teacher got married and moved away. The school inspector told the staff that no one had to take Ruthie in their class, but he advised them if they volunteered to accept Ruthie they could. No one did and Ruthie never attended school anymore. 23/11/2010 13

No More Ruthies : 

No More Ruthies In 1962, the first comprehensive Ontario Human Rights Code in Canada was established. The Code ensured the right to equal access to services, including education. However, it was not until 1982 that human rights legislation eliminating discrimination on the basis of “handicap” was proclaimed. 23/11/2010 14

The Impact of Bill 82 : 

In 1968 the Hall-Dennis Report, Living and Learning: The Report of the Provincial Committee on Aims and Objectives of Education in the Schools of Ontario, was released. A key component of this report was the reinforcement of "... the right of every individual to have equal access to the learning experience best suited to his needs.” Bill 82, came into effect in Ontario. This legislation, which had a significant impact on special education in the province, provided all children with a publicly funded education, regardless of disabilities. The Impact of Bill 82 23/11/2010 15

Landmark Legislation : 

Landmark Legislation Up until 1980, school boards had the option to offer special education programs to exceptional pupils but the boards were under no obligation to do so. Children with special needs were sometimes excluded entirely from Ontario schools. Exceptional children remained at home without attending any school although some might have attended private schools run by unqualified parents or volunteers. watch special education teaching: definition of special education 23/11/2010 16

Slide 17: 

The 1980 legislation mandated requirements including: early and ongoing identification and assessment of students establishment of Identification, Placement, and Review Committee parental involvement with their children and their right to appeal Roman Catholic School Boards were required to provide special education services for all of their exceptional students. View Special Needs Program Video – teaching a special needs class 23/11/2010 17

Integration in 1982 : 

Integration in 1982 The 1980 reform mandated that special education students be integrated into the regular classroom for learning. It was a merger of regular and special education into one unified system that: educated all students in the mainstream system was meant to meet the unique needs of individual students asserted that the current dual system was inefficient. 23/11/2010 18

results : 

results The results were mixed in terms of student success. Full integration and inclusion would not support the learning of special needs students unless: Classroom and resource teachers communicated and cooperated effectively Teacher attitudes were accepting Teachers were able to teach to both special needs and regular students, a complex task in one classroom 23/11/2010 19

Arrowsith School, Toronto: a special education alternative : 

Barbara Young, who experienced severe learning disabilities as a child, founded the Arrowsmith School in 1980. The program is founded on neuroscientific research that strengthens weak cognitive capacities underlying children’s learning dysfunctions through specific cognitive exercises.  Students build on their increased learning capacities and eventually function without special education assistance or program accommodations. Arrowsith School, Toronto: a special education alternative 23/11/2010 20

Slide 21: 

Students at Arrowsmith School spend three or four years in the program before returning to a full academic program in a public school. The TCDSB reported: a reduction in the resource support required after the student left the Arrowsmith Program; ·a reduction in the resource support required while the student was in the Arrowsmith Program; ·success in high school and post secondary programs with no or minimal resource support. Watch Arrowsmith School’s introductory video here. 23/11/2010 21

TCDSB and Arrowsmith Programs : 

TCDSB and Arrowsmith Programs In 1997, the Toronto Catholic District School Board began to offer the Arrowsmith Program. Several independent schools in Ontario and British Columbia began to offer the Arrowsmith Program in 2002. The Arrowsmith Program became available in the United States in 2005. The Learning Disabilities Association of Saskatchewan became the first Learning Disabilities Association in Canada offering the Arrowsmith program. Ontario public school boards have begun to petition the Ministry of Education to allow the Arrowsmith Programs in their schools. 23/11/2010 22

Slide 23: 

The goal of the Arrowsmith Program is to strengthen the weak cognitive capacities underlying student’s learning dysfunctions. The Arrowsmith Program deals with the root causes of the learning disability rather than managing its symptoms. 23/11/2010 23 The program can be used with inclusive or withdrawal methods The Arrowsmith Approach

Special Education in Ontario Today : 

Special Education in Ontario Today Identified and unidentified students receiving special education programs and services must have an Individual Education Plan and Provincial Report Card as accountability tools. The ministry included a section on IEPs in its resource document Special Education: A Guide for Educators, 2001 assisting teachers and other support professionals in developing IEPs. Watch Special Education Law: A Practical Overview for Families 23/11/2010 24

Ongoing Ministry Support : 

The Ministry supports the development of effective IEPs by providing educators with sample IEPs, developed by writing teams across Ontario. The samples were developed using the provincial electronic IEP template posted on the CODE website. View a sample IEP template provided by the Ontario ministry. Ongoing Ministry Support 23/11/2010 25

The Rights of Autistic Children : 

The Rights of Autistic Children The crucial issue where the rights of autistic children in education is what obligations the are that the Ontario government has to provide in terms of programming required by parents on behalf of their children. Watch Verbal Behaviour: Teaching Children with Autism, Max Video 23/11/2010 26

Slide 27: 

Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders The ministry funded and trained educators with Geneva Centre for Autism to support implementation of PPM No. 140, Incorporating Methods of Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) into Programs for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). Training opportunities were provided for school board teams, principals, and school teams. The ministry provides funding to support training opportunities for schools. Watch Autism Every Day Video 23/11/2010 27

Clough v. Simcoe County District School Board, 2005 CanLII 18299 (ON S.C.D.C.) : 

Clough v. Simcoe County District School Board, 2005 CanLII 18299 (ON S.C.D.C.) This case involves a judicial review of Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal’s decision regarding the placement of a 12-year-old boy with severe autism in the Primary Autism Pilot Project at Algonquin Ridge Elementary School. Jared is an autistic twelve-year-old boy who: is non-verbal communicates through pictures  has severe deficits in communication, life skills, social skills and behaviour The Simcoe County District School Board (“School Board”) placed Jared in the Primary Autism Pilot Project at Algonquin Ridge Elementary School, resulting from a decision of the Identification, Placement and Review Committee (“IPRC”) of the School Board dated June 18, 2002. Susan Clough, Jared’s mother, requested a Special Education Tribunal hearingwhich heard the matter on several dates in 2003. The Tribunal affirmed the IPRC placement in the Pilot Project and Ms. Clough sought judicial review of that decision. 23/11/2010 28

Slide 29: 

Ms. Clough wanted the School Board to provide Jared with an Intensive Behavioural Intervention Program (“IBI”) She described the program she wanted for Jared which included: Jared seated in a chair constructed like a high chair A separate room apart from all other students without distractions Jared’s program to be 40 hours a week with an IBI therapist and an IBI-trained psychologist Read Clough v. SCDSB here. 23/11/2010 29

Slide 30: 

The Tribunal found that Ms. Clough wanted therapy for her son and not education.  The Tribunal found that the APA Program had six students assisted by one full-time teacher and seven E.A.s with two E.A.s assigned to Jared.  The Tribunal found that the APP contained satisfactory elements based on behavioural principles which Ms. Clough herself recognized. Watch a look into autism: famous people with autism 23/11/2010 30

Superior Court of Justice Decision : 

The court found the Tribunal was reasonable in concluding that the APP placement was appropriate for Jared.  Ms. Clough submitted the Tribunal should apply the Charter and the Human Rights Code but the Court rejected her submission. Superior Court of Justice Decision Watch One on One Autism Instruction: the story of Boston video 23/11/2010 31

Jared’s Appeal Concluded : 

Jared’s Appeal Concluded Read Wynberg v. Ontario O.J. No. 1228 here. Mrs. Clough submitted that the Superior Court of Justice in Wynberg v. Ontario, [2005] O.J. No. 1228 (March 30, 2005) upholding the plaintiffs’ appeal that the defendant breached the rights of 35 autistic children because it did not provide IBI when the autistic child turned 6, and because the program was not available in the education system. The Supreme Court of Ontario found that the Wynberg case differed significantly from that of Jared Clough and the court was unable to apply it to Mrs. Clough’s submission. Mrs. Clough’s application was dismissed. Watch Introduction to Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) 23/11/2010 32

Ontario Human Rights and Exceptional Students : 

Ontario Human Rights and Exceptional Students Watch Special education success stories start with the basics 23/11/2010 33

Ontario Human Rights Commission, Ontario Legislation, Zero Tolerance and Exceptional Students : 

Ontario Human Rights Commission, Ontario Legislation, Zero Tolerance and Exceptional Students Read Ontario Human Rights Commission Disproportionate Impact of Zero Tolerance Discipline 23/11/2010 34 The Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario’s 1999 platform promised a zero tolerance policy for bad behaviour in schools. In April 2000 Education Minister Janet Ecker released a Code of Conduct for Ontario schools. The Minister introduced the Safe Schools Act, proposing that educators should have more authority to suspend and expel students; it was passed by the legislature in June 2000 and came into effect in September 2001.

Report by OHRC : 

An Ontario Ministry of Education draft document, Special Education Monograph No. 5, Guidelines for the Implementation of the Ministry of Education and Training’s Violence-Free Schools Policy with respect to Exceptional Pupils and Special Needs, showed that the suspensions and expulsions in schools had a disproportionate impact on students with disabilities. The Ontario Human Rights Commission submitted its own report stating the Act discriminated against Latino and Black students, as well as students with disabilites. The OHRC based their report on interviews with students in high needs communities, parents of these students, including minority students and students with exceptionalities. Report by OHRC Watch School Safety and the Race Card Video 23/11/2010 35

Slide 36: 

Students with emotional/behavioural disorders, intellectual and learning disabilities, autism, and Tourette’s Syndrome, attention deficit disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder and difficulties with impulse control appeared to be among a disproportionate amount of suspended and expelled students. OHRC stated that interviews with a social worker, a community worker, lawyers, and advocates for people with disabilities revealed there was a strong perception that the Act had a disproportionate impact on students with disabilities. 23/11/2010 36

OHRC Report Conclusion : 

OHRC Report Conclusion OHRC agreed with the Ministry that schools should be safe and violence-free, but a number of concerns were raised about the Safe Schools Act and school board policies, including that there was a strong perception that zero tolerance had a disproportionate impact on students with disabilities. 23/11/2010 37

Slide 38: 

Schafer v. Toronto District School Board, 2010 HRTO 403 (CanLII) This is an Application filed November 6, 2008 under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant is a minor with special learning needs. In 2005, he enrolled in grade nine at Central Technical High School (“Central Tech”).  The respondent is the Toronto District School Board (the “TDSB”, the “Board” or the “respondent School Board”). The applicant alleges that from September 2005 to April 2006, the TDSB did not provide him with appropriate special education services in accordance with his disability-related needs. The complaint relates two suspensions issued by Central Tech, one in November 2005 for five days and one in March 2006 for 20 days and alleges that these suspensions were discriminatory because the TDSB did not take adequate account the applicant’s disabilities in determining his culpability. Read Schafer v. TSB, 2010 HRTO 403 23/11/2010 38

Slide 39: 

The applicant raised the issue about the adequacy of the homework provided during his suspension and his re-entry plan. The Case Resolution Conference in the application took place between May 2009 and October 2009. The statutory scheme for special education defines “exceptional pupil” in the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.2, as amended, as one whose: behavioural, communicational, intellectual, physical or multiple exceptionalities require that he or she receive placement in a special education program [sec.1(1)]. Applicant’s Issues Watch IDEA and Special Education Best Practices 23/11/2010 39

Statutory Scheme for Special Education : 

Statutory Scheme for Special Education The Education Act establishes an obligation of the Minister to ensure that all exceptional children in Ontario have available “special education programs and special education services”. [s.8(3)]. The Act recognizes that students with disabilities will not receive equal educational services without some modifications (accommodations) to their needs. Ms. Schafer submitted that the TDSB did not comply with the Education Act or TDSB policy and that the school did not implement the accommodations listed in the IPRC or the latest Individual Education Plan (“IEP”). 23/11/2010 40

Slide 41: 

23/11/2010 41

Slide 42: 

23/11/2010 42

Inclusion/Withdrawal from the Regular Classsroom : 

Inclusion/Withdrawal from the Regular Classsroom Inclusion Withdrawal/Exclusion 23/11/2010 43

inclusion : 

inclusion Inclusion in education is an approach to educating students with special educational needs. Under this model students with special needs spend most or all of their time with non-disabled students. Inclusive education differs from ‘integration’ and ‘mainstreaming’, which is concerned with disability and ‘special educational needs’ and implies that learners are ‘ready for’ accommodation by the mainstream. Read about inclusion in the education system 23/11/2010 44

integration : 

integration Avant-garde view supports integration of students in special education into the regular classroom and integration of regular and special ed resources and personnel. Old view supports use of categorization labels and withdrawal programs. Status quo advocates support of mainstreaming on a part-time basis with continuing withdrawal using resources teachers teaching a remedial program to special students. Watch video Special Education Teaching: Teaching Strategies in Special Education 23/11/2010 45

avant-garde view teachers : 

avant-garde view teachers watch special education process Teachers with the avant-garde perspective recognize that regular and special education should merge into one unified system. Teachers recognize that special educators need to take a more active role in designing curricula for regular and special needs students. 23/11/2010 46

old view teachers : 

Teachers with this perspective recognize that special needs students need individualized programs tailored to their needs and that this type of curriculum should only be provided to special students. They do not generally support mainstreaming. They support two sets of curricula, one for special students, one for regular students. old view teachers watch cool careers: special education 23/11/2010 47

status quo view teachers : 

status quo view teachers watch introduction to special education Teachers with the status quo view of special education recognize that mainstreaming has a positive effect on a part-time basis and that withdrawal for special needs students is necessary. They believe the categorization of students should depend on how well it meets its purpose. 23/11/2010 48

Slide 49: 

Watch the inclusive classroom (short version) Inclusion rejects the use of special schools or classrooms to separate students with disabilities from students without disabilities. The full participation by students with disabilities is advocated as well as respect for their social, civil, and educational rights. Fully inclusive schools, which are rare, do not distinguish between "general education" and "special education" programs; instead all students learn together. 23/11/2010 49

arguments for full inclusion : 

arguments for full inclusion 23/11/2010 50 Advocates say that even partial non-inclusion is morally unacceptable and they believe that non-inclusion reduces the disabled students' social importance. Maintaining their social visibility in a regular classroom is more important than their academic achievement. Proponents also say that society accords disabled people less human dignity when they are less visible in general education classrooms. watch co teaching strategies

Slide 51: 

23/11/2010 51 A second key argument is that everybody benefits from inclusion and there are many children and young people who don't fit in or feel as though they don't. One author studied the impact a diversified student body had on the general education population and concluded that students with mental retardation who spend time among their peers show an increase in social skills and academic proficiency. Research shows that inclusion helps students understand the importance of working together, and fosters a sense of empathy among the student body. watch collaborative teaching

teacher’s role in the inclusive classroom : 

teacher’s role in the inclusive classroom 23/11/2010 52 Watch family guy candy teacher T = teach and assess the match ADAPT is an approach that is helpful to classroom teachers who teach regular and special students. A = account of the student’s strengths and needs D = demands of the classroom A = adaptations to assist the special needs student P = perspectives and consequences

case study: teaching in an inclusive classroom : 

case study: teaching in an inclusive classroom Mrs. Ash and Samuel 23/11/2010 53 Samuel also goes to the round table where Mrs. Ash explains the math concepts again and can correct Samuel’s work. Mrs. Ash teaches a new math concept to the whole class with the class seated in pairs. Samuel has an LD and finds math difficult. Mrs. Ash pairs Samuel with a boy who is strong in math and can answer Samuel’s questions. Samuel uses a calculator, an accommodation assigned to him in his IEP.

benefits of inclusion for regular students : 

benefits of inclusion for regular students Repetition of lesson concepts is helpful to all students Use of a round table is available to all students who may be struggling with a new concept Working in pairs and small groups assists all students when grasping new concepts 23/11/2010 54

exceptions to inclusion : 

Some special needs students are not good candidates for inclusion: Some students with special needs are poor candidates for inclusion because of their effect on other students. (ie. students with severe behavioural problems are poor inclusion candidates because the school has to provide a safe environment to all students and staff). exceptions to inclusion 23/11/2010 55 watch bad collaboration

Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, 1995 CanLII 980 (ON C.A.) : 

The appellants are the parents of Emily Eaton, a 10-year-old girl with cerebral palsy. The Eatons assert Emily’s entitlement to full inclusion in a regular classroom in a regular public school. Emily does not speak, has no established alternative communication system, has some visual impairment.  She can bear her own weight and walk with the aid of a walker, but she is mostly in a wheelchair. Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, 1995 CanLII 980 (ON C.A.) Watch Rising Special Education Costs Place Heavy Burdens 23/11/2010 56

Slide 57: 

The Identification, Placement, and Review Committee ("IPRC") of the  Brant County Board of Education identified Emily as exceptional and with the request of her parents placed her in her neighbouring school on a trial basis. This continued into Grade 1, but the school board requested that Emily be placed in a class for disabled students.  Over the parents' objection, the IPRC  granted the board's request. That decision was upheld by the Special Education Appeal Board and, subsequently, by the Ontario Special Education ( English) Tribunal ("The Tribunal"). The appellants' Application for Judicial Review was dismissed by the Divisional Court. 23/11/2010 57

Slide 58: 

Students who are identified as exceptional are provided with remedial instructions responsive to their individual needs. These programs are offered either: within the child's regular classroom through periodic withdrawal from the regular classroom in special classrooms where pupils with similar needs are instructed as a group The appellants assert that removing  Emily from the classroom would be a burden and would deprive her of a benefit. 23/11/2010 58

Emily and Segregation : 

Emily and Segregation The appellants state that although other forms of special programs are not a burden for Emily, removal from the regular classroom is segregation. They agree that placing Emily in a regular classroom will not meet her equality entitlements. They agree Emily would need considerable assistance in the classroom so that her experience can be as close as possible  to the other children. Watch Lianna’s Cerebral Palsy Video 23/11/2010 59

Decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal : 

The court ruled that the appellants were asking the courts to find that the adjudication by the tribunal should be made in accordance with Charter and Human Rights values and principles. However the statute authorizes the placement that the school board selected for Emily Eaton. That placement is discriminatory however the discrimination must be  attributed to the legislation, and not to the school board or the Tribunal. Decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal 23/11/2010 60

Discrimination by the Legislation : 

Discrimination by the Legislation Is exclusion justified under s.1 of the Charter? Section 1 of the Charter provides that: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be justified in a democratic society. The appellants absolute right did not assert that Emily Eaton has an to be in a regular classroom. They contend there should be "a presumption " in favour of inclusion. 23/11/2010 61

Slide 62: 

The court disgreed with the Tribunal's conclusion that Emily's physical and personal safety needs could not be met in a regular classroom.  What the court would not disregard was Emily's habit of mouthing objects. The Tribunal notes that some of the objects mouthed are potentially harmful objects (e.g., pins). 23/11/2010 62

Slide 63: 

The court concluded the appeal should be allowed, the decision of the Tribunal should be set aside and the matter should be remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for re-hearing.     The Divisional Court emphasized the need for collaboration between Emily's parents and the school board effort to meet Emily's present and future needs. 23/11/2010 63

Expulsion and Special Needs Students : 

Expulsion and Special Needs Students M. v. Toronto District School Board (EA s. 311.7), 2008 CFSRB 105 (CanLII) Watch Behaviour Disorders in Children Video 23/11/2010 64

This case is an appeal by Ms. M. involving the expulsion of her special needs son (C.O.) from all TDSB schools pursuant to section 311.7 of the Education Act R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2 : 

This case is an appeal by Ms. M. involving the expulsion of her special needs son (C.O.) from all TDSB schools pursuant to section 311.7 of the Education Act R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2 23/11/2010 65 In May 2008, the pupil was rude to his teacher and swore at his teacher in front of the class. He told the pupil to go to the office but the Monitor saw the pupil in the cafeteria. He asked him to go to the office when he was done with his meal. The pupil threw some rice in the Monitor’s face and it stuck to his glasses.

Slide 66: 

The Vice Principal arrived and stood between the Monitor and the pupil. He admitted he placed his hands on the pupil’s shoulders to stop him from throwing food at the Monitor. The pupil pushed the Vice Principal in the chest and caused the Vice Principal to step back. The Vice Principal asked the pupil to leave and watched as the pupil left the school. The Vice Principal called the police because he had been assaulted and felt threatened. Read M. v. Toronto District School Board (EA s. 311.7) 23/11/2010 66

Slide 67: 

The Principal looked at the pupil’s history, the incident and recommended that he be expelled from all schools of the TDSB. The TDSB expelled the pupil from all of its schools. The pupil has a special needs with a history of discipline. The pupil had an Individual Education Plan (‘IEP”) that was in place, but never had an Identification Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) to identify him as a special needs student. 23/11/2010 67

Slide 68: 

Two of the problems identified in the IEP were low cognitive functioning and distractibility; the pupil’s frustration was linked to his low functioning in school and his acting out. Under the Act a Principal shall suspend a pupil if he believes that the pupil has: Committed physical assault on another person that causes bodily harm requiring treatment by a medical practitioner. Any other activity for which a principal must suspend a pupil and to conduct an investigation determining whether to recommend that the pupil be expelled. 23/11/2010 68

Mitigating Factors : 

Mitigating Factors Under section 2 of Ontario Regulation 472/07 mitigating factors are: 1.         The pupil cannot control his behaviour 2.         The pupil cannot understand the foreseeable consequences of his behaviour 3.         The pupil’s continuing presence in the school does not create an unacceptable risk to the safety of any person. 23/11/2010 69

The Board took those factors into account and found that in the circumstances of the case, the third factor mitigated against expulsion. : 

When the pupil is frustrated, he leaves the environment which is causing him the frustration. The Board believes that if the appropriate accommodations are put in place to address the pupil’s frustrations his behaviour will improve. The Board took those factors into account and found that in the circumstances of the case, the third factor mitigated against expulsion. 23/11/2010 70

Slide 71: 

In swearing at teachers and leaving the classroom to walk the halls, the pupil was expressing his frustration and his need for help.  While some strategies were put in place the school did not intervene sufficiently to implement supports. It was evident that his learning environment was not effective and that further supports were needed. 23/11/2010 71

Progressive Discipline : 

Progressive Discipline The Board found that while there was some evidence of progressive discipline, there was room for more discipline prior to taking the serious step of expulsion. The failure to use further, progressive discipline was a factor which reduced the seriousness of the incident. 23/11/2010 72

conclusion : 

conclusion The Board quashed the expulsion because the infraction – a simple assault – is not covered under section 310(1) to (8) of the Act. The pupil was returned to his class. 23/11/2010 73

Exclusion of Exceptional Students from School : 

Exclusion of Exceptional Students from School In the case of extremely violent students whose parents are unwilling to place their children into behaviour programs, the school may be forced to prohibit the student from attending school. The level of violence must be such that the student presents an ongoing disruption and danger to staff and students. The existing Ontario legislation is inadequate in addressing this unusual situation. 23/11/2010 74

Dealing with a Dual Diagnosis : 

Dealing with a Dual Diagnosis Read Bonnah (Litigation Guardian of) v. Ottawa-Carleton District School Board This case involves an 11-year-old boy named Zachary Bonnah with the dual diagnosis of violent behaviour and developmental disabilities. Zachary was placed at a regular school, Manor Park where he displayed disruptive and violent behaviours: kicking and hitting the educational assistant and becoming more aggressive toward other students. The school’s IPRC recommended Zachary be transferred back to a previous special needs school, Clifford Bowey Public School; his parents appealed the decision and the school was obligated to keep Zachary for the remainder of his grade two class pending the outcome of the appeal. 23/11/2010 75

Slide 76: 

In late December 2001, Mr. Bonnah was advised that Zachary would be transferred from Manor Park to Clifford Bowey because of safety concerns, when school resumed in January 2002.  Mr. Bonnah’s appeal from the decision of the IPRC was still outstanding.  Mr. Bonnah felt that the administrative transfer was an attempt to circumvent the stay of the IPRC decision effected by the Bonnah’s appeal. Watch Teachers, Students Discuss School Violence Video 23/11/2010 76

Slide 77: 

Mr. Bonnah decided to challenge the Board by way of judiciary review and Zachary did not return to school in January 2002; he was still not in school when his appeal was heard in December 2002. In April and June 2002, the appeal was heard by the Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) and SEAB recommended a semi-integrated placement with part time attendance in regular classes and part time placement in special ed classes. The Board chose to implement some, but not all of the SEAB recommendations. Mr. Bonnah appealed the Board’s decision to the Special Education Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”). The Tribunal allowed the appeal, but did not order that Zachary be placed in Manor Park School. 23/11/2010 77

Court’s Decision : 

Court’s Decision The application judge concluded that, like all other students, Zachary did not have a vested right to attend any particular school within the jurisdiction of the Board.  She held that the Board had the authority to transfer students for safety reasons. She also held that the Board’s transfer of Zachary was made fairly and with just cause However the administrator cannot alter a student’s placement by purporting to transfer the exceptional pupil to a different school. Having determined that Zachary could not attend Manor Park because of safety concerns, the Board could offer an alternative placement to Zachary’s parents where the safety concerns did not arise.  Zachary’s parents would then decide whether to send Zachary to that school.  This appeal was dismissed. 23/11/2010 78

glossary : 

glossary 23/11/2010 79 IBI – intensive behaviour intervention program IDEA – individuals with disabilities education act IEP – individual education program IPRC – identification, placement, review committee LD – learning disability SEAC – special education advisory committee

Slide 80: 

History of education in ontario The canadian encyclopedia Egerton Ryerson Arrowsmith website Inclusion - education 23/11/2010 80 references Inclusion of Exceptional Learners in Canadian Schools Classroom integration of special education students: using Q methodology to determineTeacher attitudes Inclusive practices for the full inclusion classroom

links : 

links 23/11/2010 81 Arrowsmith School Autism Ontario Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario Ontario Human Rights Commission Ministry of Children and Youth Services Ontario Ontario Ministry of Education

authorStream Live Help