IS THERE A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UNIDENTIFIED AND/OR INAPPROPRIATELY ACCOMMODATED LEARNING DISABILITIES IN STUDENTS, AND RESULTING ANXIETY, DEPRESSION AND SUICIDES?

In an earlier blog, I had referenced the negative role that parents could be unconsciously playing, by attributing their child's academic failures to laziness and disconnectedness. The scary part of this toxic reasoning is the fact that the observed academic shortcomings may simply be a function of an unidentified and/or inappropriately accommodated learning disability.

Left untreated, a learning disability can lead to feelings of self doubt, low self esteem, social withdrawal, anxiety, depression, and, in a worst case unthinkable scenario---suicide. Properly diagnosed and assessed, a learning disability can be effectively accommodated and can lead to a normal, productive and rewarding academic experience, and a relatively unobstructed, positive life experience.

The direct relationship between academic pressure and the resultant anxiety and depression, has been well documented. The transition from high school to University life can be daunting and traumatic in and of itself. This includes potential feelings of loneliness, abandonment and general fear of this new and unknown frontier called "life on campus".

The compounded issue of an unidentified and/or inappropriately accommodated learning disability may be the factor that could tip the scale to a personal disaster.

Last week, during a visit to one of the universities, I eavesdropped on a "matter of fact" conversation between a few first year "Frosh" students who were discussing the haunting approach; of what University students have dubbed "Suicide Week" at Canadian university campuses.

I don't want to sound alarmist, but one need only consider the results of a 2011 survey1  of 1,600 University of Alberta students, in order to acknowledge the gripping reality, that "something" is seriously amiss.

According to the survey results:

51 per cent of the student responses stated that, within the past year, they had “felt things were hopeless.”

Over 50% felt “overwhelming anxiety.”

7 per cent admitted that they had “seriously considered suicide"
Approximately 1 per cent, admitted a suicide attempt (Note: on a sampling of 1,600 students, 1% of the stated 1,600 student sampling represents 16 admitted suicide attempts)

These disturbing statistics are apparently not unique to the University of Alberta.

Ryerson University’s Centre for Student Development and Counseling in Toronto, recently reported a 200 per cent response demand to crisis situations.2

In March 2010, a first year Queen’s University student died by suicide.

Over the period of the next ensuing 14 months period, three more Queen's students committed suicide,

In the wake of these and other "sudden" deaths at Queen's, the University established a special commission, which produced a report detailing 116 recommendations for change.3 Although the recommended proposals are specifically directed to Queen’s in Kingston, many of the ideas are applicable to other secondary and post secondary academic institutions.

The commission heard about "inconsistencies and structural issues across university operations that present inadvertent academic-related obstacles resulting in unnecessary stress and distress."4

These recommendations included:

 • Developing university-wide policies that would grant special accommodation when excess stress and other “extenuating circumstances” pressure students writing exams, midterms and research papers.

• Making it easier to erase “false starts.” These occur when a student arrives on campus unprepared for the pace and intensity of academic work. Kids can flame out, registering low marks that don’t reflect their true ability. Some of the stress from this could be eased if those marks don’t have a lasting impact on their record.

 • Allowing vulnerable students to move into an on-campus residence a day or two early to ease their transition into university or college life.

Although the commission report does not directly reference the issue of the unidentified and/or inappropriately accommodated students with learning disabilities, the report does reference the fact that there was no policy or process in place, to guide professors, staff or students in cases involving students who are not registered with the student disabilities department. Remember though that they are primarily addressing the problem of the general stress level experienced by the student population and they are not addressing the unique plight of students with an unidentified and/or inappropriately accommodated learning disabilities.

The compounded stress experienced by an unidentified and/or inappropriately accommodated student with a learning disability, is profound. On top of the obvious transition related stress issues, the unidentified and/or inappropriately accommodated student could see himself/herself as being effectively disconnected from the University learning experience. You might call it a feeling of being  "up the creek without a paddle". These invisible barriers, that are the hallmarks of an inappropriately accommodated learning disability, can obviously, generate feelings of hopelessness and personal despair. Those students who have demonstrated reluctance to self-advocate due to shame, guilt or fear of the disability "label", may have unintentionally put themselves in harms way.

A growing body of research has established a direct correlation between student depression and a number of factors including, most notably, the role of learning disabilities.  Co-occurrence rates between learning disability and depression are very high.4

Unfortunately it is a vicious circle...unidentified and/or inappropriately accommodated learning disabilities spawn poor academic performance...poor academic performance spawns depression...depression interferes with the student' stability to concentrate on cognitive tasks, including text reading, and consequent interferes with the student's ability to learn.

Talk of student suicide is obviously an uncomfortable and gut wrenching topic. Although it is the most extreme of possible victim responses, we must also pay careful attention to the less extreme, depressive responses to systemic academic failure that is rooted in undiagnosed and/or inappropriately accommodated learning disabilities.

In this regard, please consider the following:

How many bright students, with unidentified and/or inappropriately accommodated learning disabilities, drop out of school?

How many talented students, with unidentified and/or inappropriately accommodated learning disabilities are forced to live a life immersed in self doubt and low self esteem, having never been given the opportunity to realize their individual potentials?

The cost of a psycho-educational assessment is typically in the range of $1,500 to $2,500.

Amortized over a lifetime, this cost is a small price to pay for your child's protection and potential future happiness.  

Something to think about...Whatever you do...DON’T worry about the "label".

Trust me...once identified and properly accommodated, the label will be a gift.




Work Cited

1Lunau, K., The Mental Health Crisis on Campus; MacLeans.ca, On Campus
          September 5th, 2012.

2Report on the Principal's Commission on Mental Health, Queen's University,
         September, 2012.

3Report on the Principal's Commission on Mental Health, Queen's University,
          September, 2012. p.14.

4A Barrier to Learning - Mental Health Disorders Among Canadian Youth; Canadian
          Council on Learning (CCL) (2009). p. 3.

SAMENESS DOES NOT EQUAL FAIRNESS ... ACCOMMODATION JEALOUSY ?

As we previously mentioned in an earlier BLOG on this accommodation issue, there appears to be systemic barriers amongst many educators in regards to the provision of accommodations to students with learning disabilities. The bias is troublesome and lurks in the minds of far too many.

We are currently involved in an accommodation "battle" with one of our major Canadian universities. Through the exchange of correspondence  with the student disabilities department, and with senior faculty members, we were aghast at the lack of understanding and demonstrated out and out bias.

Can you believe the following comment that came out of the head of  the University's math department :

"As a faculty member, I know that uniformity is important (i.e. either all students with memory issues must be accommodated... or none)..."

This in not the first time that we have come across this type of short sighted thinking.  We have heard principals state that they are "concerned"  about the impact that accommodations may have on the unaccommodated student population in the school. We have heard teachers reference accommodations as "unfair advantages". We have heard professors complain about the time consuming nature of accommodated teaching and the fact that it "limits the time" that they can spend on their their research projects.

It is rather difficult for me to explain my deep set concern in hearing this type of  uninformed and biased comment. As we all know, in the area of accommodations, SAMENESS IS NOT FAIRNESS.

What is needed by one student is not necessarily needed by another student. Just because one student is accommodated in a certain way, fairness does not dictate that another student must receive the exact same treatment.

As I searched my mind to find a humorous way to present this self righteous demand for learning accommodation equity, I came across this delightful video which depicts the knee jerk reaction of monkeys who are faced with the issue of  fairness inequality:

                                   

                               MONKEY'S REACTION TO FAIRNESS  "INEQUALITY" 

                                           http://youtube.com/watch?v=Hbb27GQ_X1I

In the world of accommodations, sameness is not fairness. Accommodating a learning disability is merely a methodology that allows us to level the playing field and remove barriers that stand in the way of kids with learning disabilities. 

Our challenge as parent advocates is to remove those barriers and to openly challenge the system that often times appears to operate in a very narrow minded manner. Although the short video clip that you just watched humorously depicts the deprived monkey's reaction to inequality, one should not make value judgments relating to the cucumber hating monkey on the left, or the monkey on the right who is feasting on grapes. In fact, there may be another lesson to be learned from this video clip. From my point of view, although I do not agree with the monkey's  angry and anti social response to its  demands for equality, I do admire the monkey's tenacity and self advocating spirit. 

Perhaps we should take a lesson from our cucumber hating monkey. Although fist banging on the table may be regarded as an anti social protest response,  the monkey certainly did get our attention. 

 

                         

TO ACCOMMODATE OR NOT TO ACCOMMODATE...THAT IS THE QUESTION

Armed with their child's IEP and school transcripts, parents load their cars on their journey to deliver their sons or daughters to Ontario universities, in pursuit of higher education. In addition to bedding, minibar fridges, and healthy snack food, the parents also carry with them, some not so distant memories of past accommodation struggles at the secondary school level. The only difference to be encountered at the university (and college) level is the introduction of new rules couched in new language. The new reality is that, at the post secondary school level, the student's right to accommodation is more narrowly defined, and the words ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT suddenly take on a whole new meaning.

The importance of understanding the meaning and implementation of these two words cannot be underestimated. The analysis of these two words in the context of any given course, will determine whether or not your child will, or will not be accommodated and to what extent. The old rulebook no longer applies.

From a Human Rights point of view, as your child enters the world of post secondary education, his or her assertable "rights" have dwindled. Access to elementary and secondary school education, is a right in Ontario.  Access to post secondary school (i.e. college or university) education is not a protected right. Don't dismay. Notwithstanding the seemingly diminished rights, post secondary education is regarded as a service and your child is still entitled to barrier free, and equal access to these educational services. Let us discuss how we can help our "exceptional" kids so that we can ensure that they get the educational service equality that they are entitled to receive.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF AN ACCOMMODATION?

According to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the protector of the rights of Ontario citizens, the purpose of an education accommodation is to remove system c and practical barriers so that all persons can fully participate in the education offerings. The accommodation goal is to allow the student an equitable opportunity to participate and succeed. Contrary to common belief, there are no standard rules or standard accommodations, or standard methods of accommodating. Creativity and individualization is the key. Accommodations will vary from student to student, based upon their specific needs.

WHAT IS THIS ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT THAT THEY SPEAK OF ?

An essential requirement is a Human Rights term that identifies the specific learning outcome, or skill set that a course is intended to achieve.  It is the measure of success in a given course. Accommodation appropriateness and success is determined based upon a consideration of this result-oriented backdrop.

The goal of an accommodation is to create an alternative methodology of  teaching and learning, by which your child can achieve the designated learning outcome and demonstrate mastery of the required skills. This must be achieved without compromising having compromising the anticipated learning outcomes. The manner by which the accommodated student may achieve, and/or demonstrate this mastery may have changed, but the learning outcome is unchanged. Simply put, a proper accommodation should change the learning approach so as to recognize and cater to your child's individualized learning style. From your child's point of view, your child should ultimately be able to say "I learned and mastered what I had to learn...but I did it the way that I understand it ".  In the words of Frank Sinatra..."I did it MY WAY".

Are you being overly demanding if you insist on your child being properly accommodated ? The answer is NO.

Do you have the right to demand that professionally prescribed accommodations be implemented? ABSOLUTELY, provided only that your child ultimately achieves the mandated learning outcome. Your child may learn the lesson in a different way. That does not matter. That is his or her right.

A concrete example may help achieve a better understanding of what is an essential requirement, and how a student can be accommodated without sacrificing the end product (ie. the learning outcome).

THE FRENCH ONION SOUP EXAM

A master chef course teaches the art of making the perfect French onion soup. The ability to make that perfect French onion soup is the intended learning outcome.  This learning outcome is a function of both knowledge of process and the achievement of a predetermined result.

The learning objectives required to achieve a specific learning outcome may have a number of process steps. In the case of our French onion soup example, student chefs must learn how to choose and mix ingredients, how to operate the gas stove, control the heat and cook the soup at the right temperature, for the appropriate cooking time.

One of the critical ingredients in this French onion soup is salt. The amount of salt to be utilized is dependent upon which particular ingredients the student chef has chosen. Some cheeses have more salt content then others. Too much or too little total salt content will make or break the final product.

There is a special ingredient formula that one uses to determine exactly how much salt is to be added (or not added), dependent of course on what ingredients are used.

One student chef has an excellent memory, and can rattle off the ingredient formula with ease.  The other student chef requires an accommodation, in the form of the provision of an ingredient formula sheet.

Both student chefs are able to complete the task, each with a successful learning outcome ...perfectly salted French onion soup.

As you will have noticed, only one of the learning objectives had to be accommodated for one of the student chefs. Was the preparation of the final product the learning outcome of this exercise, or is knowledge of the entire process the learned outcome, or both? Is the ability to memorize the ingredient formula essential to achieving the learning outcome?  Is the accommodation (elimination) of the memory task, or the framing of another method to achieve the same learning outcome, sufficient?

My response would be that the skill set or learning outcome that was being taught and tested in this example, is the demonstrated knowledge of the cooking process and achieving the appropriate end result...perfectly salted French onion soup! My response may have been different if this was a course in food chemistry where mastery of the development of food ingredient formulas was the essential requirement (i.e. the learned outcome).

The determination as to what is intended to be the learned outcome must be carefully considered by the educator. There must be clarity as to what are the education objectives, and whether these objectives can still be achieved by alternate methodologies, in the form of proper accommodations.

It is the absence of these clearly defined learning outcomes and related skill sets that are problematic.

It is the introduction of broad based generalizations presented as time honored University policies and accepted practices that create artificial systemic barriers to equality of education access for your exceptional children.

Accommodation creativity using a collaborative approach, involving all stakeholders is essential. Both the parent(s) and the student must understand the rules, process and the essential parameters, in order to fully participate in the process.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission, in its 2004 Guidelines to Accessible Education publication, specifically commented on, and provided direction in terms of the breadth and scope of the obligation to accommodate learning disabilities at the post secondary school level as follows:

"...An appropriate accommodation at the post secondary level would enable a student to successfully meet the essential requirements of the program, with no alteration in standards or outcomes, although the manner in which the student demonstrates mastery, knowledge and skills may be altered. In this way education providers are able to provide all students with equal opportunities to enjoy the same level of benefits and privileges and meet the requirements for acquiring an education without the risk of compromising academic integrity."

The OHRC further states the following in terms of stakeholder onus and responsibilities:

" The onus is upon the education provider to show that a student is incapable of overcoming the essential requirements of the educational service, even with accommodation. Conclusions about inability to perform essential requirements must not be reached without actually testing the ability of the student. IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR AN EDUCATION PROVIDER TO ASSUME THAT A STUDENT CANNOT PERFORM AN ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT. RATHER, THERE MUST BE AN OBJECTIVE DETERMINATION OF THAT FACT. "

Stand up for your kids.

Help them to achieve their full potentials.

Remove the barriers.

They are counting on you :0)

RESISTANCE TO ACCOMMODATIONS : WALK THE WALK... don't just.... TALK THE TALK

Under section 29 of the Ontario Human Rights Code (the "code"), the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the "OHRC") has a mandate to forward human rights policy through education, monitoring, communication, research, inquiries and initiating investigations.

Under Section 1 of the Code, education is defined as a "service".

"Every person has the right to equal treatment with respect to services,

goods and facilities, without discrimination because of ... handicap."

Most, if not all, academic institutions recognize their obligations to insure equal accessto education for students with disabilities.  All of their published websites TALK THE TALK and acknowledge their individual obligations to accommodate persons with disabilities, which necessarily include both physical disabilities and learning disabilities. The realist inside me knows, full well, that there is a bit of Government arm-twisting going on here. In the arena of learning disabilities, the pushback manifests itself as rationalized refusal to accept certain professionally prescribed accommodations.  

The accommodation of learning disabilities, disabilities that are not strikingly visibly apparent, can be particularly challenging due to the fact that they are hidden.  Unfortunately, the accommodation of students with learning disabilities has been historically contentious, particularly in the area of testing and examinations. The standard unfair advantage phobia will generally not arise in response to benign test accommodation requests, such as the provision of a quiet room for test writing, or the use of reading or dictation software. It will more likely arise in regards to more contentious issues such as spelling accommodation and the prescribed use of memory aids. The typical rational given for the accommodation refusal relates to a stated concern that the granting of the accommodation will 
undermine or otherwise compromise the validity, or reliability of the test or exam.

In order to address this reluctance, it is imperative to both understand the purpose of the accommodation and to clarify exactly what is the skill that is being tested.  Each situation must be examined on a case-by-case basis, keeping in mind the human rights requirement for equal access and equal treatment in the provision of the subject education services.  The fundamental issue is whether the prescribed accommodation allows the accommodated student to demonstrate what they 

have learned, in ways that bypass or circumvent the features of their disability; the intention is to not lower the testing result standard for accommodated students. Central to this determination is the need to understand exactly what skill is being tested.

By way of example, let us have a quick look at spelling accommodation, the refusal of which can be 
a door closer for many students. Without getting technical as to the deficits in information processing 
or psychological processes that underlie spelling difficulties, let us just start with the proposition that some students cannot spell, will never be taught to spell and will likely be primarily phonetic spellers, for the rest of their lives.

Does the following statement issued by the student disability department of a prominent Canadian university, concern you?

"Consideration for Spelling

In some courses, such as language and biology, faculty may determine that the ability to spell course specific terms and vocabulary is a requirement of the course.  As such, students with disabilities are expected to demonstrate the ability and may not be accommodated for spelling on a test or exam."

If this were my child who was being denied, it would most certainly concerns me.

Assuming that mastering a biology course is a condition precedent to entering medical sciences, the inability to spell may be a door closer barring the learning disabled student from numerous medical science related careers.

Just because my child presents the word amoeba phonetically as "omeeba" but can clearly express orally, the fact, that he fully comprehends the fact that an "omeeba" consists of unicellular organisms that do not have a definite shape, does that mean that he has not mastered the underlying skill of understanding the building blocks of all organisms?

Something is seriously wrong with this picture.

The same pushback often times arises in regards to reluctance to allow memory aids in the form of formula sheets. Is it acceptable for a university to state that a student's ability to memorize formulas is an essential course requirement that cannot be accommodated because it would undermine the academic integrity of the course? If that is the case, the student who cannot memorize formulas, will be similarly precluded from a number of professional career pursuits.

HOW ONE BAD TEACHER CAN HAVE A DEVASTATING IMPACT ON YOUR CHILD'S SELF ESTEEM AND ACADEMIC FUTURE...WILLARD WIGGAN’S, “Journey Into Dyslexia” is an inspirational must watch short video.


Background to Willard's journey:

I came across this video a year ago and found it to be inspiring and compelling. It speaks emotionally and dramatically to the issue of learning exceptionalities and the impact that ignorant and demeaning people can have upon an exceptional child.

Willard tells the story about his childhood when his "evil" teacher mocked him (in front of his class) because of his learning exceptionality, and callously referred to him as the "definition of failure."

One day when a microscope went missing, from Willard's classroom, the teacher out rightly dismissed Willard as being the potential culprit. The teacher effectively stated that, Willard did not have the mental capacity to even use a microscope...so he couldn't have been the thief! Willard insists that this evil teacher destroyed him academically and emotionally, and turned him into a recluse.

PLEASE SEE PART 1 and PART 2 of these short, but INSPIRATIONAL videos, and see the inspiring and uplifting result of Willard's Journey into Dyslexia!!!


                                 WILLARD'S JOURNEY INTO DYSLEXIA PART 1

                                        http://youtube.com/watch?v=HAwPaZ2mt4E

 WILLARD WIGGAN

TEACHER  CALLED HIM  A. FAILURE?


  WILLARD'S JOURNEY INTO DYSLEXIA PART 2
 http://youtube.com/watch?v=nQuDE58PQBg

WHAT BECAME OF WILLARD THE FAILURE

Willard, according to the teacher was destined for failure. He proved his teacher wrong and became a world-renowned micro-sculptor, creating sculptures that are so minute that they are only visible through a microscope.

"Each piece commonly sits within the eye of a needle, or on a pin head. The personal sacrifices involved in creating such wondrous, yet scarcely believable pieces are inconceivable to most. Willard enters a meditative state in which his heartbeat is slowed, allowing him to reduce hand tremors and sculpt between pulse beats. Even the reverberation caused by outside traffic can affect Willard’s
work. Consequently, he often works through the night when there is minimal disruption. Willard’s artwork has been described, by many, as the eighth wonder of the world.”

In July 2007, Willard was honoured by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, with an MBE for his services to art. A diverse audience views his work, with his exhibitions selling out worldwide.

                
                           FROM WILLARD'S GALARY OF MICRO SCULPTURES

          

HORSE AND CHARIOT
SCULPTED ON THE HEAD OF A PIN 

NINE CAMELS
SCULPTED BY WILLARD
IN THE EYE OF A   SEWING NEEDLE

So much for Willard the failure!

Children with learning difficulties are often gifted; they just learn differently.

WHY DON'T OUR SCHOOLS ACCOMMODATE OUR CHILDREN WHO ARE STRUGGLING ACADEMICALLY ??

WHY DON'T OUR SCHOOLS ACCOMMODATE OUR CHILDREN WHO ARE STRUGGLING ACADEMICALLY?

In the past decade, us "boomers" have experienced a seismic transformation of technology, which our children embrace as the norm, as we revel in the magnificence of it all. Who would have thought, even 20 years ago, that one day people would be carrying around multi functional personal communication devices that double as telephones, cameras, video conference facilities, data centres, entertainment centres...and more.  

The optimists amongst us had  hoped that the education system would have joined in this fast track life transformation, so that "teaching" and "learning" would have reached a natural equilibrium, wherein  "struggling" students would become the "exception," as opposed to the all too common norm.

We ask, "Where did we go wrong?”  

"Why are we seeing epidemic levels of student suicides at University entry levels?”

“What is going on here?”

If truth be told, the academic innovators have NOT been asleep. For the past decade, they have been busy re-evaluating the education "process" and creating new and innovative educational policies and guidelines which holistically address "struggling"  students, and for that matter, all students. They have designed an arsenal of "accommodation" and "modification" techniques that address, both the root causes of students' academic struggles, and the teaching methodologies necessary to allow "across the board" success. They have also readdressed the political correctness of academic related descriptive terminology, such that we now reference "students with exceptionalities", at both ends of the academic achievement spectrum. Student "assessment" now flanks and co-mingles with mark oriented "valuation" as an acceptable, and appropriate co-barometer, of student success.

So, you say, "Sounds promising!" But, you then ask, "Where did we drop the ball on route to the anticipated home run?"  

Let's talk about Ontario.

In 2010, the Ontario Ministry of Education tabled a transformational policy document titled:

 GROWING SUCCESS

                                     (www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/growsuccess.pdf)

Assessment, Evaluation and Reporting in Ontario Schools.

Covering Grades 1 to 12

Most telling as to the intent and driving force behind this evolutionary educational policy document are the following three small words, which boldly appear centre stage at the bottom of the front page of the document:

reach every student

These three simple words encapsulate the theoretic and practical underpinning of this revolutionary and innovative academic reality, which recognizes the fact that all students learn differently, and teaching techniques must be individually customized so as to cater to each and every student's learning style.

EVERY STUDENT can and must be REACHED.  

This was to be the new reality.

The motivational backdrop of Growing Success is succinctly stated in the document's introductory statement, which reads as follows:

"The Ontario government is committed to enabling all students

          to reach their potential, and to succeed. Our challenge is that

          every student is unique and each must have opportunities to

 achieve success according to his or her own interests, abilities,

 and goals. We have defined high expectations and standards for

 graduation, while introducing a range of options that allow students

 to learn in ways that suit them best and enable them to earn their

 diplomas. We are proud that our students regularly place among

 the world’s best on international standardized tests."

This is the law. It is the law not just in the sense of being the governing education policy in Ontario.  It is law that is deeply entrenched in human rights legislation. Breach of some of these policy guidelines (case dependent and under certain prescribed circumstances) may be interpreted under our human rights legislation as human rights violations that are considered to be discrimination.  The simple explanation of this human rights "tie in" is as follows:

"Education" in its broadest sense is considered to be a “service” under the Ontario Human Rights Code. It does not matter if this educational service is being provided by a publicly funded school or by a private school or by a college or university. The bottom line is that the Code guarantees the right to equal treatment in services, without discrimination on the ground of disability.

"Disability" is also broadly interpreted such that it does not just include readily apparent (visible) physical disabilities.  It also includes learning disabilities. Once a learning disability (or a "learning disability-related need) is diagnosed or identified, educators at all levels, have an obligation to intercede.

Once a disability-related need has been identified, or where a prima facie case of discrimination has been established, education providers have a duty to do what has to be done in order to accommodate the needs of identified students "with disabilities" in order to allow him/her to have equal access to the provided educational services unless, to do so, would cause undue hardship. Demonstrating "undue hardship" is a tall order and must not be confused with straining a school's pre existing policy and ideological opinions. 

The duty to accommodate should not be taken lightly. The principles of accommodation are clearly set out in the following exert taken from the Ontario Human Rights Commission's Guidelines for Accessible Education:

"Accommodation is a means of preventing and removing barriers that impede students with disabilities from participating fully in the educational environment in a way that is responsive to their own unique circumstances. The principle of accommodation involves three factors: dignity, individualization and inclusion."

          ( Guidelines on accessible education | Ontario Human Rights…

www.ohrc.on.ca/en/guidelines-accessible-education

ISBN 0-7794-7191-1. Approved by the OHRC: September 29, 2004)

So, you ask, "Where did we go wrong?” "Talk the talk is one thing...but what about walk the walk? What can we, as parents, do about it? How do we advocate for our children?"

That, my friends, is a question that has a multi tiered answer. Let's start at the ground-floor by identifying the most apparent culprits in the palatable resistance to the identification and implementation of the necessary accommodations that will allow your children to be "reached" and will allow you, and your child, to feel that the educational services being provided are fully accessible to your child's specific (individual) needs:  

• Rigid school policies that are resistant to accommodation implementation
• Demonstrated lack of knowledge as to the duty to identify exceptional students and to  accommodate them accordingly.
• Old school educators who are simply out of touch with their obligations, and are drawing upon an outdated personal  "resource manual".
• Lack of sufficient practicum experience, in the case of candidate teachers.
• Misdirected concern that accommodations must be tempered in order to ensure fairness to the other students.
• A chronic misinterpretation of accommodations as being unfair advantages.
• A failure to understand the distinction between "essential" course requirements, and those non essential course requirements that can be easily satisfied by flexible and creative teaching strategies.

AND SPECIFICALLY IN REGARDS TO SOME PRIVATE SCHOOLS:

• Minimal Ministry oversights, as the schools are regarded as a "business".
• No requirements for principal or teacher qualifications.
• Lack of support resources (e.g.: guidance, special education services)

NEXT BLOG: Advocating for Your Child: Navigating the Waters.