Please Send Us Your Feedback on the AODA Alliance’s Draft Brief to the Health Care Standards Development Committee on the Disability Barriers in Ontario’s Health Care System


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

Web: www.aodaalliance.org Email: [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance Facebook: www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

Please Send Us Your Feedback on the AODA Alliance’s Draft Brief to the Health Care Standards Development Committee on the Disability Barriers in Ontario’s Health Care System

July 23, 2021

            SUMMARY

Did we get it right? Let us know!

We’ve been busy as can be, writing a brief that we plan to submit by August 11, 2021 to the Health Care Standards Development Committee. The Ontario Government appointed that Committee back in 2017 to come up with recommendations on what the promised Health Care Accessibility Standard should include. The Health Care Accessibility Standard is a law that is to be enacted under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act to tear down the barriers that obstruct people with disabilities in Ontario’s health care system.

We’ve come up with a draft brief. We want your feedback on it to help us finalize it.

Back on May 7, 2021, the Ford Government made public the initial report of the Health Care Standards Development Committee. That initial report makes a series of recommendations on what the promised Health Care Accessibility Standard should include. The Government is inviting public feedback on that initial report up to August 11, 2021. The Health Care Standards Development Committee will be given all that public feedback. It can use that feedback to finalize its recommendations to the Government. We want our brief to give as much help as possible to the Health Care Standards Development Committee.

Below we set out a summary of what our draft brief to the Health Care Standards Development Committee recommends. We applaud and agree with most of what the Health Care Standards Development Committee wrote. However, we make a number of recommendations on how it can improve its report.

Our draft brief builds upon all the feedback we have received over the years about disability barriers in the health care system. You can download our draft brief by visiting https://www.aodaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/July-23-2021-Draft-AODA-Alliance-brief-on-health-Care-Standards-Development-Committee-initial-report.docx

Please send us your suggestions on our draft brief by August 1, 2021. We will then have to rush to turn our draft brief into a finished product.

Here are resources that you might find helpful:

  1. The Health Care Standards Development Committee’s initial report, recommending what the promise Health Care Accessibility Standard should include.
  1. A captioned talk by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky two years ago about disability barriers in the health care system.
  1. A captioned talk earlier this year by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky about the disability discrimination in Ontario’s critical care triage protocol that is now embedded in Ontario hospitals.
  1. The AODA Alliance website’s health care page, which documents our advocacy efforts over the past decade to make health care services accessible to people with disabilities.

A long 904 days ago, the Ford Government received the blistering final report of the Independent Review of the AODA’s implementation by former Lieutenant Governor David Onley. It called for urgent action to speed up and strengthen the AODA’s implementation and enforcement. Since then, the Ford Government has announced no comprehensive plan of action to implement that report.

            MORE DETAILS

Summary of the July 23, 2021 Draft AODA Alliance Brief to the Health Care Standards Development Committee

  1. a) The Health Care Standards Development Committee should recommend more concrete actions to ensure that disability barriers are removed and prevented, rather than instead giving primary emphasis to individually accommodating patients with disabilities and having hospitals plan for accessibility.
  1. b) The Health Care Standards Development Committee should more forcefully address all barriers in the hospital sector and the broader health care system.
  1. c) The Health Care Accessibility Standard should ensure that all disability barriers are removed and prevented in hospitals, not just those the Accessibility Minister asked the Standards Development Committee to focus on.
  1. d) The Health Care Accessibility Standard should not assume that smaller hospitals always need more time to comply.
  1. e) The initial report incorrectly understates the role of the Health Care Standards Development Committee.
  1. f) The proposed long-term objective of the Health Care Accessibility Standard should be strengthened.
  1. g) The initial report’s vision of a barrier-free health care system should be strengthened.
  1. h) Additional recommendations are needed to ensure accountability for accessibility within a hospital or other health care provider’s organization.
  1. i) Specific requirements for accessibility of health care facilities’ built environment are needed.
  1. j) Specific actions should be recommended to ensure that diagnostic and treatment equipment are accessible.
  1. k) Specific actions are needed to ensure the accessibility of health records.
  1. l) The initial report’s recommendations on training of health care providers should be strengthened.
  1. m) Detailed recommendations are needed to protect the right of patients with disabilities and of any patients’ support people with disabilities to physically get to health care services.
  1. n) Action is needed to guarantee the right of patients with disabilities to the privacy of their health care information.
  1. o) Additional recommendations are needed to help ensure the rights of patients with disabilities and of patients’ support people with disabilities to accessible information and communication in connection with health care.
  1. p) The initial report’s recommendations should be strengthened to effectively protect the right of patients with disabilities to the support services they need to access health care services.
  1. q) Additional measures should be recommended to ensure right of patients with disabilities to identify their disability-related accessibility needs in advance and to request accessibility/accommodation from a health care provider or facility.
  1. r) Patients with disabilities and support people with disabilities should be assured accessible complaint processes at health care providers’ self-governing colleges, and to have those colleges ensure that the profession they regulate are trained to meet the needs of patients with disabilities.
  1. s) Systemic accessibility safeguards should be built into the health care system from top to bottom.
  1. t) The experience and expertise of people with disabilities working in the health care system should be harnessed to expedite the removal and prevention of barriers facing patients, and those facing their support people with disabilities.
  1. u) The Health Care Standards Development Committee should endorse the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee initial report’s health care recommendations.
  1. v) Further steps should be recommended to supplement the initial report’s recommendations arising from the covid-19 pandemic.
  1. w) The initial report’s recommendations on strengthening AODA enforcement are heartily applauded.t



Source link

Please Send Us Your Feedback on the AODA Alliance’s Draft Brief to the Health Care Standards Development Committee on the Disability Barriers in Ontario’s Health Care System


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities
Web: https://www.aodaalliance.org Email: [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

July 23, 2021

SUMMARY

Did we get it right? Let us know!

We’ve been busy as can be, writing a brief that we plan to submit by August 11, 2021 to the Health Care Standards Development Committee. The Ontario Government appointed that Committee back in 2017 to come up with recommendations on what the promised Health Care Accessibility Standard should include. The Health Care Accessibility Standard is a law that is to be enacted under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act to tear down the barriers that obstruct people with disabilities in Ontario’s health care system.

We’ve come up with a draft brief. We want your feedback on it to help us finalize it.

Back on May 7, 2021, the Ford Government made public the initial report of the Health Care Standards Development Committee. That initial report makes a series of recommendations on what the promised Health Care Accessibility Standard should include. The Government is inviting public feedback on that initial report up to August 11, 2021. The Health Care Standards Development Committee will be given all that public feedback. It can use that feedback to finalize its recommendations to the Government. We want our brief to give as much help as possible to the Health Care Standards Development Committee.

Below we set out a summary of what our draft brief to the Health Care Standards Development Committee recommends. We applaud and agree with most of what the Health Care Standards Development Committee wrote. However, we make a number of recommendations on how it can improve its report.

Our draft brief builds upon all the feedback we have received over the years about disability barriers in the health care system. You can download our draft brief by visiting https://www.aodaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/July-23-2021-Draft-AODA-Alliance-brief-on-health-Care-Standards-Development-Committee-initial-report.docx

Please send us your suggestions on our draft brief by August 1, 2021. We will then have to rush to turn our draft brief into a finished product.

Here are resources that you might find helpful:

1. The Health Care Standards Development Committee’s initial report, recommending what the promise Health Care Accessibility Standard should include.

2. A captioned talk by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky two years ago about disability barriers in the health care system.

3. A captioned talk earlier this year by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky about the disability discrimination in Ontario’s critical care triage protocol that is now embedded in Ontario hospitals.

4. The AODA Alliance website’s health care page, which documents our advocacy efforts over the past decade to make health care services accessible to people with disabilities.

A long 904 days ago, the Ford Government received the blistering final report of the Independent Review of the AODA’s implementation by former Lieutenant Governor David Onley. It called for urgent action to speed up and strengthen the AODA’s implementation and enforcement. Since then, the Ford Government has announced no comprehensive plan of action to implement that report.

MORE DETAILS

Summary of the July 23, 2021 Draft AODA Alliance Brief to the Health Care Standards Development Committee

a) The Health Care Standards Development Committee should recommend more concrete actions to ensure that disability barriers are removed and prevented, rather than instead giving primary emphasis to individually accommodating patients with disabilities and having hospitals plan for accessibility.

b) The Health Care Standards Development Committee should more forcefully address all barriers in the hospital sector and the broader health care system.

c) The Health Care Accessibility Standard should ensure that all disability barriers are removed and prevented in hospitals, not just those the Accessibility Minister asked the Standards Development Committee to focus on.

d) The Health Care Accessibility Standard should not assume that smaller hospitals always need more time to comply.

e) The initial report incorrectly understates the role of the Health Care Standards Development Committee.

f) The proposed long-term objective of the Health Care Accessibility Standard should be strengthened.

g) The initial report’s vision of a barrier-free health care system should be strengthened.

h) Additional recommendations are needed to ensure accountability for accessibility within a hospital or other health care provider’s organization.

i) Specific requirements for accessibility of health care facilities’ built environment are needed.

j) Specific actions should be recommended to ensure that diagnostic and treatment equipment are accessible.

k) Specific actions are needed to ensure the accessibility of health records.

l) The initial report’s recommendations on training of health care providers should be strengthened.

m) Detailed recommendations are needed to protect the right of patients with disabilities and of any patients’ support people with disabilities to physically get to health care services.

n) Action is needed to guarantee the right of patients with disabilities to the privacy of their health care information.

o) Additional recommendations are needed to help ensure the rights of patients with disabilities and of patients’ support people with disabilities to accessible information and communication in connection with health care.

p) The initial report’s recommendations should be strengthened to effectively protect the right of patients with disabilities to the support services they need to access health care services.

q) Additional measures should be recommended to ensure right of patients with disabilities to identify their disability-related accessibility needs in advance and to request accessibility/accommodation from a health care provider or facility.

r) Patients with disabilities and support people with disabilities should be assured accessible complaint processes at health care providers’ self-governing colleges, and to have those colleges ensure that the profession they regulate are trained to meet the needs of patients with disabilities.

s) Systemic accessibility safeguards should be built into the health care system from top to bottom.

t) The experience and expertise of people with disabilities working in the health care system should be harnessed to expedite the removal and prevention of barriers facing patients, and those facing their support people with disabilities.

u) The Health Care Standards Development Committee should endorse the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee initial report’s health care recommendations.

v) Further steps should be recommended to supplement the initial report’s recommendations arising from the covid-19 pandemic.

w) The initial report’s recommendations on strengthening AODA enforcement are heartily applauded.t




Source link

AODA Healthcare Standards


Two years ago, we published a series of articles about the AODA’s lack of standards governing the healthcare sector. Currently, there are still no AODA healthcare standards. However, an AODA standards development committee has drafted recommendations of guidelines that AODA healthcare standards should include. The committee’s mandate from the Ontario government requires recommendations focused on the hospital setting. However, patients and healthcare workers with disabilities also face barriers in other parts of the healthcare system, including:

  • Doctors’ offices
  • Walk-in clinics
  • Wellness centres
  • Pharmacies
  • Labs
  • Nursing homes
  • Outpatient rehabilitation centres
  • Health regulatory colleges

Therefore, all these settings should implement the Healthcare Standards Development Committee’s recommendations for removing barriers for people with disabilities.

The COVID-19 pandemic shows us how important healthcare is for every person in Ontario and around the world. In addition, the pandemic has emphasized the many barriers that already exist in the Ontario healthcare system for patients with disabilities. AODA healthcare standards could prevent and remove these barriers, and ensure that all Ontarians access the care they need.

AODA Healthcare Standards

Many improvements would allow the Ontario healthcare system to more fully meet the needs of patients with disabilities. For instance, patients need more access to:

In addition, patients need a healthcare system that welcomes more healthcare workers with disabilities. Similarly, peer support for patients with disabilities could provide valuable insights for both patients and medical professionals.

Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic shows us that access to all these elements of healthcare is vital. As more and more people are diagnosed with COVID-19, the need for accessible spaces and communication increases.

Finally, more people may develop disabilities as a result of COVID-19. For example, some disabilities that patients may develop during or after experiencing COVID-19 include:

Therefore, more guidelines governing the healthcare system would better support the growing number of patients with disabilities.

Our next series will explore the many barriers to healthcare for patients with disabilities, and the healthcare standards development committee’s recommendations to remove these barriers. We will also consider new or worsening healthcare accessibility barriers that patients encounter because of the pandemic, and how AODA healthcare standards can reduce these barriers to improve healthcare for all Ontarians during and after the pandemic.




Source link

Help Make Ontario Schools Accessible for Students with Disabilities Action Kit – AODA Alliance


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

Web: www.aodaalliance.org Email: [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance Facebook: www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

Help Make Ontario Schools Accessible for Students with Disabilities Action Kit

June 23, 2021

Help Tear Down the Many Disability Barriers Facing a Third of a Million Students with Disabilities in Ontario Schools

Here’s an important and rare opportunity right now to help tear down the many barriers facing students with disabilities in Ontario schools. A public consultation is underway on this topic from now until September 2, 2021. This Action Kit explains how you can help.

The AODA Alliance has campaigned for over a decade to get the Ontario Government to create a new law that would spell out what barriers must be removed from Ontario’s school system. This regulation would be called the “Education Accessibility Standard.” It would be enacted under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

The Ontario Government committed to enact an Education Accessibility Standard under the AODA. It appointed an advisory committee, the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee, to recommend what the Education Accessibility Standard should include.

On June 1, 2021, the Ontario Government made public the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s initial recommendations. This initial report is the most comprehensive top-to-bottom review in a generation of Ontario’s school system from the perspective of students with disabilities. It is 185 pages. Below, you’ll read about the AODA Alliance’s 15-page summary of it, and our 55-page condensed and annotated version of it, for those who don’t have the time to read the whole report.

The Government gave the public to September 2, 2021 to send the Standards Development Committee feedback on its initial recommendations. The Standards Development Committee can use that feedback to refine and finalize its report and recommendations to The Government.

The AODA Alliance supports the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s initial report. AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky is a member of that Standards Development Committee and took active part in the development of its initial recommendations, along with all the other members of that Committee.

How You Can Use the Standards Development Committee’s Initial Report

Here is how you can help students with disabilities right now:

  1. Send the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee your feedback on the Standards Development Committee’s report before September 2, 2021. See below for ideas on how to do this.
  1. Your local school board will be giving feedback to the Government on this report. Urge your school board to support the recommendations in this report, and not to try to weaken any of them. Contact your school board trustee to share your thoughts.
  1. Urge your local school board to implement as much of this report as it can right now. School boards don’t have to wait for action by the Ontario Government to create the promised Education Accessibility Standard. Unfortunately, that provincial action may not come for months if not years. School boards can act now. Grassroots pressure can help make that happen.
  1. Contact your school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee. Every school board must have a SEAC to give advice to the school board’s staff and elected trustees. Find their contact info on the school board website, or by asking the school board.

Give your SEAC your feedback on this report. Urge the SEAC to take these three actions:

  1. a) the SEAC should send the Standards Development Committee its feedback on this report by September 2, 2021. SEACs should be supportive of the Standards Development Committee’s report and could offer helpful suggestions on how to refine and supplement those recommendations.
  1. b) the SEAC should advise its school board to support the Standards Development Committee’s recommendations and not to try to get them weakened in any way. A SEAC can try to have a major impact on what feedback the school board sends to the Ontario Government.
  1. c) The SEAC should advise its school board to start to implement the Standards Development Committee’s recommendations now. For example, the SEAC could select key recommendations in the Standards Development Committee’s report that the school board should get an immediate start on.
  1. Tell your member of the Ontario Legislature that Ontario’s Ministry of Education should get to work now on implementing as many of the Standards Development Committee’s recommendations now as it can. Many if not most can be implemented now, if the Government agrees.
  1. Share your feedback with the AODA Alliance. Let us know what steps you take on the ideas we list in this Action Kit. What kind of responses did you get? Write us at [email protected]

How The AODA Alliance Has Made It Easier for You to Read the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee Report

We’ve made it easier for you to read and give feedback on this important report. Here are three options you have for reviewing what the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee recommended:

  1. If you only have a short time to look at this issue, read the AODA Alliance’s 15-page summary of the Standards Development Committees report, which is available on the AODA Alliance website at https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/15-page-summary-of-the-k-12-education-standards-development-committees-initial-recommendations-summarized-by-the-aoda-alliance/
  1. If you have more time, read the AODA Alliance’s 55-page condensed and annotated version of the Standards Development Committees report, available on the AODA Alliance website at https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/55-page-condensed-and-annotated-version-of-the-march-12-2021-initial-report-recommendations-of-the-k-12-education-standards-development-committee-on-what-an-education-accessibility-standard-should-in/
  1. If you have even more time, instead read the entire 185-page report, which is available on the AODA Alliance website in MS Word format at https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/download-in-ms-word-format-the-ontario-governments-survey-on-the-initial-or-draft-recommendations-of-the-k-12-education-standards-development-committee/

The best statement of what the Standards Development Committee recommended is in the Committee’s full report. The K-12 Education Standards Development Committee took no part in creating or approving the AODA Alliance’s 15-page summary or its 55-page condensed version of the Committee’s 185-page report. Any summary or condensed version of course leaves out some content. The AODA Alliance is solely responsible for those decisions.

What You Might Say in Your Feedback

The Government has posted an online survey to give feedback, which you are free to use, if you wish. We find it more complicated than helpful. You can also simply write out your feedback in whatever way you wish, and email it to the Standards Development Committee before September 2, 2021 by writing to [email protected]

If you don’t have time to go through the Government’s online survey, you might find it easiest to answer this short list of questions:

  1. Say if you agree with all the Standards Development Committee’s recommendations. If you disagree with any recommendations, say which ones. Explain why you disagree with them.
  1. Explain which of the recommendations you consider especially important. What are your biggest priorities? Why are they important to you?
  1. If there are any recommendations that you disagree with, explain what the Standards Development Committee might change in those recommendations to improve them.
  1. Are there any recommendations that you would like the Standards Development Committee to add? Did it leave out anything that you consider important?

The entire Committee report is long. If you don’t have the time to review it all, just comment on the parts you have time to read, either in the report itself, or in either of the 2 shorter versions that the AODA Alliance created.

To learn about the campaign that the AODA Alliance has waged for over a decade to win the enactment of a strong and effective Education Accessibility Standard check out the AODA Alliance website’s education page.



Source link

55-Page Condensed and Annotated Version of the March 12, 2021 Initial Report/Recommendations of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee on What An Education Accessibility Standard should Include, condensed and Annotated by the AODA Alliance


Condensed and Annotated Version of the March 12, 2021 Initial Report/Recommendations of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee on What An Education Accessibility Standard should Include

Prepared by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

June 23, 2021

Explanatory Note from the AODA Alliance

The Ontario Government has committed to enact an Education Accessibility Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). It appointed an advisory committee, the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee, to develop recommendations on what the Education Accessibility Standard should include.

On March 12, 2021, the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee (the Standards Development Committee) sent The Government its initial report that sets out its initial recommendations. The Government made that report and its recommendations public on June 1, 2021. The Government gave the public up to September 2, 2021 to send the Standards Development Committee feedback on its initial recommendations. The Standards Development Committee can use that feedback to refine and finalize its report and recommendations to The Government.

The Standards Development Committee’s initial report and recommendations is 185 pages long. To assist the public, the AODA Alliance prepared this 55-page condensed and annotated version of that 185-page document. The initial report and recommendations of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee on what the Ontario Government should include in an Education Accessibility Standard, to be enacted under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA)

This condensed version only presents a selection of the initial recommendations. The AODA Alliance supports all the recommendations. By including some of them here, we are not meaning to diminish the importance of all the Committee’s initial recommendations, which we support in their entirety.

The editing and annotations of this version are solely the responsibility of the AODA Alliance, and not the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee. In This condensed version, some of the recommendations are presented in a different order than that in which they appear in the Standards Development Committee’s full report. In some cases, we have added our own headings. We also have tried to group together key recommendations under major themes. This is all done to help anyone wishing to understand them, put them into action now, and offer feedback to the Standards Development Committee about these important recommendations. Where any text is an addition after the fact by the AODA Alliance, it is clearly marked as a note from the AODA Alliance.

Introduction

From the Standards Development Committee Report:

Students with disabilities continue to confront numerous barriers in Ontario’s publicly funded school system. Such barriers impede students with disabilities from fully participating in and benefitting from an accessible, equitable, and inclusive education system in Ontario. As such, the Ontario Government is enacting an Education Accessibility Standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, (the Act). Under the Act, an accessibility standard is a regulation that spells out the barriers that are to be removed or prevented, what must be done to remove or prevent them, and the timelines required for these actions. The call for an Education Accessibility Standard to be developed and enacted under the Act initially came from the disability community. This call eventually achieved bi-partisan support by all three Ontario political parties, and support from key labour unions representing many of those working on the front lines of Ontario’s education system….

…In this report, the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee brings forward for public comment and feedback a comprehensive series of initial recommendations on what the K-12 Education Accessibility Standard should include. It is the result of the extensive joint efforts of Government-appointed representatives from the disability community and the education sector to identify the barriers that students with disabilities face and the measures needed to remove and prevent them…

…These initial recommendations are intended to help educators ensure that students with disabilities can fully participate in and be on a footing of equality from all that Ontario’s education system has to offer. They aim to help school boards save the cost of having to re-invent the wheel when it comes to accessibility, and the cost of leaving barriers in place that disadvantage students with disabilities. They seek to ensure that in Ontario’s education system, public money is never used to create new barriers that negatively impact students with disabilities or to perpetuate existing barriers.

These initial recommendations also aim to implement the rights of students with disabilities to equity and equality in education, guaranteed to them since 1982 by the Ontario Human Rights Code and by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In addition to students with disabilities, there are others who will substantially benefit from these initial recommendations. For example, they will help parents, siblings, grandparents and other family members who have disabilities, teachers and other school staff and volunteers who have disabilities, and any members of the public with disabilities who might wish to interact with and benefit from Ontario’s education system.

The K-12 Education Standards Development Committee hopes that the promised Education Accessibility Standard will achieve a real change in the practices and culture regarding accessibility within the school system. This will unleash both the potential of all students with disabilities and of the professionals employed to educate them.

Initial Proposed Long-Term Objective for the K-12 Education Accessibility Standard.

From the Standards Development Committee Report:

That by 2025, the publicly funded K-12 education system will be fully accessible, equitable, inclusive and learner-centered:

  1. A) By removing and preventing accessibility barriers impeding students with disabilities from fully participating in, and fully benefitting from all aspects of the education system, and
  2. B) By providing a prompt, accessible, fair, effective and user-friendly process to learn about and seek programs, services, supports, accommodations and placements tailored to the individual strengths and needs of each student with disabilities

…We envision an Ontario public education system K-12 where learning environments are barrier free and fully inclusive of learners with disabilities. All learners with disabilities will have full access to meaningful education and relevant learning experiences that include appropriate instructional supports.

Major Theme 1: Ensure that Ontario’s Schools Effectively Serve All Students with Any Kind of Disabilities

Note from the AODA Alliance:

At present, Ontario’s special education system is only designed to serve students with a condition that falls within the Ministry of Education‘s out-dated definition of “exceptionality. That definition leaves out some disabilities. It includes some students who have no disability at all.

As a theme, when they are read as a whole, the Standards Development Committee ‘s entire package of initial recommendations would replace the out-dated term “exceptionality” used throughout Ontario’s special education system. Instead, the focus of all disability-related education efforts should extend to all students with any kind of disabilities, as disability is defined in the Charter of Rights, the Ontario Human Rights Code, and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. For example, the ‘Standards Development Committee s initial recommendations include the following:

From the Standards Development Committee Report:

The Ministry of Education shall:

40.1 Ensure that no student with a disability is excluded from eligibility for programs and services, including special education programs and services, that they require due to definitions or criteria that are inconsistent with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, the Ontario Human Rights Code, or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

40.3 Ensure that school boards fulfil their duty to accommodate the disability-related needs of students with disabilities, in relation to all school-related activities, and that the policies are in place to ensure that they do so.

Major Theme 2: Training on Disability Accessibility for Everyone Involved in Ontario’s Education System

Note from the AODA Alliance:

The Standards Development Committee makes several recommendations that school boards provide training on disability accessibility and inclusion for teachers, school staff, parents and all students. As well, it recommends that the Ministry of Education should develop models for this training, which school boards can use. This would avoid the need for each school board to have to re-invent the same training.

From the Standards Development Committee Report:

2.1. The Ontario College of Teachers and the Ministry of Education require that, to graduate with a degree in education and to qualify to teach in an Ontario school, teachers receive specific curriculum and training, as part of their university program in education, on the need for our education system to be inclusive and accessible for students with disabilities, and on how to teach curriculum to all students on this topic; and…

3.1. Each school board provide specific training to all school board staff who deal with parents or students, on the importance of the inclusion of and full participation by students with disabilities, and on effective strategies for teaching and designing lesson plans in this area….

4.2 Each school board develop, implement and periodically evaluate a multi-year age-appropriate program/curriculum to teach all students, school board staff and families of school board students, about the inclusion of and full participation of students with disabilities. This program shall include the following:

  1. a) Communication posted in all schools and sent to all families of the school board’s students, on the school board’s commitment to the inclusion of students with disabilities, and the benefits this brings to all students.
  2. b) Where possible:

(i)            Exercises having students, staff and, where interested, parents/guardians conduct a barrier assessment such as a “barrier scavenger hunt” in the school or nearby community, to catalogue disability barriers and invent suggestions on how these can be removed or prevented

(ii)           Hearing from, meeting and interacting with persons with disabilities [e.g. at assemblies and/or via guest presentations].

  1. c) Online posting of resources on these activities to enable sharing with other school boards…

Scool Board Human resources Practices

5.1 Each school board develop and implement human resources policies targeted at full accessibility and the inclusion of and full participation by students with disabilities, including:

  1. a) Making knowledge and experience on implementing the inclusion of and full participation by students with disabilities an important hiring and promotions criterion especially for principals, vice-principals and teaching staff.
  2. b) Emphasizing accessibility and inclusion of and full participation by students with disabilities knowledge and performance in any performance management and performance reviews…
  1. school boards develop and deliver adaptive/assistive technology and services training programs …
  2. The Ministry of Education, Boards, schools and Faculties of Education responsible for teacher education and ongoing professional learning and leadership development ensure the principles and practices of Universal Design For Learning and Differentiated Instruction are applied in curriculum, assessment, and instruction including procurement requirements and use of instructional resources, optimizing teaching and learning for all.
  1. Require boards to develop, implement, monitor and evaluate comprehensive training programs for its staff on procuring and using accessible digital technology…

Ontario College of Teachers shall:

53.5 Ensure that the mandatory qualifications to teach students who are blind/low vision be enhanced to provide the skills and knowledge to meet the needs of these students.

53.6 Work with the Ministry of Education and select faculties of education to initiate a Master’s level program in both French and English for teaching students who are blind/low vision such that exists in other jurisdictions.

53.7 Revise the Guideline for Accreditation of Faculties of education:

  1. a) To add more credits on teaching students with disabilities in the pre-service program
  2. b) To add training on the duty to accommodate all students with disabilities

53.8 Create and distribute a professional advisory to all certified teachers on the duty to accommodate students with disabilities and understand how to assist in their support.

  1. As a part of efforts to educate the entire school community about inclusion of students and school community members with disabilities, all school boards will develop and implement workshops to educate on and address bullying and cyberbullying in schools and the impacts that they can have on students’ physical and mental health. These workshops need to be informed and facilitated by young persons with disabilities. The workshops are to be presented to all members of the school community…

 Major Theme 3: Removing and Preventing Digital Disability Barriers in Ontario Schools

From the Standards Development Committee Report:

  1. Require school boards to designate an accessible “digital accessibility lead” (a board level staff appointment) that will support educators in the procurement and use of digital technologies and will be responsible for all digital information at the school and system level.
  2. Require all school boards to develop and make public in an accessible format a “Digital and Technology Action Plan” with specific policies, procedures, timelines and outcome evaluation metrics that identify, remove and prevent digital, technology and bureaucratic barriers that impede learning for students with disabilities. This plan shall be updated every two years in light of new and emerging technology. For example, the plan should include:

35.1 Establishing, publicizing and enforcing information technology procurement accessibility requirements, to ensure that no technology is purchased either by a school board unless it ensures full digital accessibility. Digital and information technology accessibility should be included as a requirement in all Requests for Proposal or other tenders for sale of products and services to a school board or the Ministry. If a vender provides a product that turns out to have accessibility problems, it should be a term of the procurement that the vender will remediate the product at its expense.

35.2 Ensuring that digital and other technology that is used by or with students is designed based on universal design principles and is accessible to students with disabilities, except where to procure such is impossible without undue hardship.

35.3 A process for researching, evaluating and acquiring new evidence informed accessible technologies;

35.4 Websites, intranet content and e-learning software and hardware use a variety of accessible formats;

35.5 Each board’s Learning Management Systems (LMS) is to be fully accessible to staff and students with disabilities, including those who use adaptive technology. The plan should ensure that no teacher or other, school board staff is able to turn off any feature of the Learning Management System that is accessible in favour of one that is not.

35.6 All accessibility features on digital equipment are turned on and available to ensure that information posted through them will be accessible to students with disabilities, including those using adaptive technology such as screen readers or voice recognition tools;

35.7 Board documents affecting students (report cards, assessments, Individual Education Plans etc.) are fully accessible. Software used to produce a school board’s documents such as report cards, Individual Education Plans, or other key documents should be designed to ensure that they produce these documents in accessible formats.

35.8 All technology procurement policies and procedures meet accessibility requirements. Any procurement of technology including information technology should include specific accessibility end-user functionality requirements. A condition of procurement should be a requirement that the supplier or vender must remediate any inaccessible product or service at its own expense.

35.9 Any textbook used in any learning environment must be accessible to teachers and students with disabilities at the time of procurement.

35.10 Electronic documents created at the school board for use in education and other programming and activities should be created in accessible formats unless there is a compelling and unavoidable reason requiring otherwise.

35.11 A school board shall not use PDF format for documents to be used by or in connection with students or their parents unless an accessible alternative format such as MS Word is also simultaneously available, including, for example, for any textbook or other instructional material, school or Ministry policy, or student-related document such as report card or Individual Education Plan. For example, if a textbook is available in EPUB format, the textbooks must meet the international standard for that file format. For EPUB it is the W3C Digital Publishing Guidelines currently under review. If a textbook is available in print, the publisher should be required to provide the digital version of the textbook in an accessible format at the same time the print version is delivered to the school/Board.

35.12 Ensure that students who are provided assistive technology for use at school can also take them home for home use as well;

35.13 School boards remove any barriers that prevent students with disabilities from fully accessing adaptive technologies such as restrictions on being able to install apps on laptop computers or mobile devices, or firewalls that restrict access to websites needed to facilitate the use of adaptive technology.

  1. Ensure the Ministry of Education provides sufficient long-term funding through the Grants for Student Needs (GSN) to support boards in acquiring and supporting assistive technologies and related hardware and software via enhancements to the Special Education Grant. This should also include funding for any student with any kind of disability defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act….

38.1 The ministry shall not use PDF formats for documents to be made available for students or parents/guardians, or for Special Education Advisory Committees, unless an accessible alternative format such as MS Word is also simultaneously made available.

38.2 The Ministry of Education should establish, implement, publicize and enforce information technology procurement accessibility requirements for any technology to be made available in schools, to ensure that no technology is purchased by the Ministry for use by school boards, unless it ensures full digital accessibility, along the same lines as is required above for procurement by school boards.

38.3 The Ministry’s program for funding adaptive technology for students with disabilities shall not bar the use of any category of technology, such as smart phones, which are needed by and effective for those students.

38.4 The Ministry of Education should immediately direct TVO to make its online learning content accessible to persons with disabilities, and to promptly make public a plan of action to achieve this goal, with specific milestones and timelines.

38.5 The Ministry of Education should make public a plan of action to swiftly make its own online learning content accessible for persons with disabilities, setting out milestones and timelines, and should report to the public on its progress.

39.1 For any real time classes (sometimes called synchronous learning), or any meetings with school board staff and students or families held virtually rather than in person (such as an Individual Education Plan or Identification, Placement, and Review Committee meeting), only accessible virtual platforms shall be used by a school board.

39.2 Each school board shall make public the name of the virtual platform or platforms it uses and publicly certify that it has confirmed that it is an accessible virtual meeting platform.

39.3 The Ministry of Education should regularly monitor and have tested the accessibility of major virtual meeting platforms, shall make public the results of its comparisons, and shall provide a list of approved accessible options for virtual platforms to school boards on a quarterly basis.

39.4 The Ministry of Education and each school board shall make public a phone number and email address for the public to contact to report accessibility problems experienced with virtual meeting platforms used in the education system. The aggregated feedback received shall be shared with the public and, school boards on a quarterly basis.

Major Theme 4: Ensuring Accessible Curriculum, Assessment and Instruction

Note from the AODA Alliance:

The Standards Development Committee made many recommendations aimed at the design of curriculum taught in school, at how students are taught in school, and at how student learning is assessed in school. “Curriculum” refers to the content to be taught. “Instruction” refers to how a teacher teaches that curriculum, such as the teacher’s lesson plans. “Assessment” refers to how the student is tested or assessed to see what they have learned.

Several recommendations taken together would require that curriculum, student instruction and student assessment should be reformed to ensure that they are all barrier-free and fully accessible for students with disabilities. This includes ensuring that the principles of universal design in learning and differential instruction are built into curriculum, student instruction and student assessment. Beyond the specific requirements below, the Ministry of Education would be required to develop models and tools to help school boards implement these requirements.

From the Standards Development Committee Report:

9.1 The Ministry of Education and Boards incorporate Universal Design for Learning in the requirements for curriculum design.

9.3 The Ministry identify a ministry designated office or person with lead responsibility for the ongoing review of all provincially mandated curriculum (and secondary resources guidelines offered to school boards) for removal of accessibility barriers.

9.4 The Ministry mandate a strategy and action plan for continuous review of all curriculum. requiring that all reviewed and new curriculum address accessibility barriers and is barrier free.

9.5 Curriculum review and renewal in curriculum areas, include specific focus areas, such as:

  1. b) science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics
  2. c) alternative, expanded curriculum for students with disabilities that is barrier free and addresses relevant life skills
  3. g) new and developing curriculum areas and competencies such as multi-literacies, e.g., digital literacy, financial literacy that is designed and integrated within specific courses (e.g., career studies, mathematics) and across curriculum
  4. h) curriculum that addresses experiential learning, employability skills development, specialty pathways such as Specialist High Skills Major (SHSM) and school to work transitions
  5. i) curriculum that focuses on the development of learning skills that specifically address executive functioning skills (e.g., emotional and physical self-regulation, working memory, self-monitoring, organizational planning and prioritizing, and task initiation). The development of these skills is critical to accessing learning for all, and student achievement and well-being.

These recommendations would among other things require that the timely access, use, and the benefits of curriculum materials, goods and services. Instructional learning materials need to be fully accessible through Universal Design for Learning that uses many differing, alternative methods of engaging, representing, expressing, and communicating learning. This requires:

  1. The Ministry and Boards require current and newly developed special programs, for example, French Immersion and Extended French, be open, fully accessible and barrier free for students with disabilities and that the programs be reviewed, monitored and developed utilizing open, transparent processes that provide for timely communication, accessibility and participation by students with disabilities.

This requires that:

24.1 The Ministry set direction and Board required practices that ensure specialized programs are accessible to and effectively accommodate students with disabilities. This requires provision for effective accommodations, accessible locations, instructional materials and program design that is accessible, and barrier free for the needs of students with disabilities.

  1. Boards ensure students with disabilities who participate in specialized and expanded programs receive the required adaptations to instructional design and assessment practices so that they have every opportunity afforded them to earn a diploma albeit 16 credits for an Ontario Secondary School Certificate (OSSC) or 30 credits for the Ontario Secondary School Diploma (OSSD). It is in the design process where many students for example, with intellectual disabilities can achieve credits and pursue diploma pathways (e.g., through apprenticeship programs and others).

25.4 The Ministry and Boards provide Adapted Physical Education (APE) by developing, implementing and monitoring carefully designed physical education programs for students across all disabilities, based on comprehensive assessments, so that students with disabilities develop skills and competencies to enable healthy personal living.

11.1 Ministry and Boards will ensure the design of instructional materials that are fully accessible on a timely basis for students with disabilities, including for example, materials that are accessible to those with vision and hearing loss, full captioned digital, visual accommodations, and non-verbal formats.

11.2 Ministry and Boards will establish procurement procedures requiring any new instructional materials be fully accessible, in timely, quality alternative formats and/or conversion ready.

11.3 Ministry and Boards will require that procurement procedures for approved educational resources meet accessibility, barrier free standards, be transparent, with quality design requiring ongoing timely review, monitoring and communication.

11.6 The Ministry and Boards establish dedicated shared resources within and among school boards, to assist efficient and effective, timely conversion ready materials that are in accessible format, where needed. This includes ensuring a board lead for oversight, coordination and response.

Note from the AODA Alliance:

Under these recommendations, the Ministry of Education should ensure that school boards use barrier-free assessments for student performance. The Ministry should provide guides and resources to school boards on how to do this. The Ministry should ensure that all provincial standardized tests are barrier-free for students with disabilities. The Ministry and school boards should monitor student assessments to ensure that they are barrier-free for students with disabilities.

Major Theme 5: Substantially Strengthen Requirements Regarding Individual Education Plans

Note from the AODA Alliance:

A centerpiece of how Ontario’s education system tries to serve students with disabilities is by having school boards develop and implement an Individual Education Plan (IEP) for each student with special education needs. However, the Standards Development Committee found that there are important shortcomings with the existing regime for these. For example, Ontario’s requirements only apply for students whose disability falls within the out-dated and too narrow term “exceptionality. They should be available for all students with disabilities, whether or not their disability falls within that term “exceptionality. Among the Committee’s recommendations are the following:

From the Standards Development Committee Report:

  1. Each school board should notify the parents/guardians of students with disabilities, and where applicable, the students themselves, of their right to have an Individual Education Plan. All students with disabilities who want or need an Individual Education Plan shall have one provided.
  1. The Ministry of Education shall revise the format and content of the Individual Education Plan to include accommodations, as defined by the Ontario Human Rights Code, as well as supports or services that a student with disabilities needs to enable them to fully participate in and fully benefit from all opportunities available at school. It should include accommodations, supports or services in relation to all aspects of school life, including those needed for education and learning, for emergencies, for health and safety, behavior or social engagement. The aim should be to consolidate to the extent possible all such planning for the student in one place. The portions of the Individual Education Plan that are needed to be shared with specific school staff members to implement them shall be shared with those staff members. Otherwise, the student’s confidentiality in connection with the Individual Education Plan shall be maintained.
  1. The Ministry of Education shall publicly report on what changes have been made to the standards for Individual Education Plans, and regularly audit school board Individual Education Plans for compliance with the new standard.
  1. School boards shall conduct annual audits of Individual Education Plan compliance and publicly report on the results of the audit.

Major Theme 6: Expanding and Strengthening Parent and Student Participation In the Accommodation of Students with Disabilities

From the Standards Development Committee Report:

Barrier: Parents /guardians of students with disabilities, and students with disabilities themselves, need direct, easy access to important information about the menu of programs, services, supports and accommodations available for students including students with disabilities, and how to request or advocate for them. They have a right to know all the important information they need including, for example what is available, what persons and what office to approach to get this information and to or to request or change the student’s placements, programs, supports, services or accommodations, or to raise concerns about whether the school board is effectively meeting the student’s disability-related education needs.

This information should be easy to find, and should be readily available in accessible formats, in plain language and in multiple languages. Parents report that too often, it is very difficult to find out this important and basic information. It is inefficient and unreliable to leave this responsibility to individual principals, spread across Ontario, to each deal with this as they choose. When it is left to each principal, without clear requirements and pre-prepared materials for parents, guardians and students, school boards won’t be able to ensure that this important need is met.

As well, parents/guardians of students with disabilities report that too often, they find it very difficult, frustrating, and demoralizing to advocate for their child’s needs in the school system. Depending on the board, the school and the people involved, it can be a welcoming, positive and cooperative process, or an alienating, bureaucratic and rigid process.

When there is a dispute about the Individual Education Plan contents or implementation, parent/guardians/students do not have a dispute mechanism and some parents, guardians or students resort to filing a human rights complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. Filing a human rights complaint involves great legal expenses, delays, and hardships to a family. A dispute mechanism that is easy to use and that can resolve issues quickly is needed.

  1. We recommend: All of the students with disabilities and the parents/guardians of those students have the right to fully participate in the planning and implementation of the student’s educational plan/program.

The Ministry of Education shall:

49.1 Ensure effective processes and resources used for planning for all students with disabilities to ensure that students and parents/guardians are able to participate effectively in the process.

49.2 Develop a timely formal process/dispute resolution mechanism for parents/guardians and students to appeal the contents or implementation of Individual Education Plans, to make necessary changes if required, and to ensure that district school boards follow it.

49.3 In cases where disputes cannot be resolved at the school board level, appoint an arm’s length third party mediator when parents and/or students can show that the school is not effectively meeting their needs.

The District School Boards shall:

49.4 Provide parents/guardians of students with disabilities, and where applicable, students with disabilities themselves, with timely and effective information, in accessible formats, on the available services, programs and supports for students with disabilities (whether or not they are classified as students with special education needs under the Education Act and Regulations).

49.5 Ensure that parents, guardians, and students are informed, as early as possible, in a readily accessible and understandable way, about important information such as:

  1. a) What “special education” is and who is entitled to receive it.
  2. b) What the rights are to full participation in and full inclusion in all the school board’s education and other programming, and to be accommodated in connection with those programs under the Ontario Human Rights Code and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, whether or not the student is classified as a student with special education needs under Ontario’s Education Act and regulations.
  3. c) The menu of options, placements, programs, services, supports and accommodations available at the school board for students with disabilities.
  4. d) Who to approach at the school board to get this information, and how to request placements, programs, supports, services or accommodations for students with disabilities, including the development of Individual Education Plans, or to raise concerns about whether the school board is effectively meeting the student’s education needs.

49.6 Ensure parents and guardians of students with disabilities can easily find out and, where necessary visit, different placement, program, service and support options for a student with a disability, to ensure that the parent, guardian or the student, is knowledgeable about the options for placement, program or services that are available to be provided to that student.

49.7 Develop, implement, and make public an action plan to ensure parent/guardian/students have access to the information they need and meet the requirements of this section. The action plan should incorporate the following:

  1. a) The goal of the plan
  2. b) What information will be made available to parent/guardian/students with disabilities
  3. c) How information will be formatted to make it easy to understand and jargon free
  4. d) The types of formats that will be used to make the information available and accessible
  5. e) Where information will be available to parents/guardians/students (in schools and on-line including school and school board websites)
  6. f) The timelines for distributing information to all parent/guardians/students and the key transition points when information will be provided (such as at start of school, at least once annually, and as part of student planning, including Individual Education Plan development and review)
  7. g) Who will be responsible for ensuring information is provided to parent/guardian/students with disabilities
  8. h) How the distribution of information will be tracked or measured
  9. i) What measures will be used to evaluate the value and impact of providing the information
  10. j) How the action plan will be evaluated
  11. k) How the action plan will be shared publicly with regular progress updates

49.8 Ensure that each school shall send home an introductory pamphlet, or equivalent, to all parent/guardians at the start of each school year, or when first registering a student in the board, and not only to families of those students who are already being identified as having a disability.

49.9 Ensure provision of in-person and virtual events to help families learn how to navigate disability-related school board processes. Where possible these should be streamed online and archived online as a resource for families to watch at a convenient time.

49.10 Ensure an effective process for parents and guardians of students with disabilities, and, the students themselves, to effectively take part in the development and implementation of a student’s plans for meeting and accommodating their disability-related needs, including (but not limited to) their Individual Education Plan.

49.11 Consistent with the Ministry of Education policy recommendations, parents and guardians and students with disabilities must be invited to take part in a all school planning meetings, including meetings where accommodation plans will be made and where the Individual Education Plan will be developed or reviewed. Such meetings should include the following:

  1. a) The school board should bring to the table all key professionals who can contribute to the discussions,
  2. b) The family should be invited to bring to the table any supports and professionals that can assist the family and the planning process.
  3. c) Parents should have the right to bring with them anyone who can assist them in advocating for their child.
  4. d) Parents/families should be given a wide range of options for participating e.g. in person or by phone. They should be told in advance who will attend from the school board.
  5. e) Any proposal for accommodations including a draft Individualized education plan should include a summary of key points to assist families in understanding them.
  6. f) If a school board refuses to provide an accommodation, service, or support for a child’s disability that a parent, guardian, the student requests, or if the school board does not provide an accommodation or support that it has agreed to provide, the school board shall be required to promptly provide written reasons for that refusal. It should let the family and student know that they can request written reasons.

49.12 Consistent with the recommendations for a Ministry of Education policy on student and parent engagement, a school board level dispute resolution mechanism is available to parents of students with disabilities, and to those students, for concerns related to accommodations, including Individual Education Plan’s.

The dispute resolution process shall be:

  1. a) Fair, independent and impartial
  2. b) Respectful
  3. c) Non-adversarial
  4. d) Timely
  5. e) Accessible
  6. f) One where the decision is provided in writing.

49.13 After the dispute resolution process is completed, if the family is not satisfied, they have the right to bring their concerns regarding the proposed accommodations, including the Individual Education Plan, to a designated senior official at the school board with authority to approve the requested accommodations, for a further review.

49.14 In cases of dispute, the Ministry shall appoint a mediator.

49.15 No proposed services, supports or accommodations that the school board is prepared to offer shall be withheld from a student pending a review.

49.16 Notify parents and guardians, who themselves have a disability, that they have a right to have their disability-related needs accommodated in these processes, so that they can fully participate in them. For example, they should be notified that they have a right to receive any information or documents to be used in any such meeting or process in an accessible format.

49.17 Ensure that students with a disability who move from school board to school board, or school to school, have the right to an Individual Education Plan with same or comparable programs, services and accommodations. If the school board, or the school to which the student transfers proposes to deny or to reduce those accommodations or supports, the parent/guardian/student should be able to take their concern to the dispute resolution process. All accommodations shall be maintained until and unless, through the dispute resolution procedures set out in this accessibility standard, the school board has justified a reduction of those accommodations.

49.18 Ensure the training and development of a roster of helpers (sometimes known as system navigators) for parents of students with disabilities to help them navigate the often-complex world of supports for students with disabilities both within the system and with partner community agencies.

Major Theme 7: Access for Students with Disabilities to Timely Professional Assessments Needed for Disability Accommodation

Note from the AODA Alliance:

Often, students with disabilities need to have some sort of expert or professional assessment of their needs, for a school board to know how best to meet their needs. There are too often great delays in getting these assessments. Accordingly, the Standards Development Committee made several recommendations, such as the following:

From the Standards Development Committee Report:

  1. The Education Accessibility Standard directed through Ministry of Education and Boards establishes measures and processes to address and eliminate administrative and other access barriers that impede or delay timely and fair/unbiased assessments for the identification of disability related need. These assessments include but are not limited to professional and clinical assessments such as psycho-educational, and other educational assessments in the identification of disability related needs.

17.1 Where there are barriers related to timely access to identification or needs assessments, the board will have a solution-based process to address the assessment needs which may include a plan to access clinical assessments through partnership with external service providers. And where the board provides evidence to the ministry that it is experiencing barriers to timely access of clinical professional services for assessment related to the identification of disability related needs, and the board continues to plan for a clear solutions-based process, the ministry will support the board in securing the necessary assessments.

17.2 District school Boards shall identify on an annual basis their unmet professional assessment needs of students with disabilities as evidenced through the Data Collection Standard (Standards Development Committee) and seek timely access to disability related assessments with the support of the Ministry of Education. The Ministry shall take action to review and address access barriers to disability related assessments.

17.3 Pending a necessary assessment, the school board has a duty to accommodate and cannot refuse to accommodate a student’s need due to delay in getting an assessment performed that has been requested by the board. There are many educational assessments including on-going evidence-based classroom assessments that can inform how a student learns best.

Major Theme 8: Reforming the Process for a School Board Identifying and Making the Placement of Student with Disabilities

From the Standards Development Committee Report:

Barrier: The system for a school board‘s formal identification and placement of students with disabilities, Regulation 181/98 creates barriers for students with disabilities, beyond the fact that the definition of “exceptional pupil” does not include all students with disabilities as defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code, and the Charter of Rights.

For a formal decision on a student’s identification and placement, one must apply to a school board committee called an Identification, Placement, and Review Committee. The review committee can only decide on whether the student falls within the definition of “exceptional pupil” and on the students’ “placement”. It can only make recommendations but not binding decisions on the student’s “program” or services”.

A student or their parents/guardians can appeal to the Special Education Appeal Tribunal about the Identification, Placement, and Review Committee’s decision on identification and placement (but not on recommendations regarding program or services). Courts can review that tribunal’s decision. Such appeals are rare.

Regulations for Identification, Placement, and Review Committees were created before the protections for equality for students with disabilities were enacted in the Charter of Rights and Ontario Human Rights Code, and the following problems have been identified:

  1. More than half of the students receiving special education services and who have an Individual Education Plan, were not identified through an Identification, Placement, and Review Committee. This strongly suggests this process is irrelevant to many.
  2. Many school staff and families complain about the Identification, Placement, and Review Committee’s administrative burden and delays that can create barriers to student success.
  3. Identification, Placement, and Review Committees are hampered by the arbitrary, undefined and confusing distinction between define “placement” on which the Identification, Placement, and Review Committee can decide, and inseparable issues concerning “program” or “services on which the Identification, Placement, and Review Committee cannot decide.”
  4. Families report that they don’t understand the Identification, Placement, and Review Committee process or feel included in it. Frequently the meetings are short, and families feel rushed. In addition, families who don’t understand the process may waive their right to a review.
  5. Some families feel forced into adversarial appeal processes, that may not address the family’s core concerns about the supports that the student needs.
  1. The Identification, Placement and Review Committee process and regulation should be reviewed to determine if it needs to be re-designed, retained or replaced.
  1. If the Identification, Placement, and Review Committee process is to be redesigned, the following principles should be included:
  2. a) A provincially consistent mandatory process, that is expeditious, fair, and user-friendly, for a student and/or parent/guardian to work collaboratively with the school board to develop an agreement as to how the needs of the student with a disability will be met.
  3. b) Decisions about a student’s placement should not be separated from decisions over a student’s program and services. The overlapping terms “placement”, “program” and “services”, if retained, should be defined and clarified.
  4. c) The student and/or parent/guardian should be assured of reasonable timelines to enable the consideration of options and provide input into the decision-making process.
  5. d) Dispute resolution or appeal processes should be available on all issues regarding decisions about how the school board will meet the student’s needs, and not limited to identification and placement only. These mechanisms should be prompt and user friendly.

Major Theme 9: Ministry of Education and Each School Board Needs to Embed Accessibility Oversight in Their Operations

Note from the AODA Alliance:

Several recommendations call for the Ministry of Education and each school board to put in place measures to ensure that school boards are effectively serving students with disabilities. For example:

From the Standards Development Committee Report:

41.10 Dispute resolution mechanisms be developed at the student, school board and provincial level regarding access and delivery of student support services from provincial and community partners. The dispute mechanism for students and families should be user friendly and provide timely decisions, building on the approaches provided by the Supporting Success, A Guide to Preventing and Resolving Disputes Regarding Special Education Programs and Services (2007). The process for resolving systemic disputes should be solution focused and include accountability mechanisms to ensure follow up and evaluation of solutions provided.

  1. The Ministry of Education shall:

42.1 Ensure accountability and oversight to ensure that District School Boards are fulfilling their responsibilities to meet the needs of students with disabilities.

42.2 Create an ombudsman/oversight office where students’ and parents’ concerns regarding the provision of education for students with disabilities can be investigated and resolved.

52.6 The Ministry of Education should be required to designate an office or role, such as an Assistant Deputy Minister, responsible for achieving a barrier-free and accessible school system for students with disabilities. This office or person, should have in place a permanent advisory committee representing individuals with disabilities, including students, that are representative of both high-incidence and low-incidence disabilities. As part of the role, the office or lead should publicly report on the progress of the Ministry and school boards to improve accessibility annually.

52.10 The Ministry of Education should be required to annually:

  1. a) Analyze the barriers and accessibility problems identified by each school board ‘s Accessibility Committee, and the actions identified or proposed for corrective action.
  2. b) Post a report to the public that identifies the recurring barriers experienced in Ontario school boards and share actions that are being taken or proposed to correct these. This includes the requirement to identify areas where corrective action has not being taken or where more is needed.

42.4 Mandate that the designated Assistant Deputy Minister shall have in place a permanent advisory committee representing individuals with disabilities, including students with disabilities and their parents, that reflects the needs of high-incidence and low-incidence disabilities.

42.5 Ensure monitoring, auditing, surveying, and feedback of District School Boards’ provision of education to students with disabilities, including Special Education and Accessibility Plans, to ensure compliance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, the Ontario Human Rights Code, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

42.6 Collaborate with the Ministry of Seniors and Accessibility and make public and provide effective practices in terms of Special Education and Accessibility Planning.

School Board Accessibility Committees and Plans Recommendations

1.1 Each school board set up and maintain a network of teachers and other staff with disabilities, and a network of students with disabilities, to get input on accessibility issues at the school board and to get advice on barriers

  1. The K-12 Education Accessibility Standard should require the following of any school board and of the schools operated by the Ministry of Education to:

52.1 Establish an Accessibility Committee and develop multi-year accessibility plans that identify barriers, establish plans to eliminate the barriers and ensure compliance with accessibility standards.

52.2 Designate an accessibility lead staff reporting to the Director of Education.

Ensure that the membership of the school board Accessibility Committee includes senior board officials with responsibility for human resources, teaching and learning, physical facilities, information technology, procurement, transportation, as well as students and individuals with disabilities.

52.3 Assign the respective responsibilities of the lead staff and committee members to oversee the planning and monitoring of accessibility compliance with the accessibility standards.

52.4 Systematically review educational programming, services, facilities, and equipment to identify recurring accessibility barriers within that organization that can impede the full and effective participation and inclusion of students with disabilities, as well as strategies to eliminate those barriers.

52.5 Mandate that the contents of the accessibility plan to include:

  1. a) Processes to identify accessibility barriers, including complaints/reports from schools, students, and community members
  2. b) Plans for removing and preventing accessibility barriers
  3. c) Clear assignment of responsibilities for action
  4. d) Performance measures for monitoring progress
  5. e) Requirements to report to the school board’s trustees regularly
  6. f) Requirements for seeking input from the school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee
  7. g) An annual report on progress towards the elimination of accessibility barriers
  8. h) Feedback mechanisms to collect and review input from School Accessibility Committees, staff students and the community.
  9. i) Require school boards to publicly report on the Accessibility Plan and progress to implementation, as well as a summary of feedback on accessibility barriers and strategies.

District School Boards shall:

52.11 Establish at each school an Accessibility Committee that would include the Principal or designate, staff, students, families, and community groups, to identify accessibility barriers and possible solutions to address them. The committee will provide input to the School Board Accessibility Committee and/or lead staff responsible for accessibility. This will ensure that accessibility barriers unique to each school are identified and addressed as quickly as possible.

52.12 Establish a dedicated resource within the school board, or shared among school boards, to convert instructional materials to an accessible format, where needed, on a timely basis.

52.13 Ensure that all schools create an accessible and welcoming environment for students with disabilities and their families, including those family members with disabilities. This includes ensuring schools encourage and make it easy to seek accommodations for their disabilities.

Major Theme 10: Recommendations Regarding Disability-Specific Needs

Note from the AODA Alliance:

Some of the Standards Development Committee‘s recommendations are disability specific, such as the following:

From the Standards Development Committee Report:

41.8 An education advisory committee on autism should be established and include stakeholders from the education sector, Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services, Ministry of Health, parents and autistic individuals consistent with the recommendations from the Ontario Advisory Panel Report (2019). The scope of the role of the committee is described in the detailed recommendations for a New Needs-Based Ontario Autism Program, Alignment with Other Ministries – Ministry of Education, Page 33-39.

Specialized Alternative and Expanded Curriculum and Pathways Recommendations

Curriculum development and learning expectations that support the learning needs of students with disabilities need to be accessible and responsive to specific individual needs. This includes extensions to curriculum and alternative curriculum resources and learning expectations.

There are limited provincially regulated resources for some disabilities, for example, low incidence disabilities such as vision loss. For example, references such as Expanded Core Curriculum are supported and resourced by some learning institutes. While individual boards provide a variety of differing supports, in specialized, learning centers and regular class there needs to be enhanced development, shared access, and staff development in these areas of expanded and alternative curriculum across the province. Additionally, students who participate in specialized and expanded programs require fair and impartial assessment practices. Instructional designs need to be inclusive and accommodate the needs of students with disabilities ensuring they have every opportunity to meet diploma and specialize certification requirements (e.g., apprenticeship programs, Specialist High Skills Major).

Curriculum and Instruction Recommendation:

  1. The Ministry of Education review, develop and provide alternative and expanded curriculum and learning expectations that support the specific learning needs of students with disabilities in access and use of learning resources.

27.1 This includes the requirement of specific curriculum, and /or recommended resources for students with disabilities, that address or are tailored to the needs arising from the student’s disability or combination of disabilities.

27.2 For students with vision loss, resources including the Expanded Core Curriculum (ECC) be adopted for required use across each board.

27.3 The Ministry upon consultation, review and development of any new provincial curriculum and supporting supplementary resource documents include specialized, expanded or additional curriculum that address the needs arising from specific disability or combination of disabilities.

Ontario College of Teachers shall:

53.5 Ensure that the mandatory qualifications to teach students who are blind/low vision be enhanced to provide the skills and knowledge to meet the needs of these students.

53.6 Work with the Ministry of Education and select faculties of education to initiate a Master’s level program in both French and English for teaching students who are blind/low vision such that exists in other jurisdictions.

Major Theme 11: Reducing the Exclusions/Refusals to Admit to School/Reduced School Hours

Note from the AODA Alliance:

These recommendations are consistent with the results of a detailed survey of all school boards that the AODA Alliance conducted in 2019-2020, that reviews in detail the policies of any school boards regarding the refusal to admit a student to school for all or part of the school day, available at https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/new-report-reveals-that-at-majority-of-ontarios-school-boards-each-school-principal-is-a-law-unto-themselves-with-arbitrary-power-to-exclude-a-student-from-school-real-risk-of-a-rash-of-exclusio/

From the Standards Development Committee Report:

Barrier: Parents have concerns with the use of the principal’s power to exclude students from school. (Also called refusal to admit to school) Section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act requires principals to:

“Subject to an appeal to the board, to refuse to admit to the school or classroom a person whose presence in the school or classroom would in the principal’s judgment be detrimental to the physical or mental well being of the pupils.”

Concerns are expressed that a significant proportion of those excluded from school are students with disabilities. The Ministry of Education does not track data on exclusions and does not require school boards to track data on them, in contrast to suspensions and expulsions.

Parents identified a lack of due process, such as:

  • Not being told the reason for the refusal to admit or how to challenge it
  • No limit on how long the refusal to admit can continue
  • The absence of a plan for the student’s return to school
  • No assured provision of alternative education program while the student is excluded
  • No consistent and fair process to appeal the refusal to admit

There are many stories from parents about formal and informal arrangements for a student with disabilities to attend for less than the full school day or school week without the parents’ voluntary consent. The school board places the student on a “modified school day.” There are no consistent practices for when or how this can occur, the documentation to be kept, or plans for return to full time school.

Concerns have been raised that in some situations, a student with disabilities is excluded from school directly or indirectly because the school has not effectively accommodated that student, as is required by the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Charter of Rights.

A survey of Ontario school boards showed that a majority of boards have no policy on how and when a principal may refuse to admit a student. Of the 33 boards for which a policy was obtained, these policies vary substantially. A student, excluded from school, and their parents are treated very differently from one board to the next. Students and parents across Ontario deserve the same safeguards. Principals are placed in a difficult position, not knowing what they can and should do.

These recommendations seek to reduce or eliminate the number and duration of exclusion of students with disabilities. References to “refusal to admit” includes formal and informal exclusions, and exclusions from school for all or part of the school day.

  1. The K-12 Education Accessibility Standard should require the following of any school board and of the Ministry of Education where it operates schools:

50.1 Exclusions/Refusals to admit should only be imposed in rare cases when it is demonstrably necessary to protect the health and safety of students or others at school, and only after all relevant accommodations for the student up to the point of undue hardship have been explored or attempted.

50.2 Refusal to admit of a student shall not last more than five consecutive school days, unless formally extended following the due process requirements required for an initial refusal to admit.

50.3 Refusal to admit a student to school cannot be used, in whole or in part, for purposes of discipline of a student, or as a form of discipline of that student. A student shall not be subjected to a refusal to admit to school for purposes of facilitating a police investigation.

50.4 When considering whether to refuse to admit a student to school, the principal and school board should take into account the fact that excluding a student from school is contrary to the student’s right to an education. The principal and school board should also proceed from the starting point that the rights of students with disabilities under the Ontario Human Rights Code, including their right to accommodation of their disability-related needs up to the point of undue hardship, take primacy over all other Ontario laws and policies.

50.5 The Principal must make a family aware of the possibility of exclusion as early as that option realistically presents itself as being under consideration. The school board shall have a mandatory meeting with the family before a refusal to admit is imposed, or if crisis circumstances arise without any warning, as soon after the refusal to admit as possible (a pre-exclusion meeting). The meeting should advise the student and/or family of the school’s intention to exclude the child, the reasons for the exclusion and underlying events, the process for the family to contest the exclusion, the demonstrated outcomes for which the school board shall be looking, and an explanation that a subsequent meeting day will be set within a reasonable timeframe where the Principal and parent(s) will review progress and discuss a re-entry plan for the student.

50.6 Parents and guardians who themselves have a disability shall be notified that they have a right to have their disability-related needs accommodated where needed to take part in any meetings, appeals or other procedures regarding an actual or contemplated refusal to admit. For example, they should be notified that they have a right to receive any information or documents to be used in any such meeting or process in an accessible format.

50.7 Any student excluded from attending school shall be provided an equivalent and sufficient educational program while away from school. A written plan for the student’s education should be required, prepared immediately, and shared with the family.

50.8 A mandatory fair procedure should be established that the school board must follow when refusing to admit a student. These procedures should ensure accountability of the school board and its employees, including:

  1. a) A student and their families should have all the procedural protections that are required when a school board is going to impose discipline such as a suspension or expulsion.
  2. b) The prior review and written approval of the superintendent should be required before a refusal to admit is imposed. If it is an emergency, then the superintendent should be required to review and approve this decision as quickly afterwards as possible, or else the refusal to admit should be terminated.
  3. c) superintendent should independently assess whether the school board has sufficient grounds to refuse to admit the student and has met all the requirements of the school board’s refusal to admit policy (including ensuring alternative education programming is in place for the student).
  4. d) The principal should be required to immediately notify the student and his or her family in writing, co-signed by the superintendent, of the refusal to admit, the reasons for it, and the duration. The letter should be in plain language, translated if necessary, and include:
  5. what a refusal to admit is and the duration
  6. the permissible reasons

iii.           the school board’s process for reviewing that decision, and

  1. the student/family’s right to appeal (including how to use that right of appeal)
  2. steps that the school board has taken or will be taking to provide an alternative education and to expedite a student’s return to school,
  3. the expected timeline for the completion of these steps.
  1. e) A refusal to admit a student to school should not be extended for an accumulated total of more than 15 days (within a surrounding 30-day period) without the independent review and written approval of the Director of the, school board or their designate.
  2. f) An extension of refusal to admit must first consider excluding the student from a single class, and then the option of excluding the student from that entire school, and only as a last resort, excluding the student from all schools at that school board.
  3. g) The refusal to admit shall be documented, and the record shall include information on:
  4. h) The reason for the refusal to admit
  5. i) The duration of the refusal to admit and any extensions
  6. j) The plan to provide an educational program to the student for the duration of the refusal to admit
  7. k) The plan for the student to return to full time school attendance
  8. l) While the student is excluded, the school board should undertake ongoing efforts to facilitate the student’s return to school as quickly as possible. The return to school plan shall include meetings with the family and student to plan for the return and review the additional supports that may be needed.

50.9 To ensure that appeals to the school board under section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act from a refusal to admit a student to school are prompt and fair, the following should be required:

  1. a) A student excluded from school or their parent/guardian should be permitted to launch an appeal from a refusal to admit at any time that the refusal to admit continues. No time limit for filing an appeal should be imposed.
  2. b) No school board shall set an arbitrary length of time that an appeal hearing can take. The appeal hearing should take as long as needed for a fair hearing. The excluded student or their family should not have an arbitrary prior time limit imposed on their oral presentation of their appeal. They should be allowed the time they need to present their appeal. They shall be permitted to present relevant evidence to support their appeal if they wish.
  3. c) At an appeal, the school staff should present their reasons first on why the exclusion is justified and should continue. The student or their family shall then be given a chance to present their case on why the student should not have been excluded and why they should be allowed to return to school.
  4. d) An appeal should be held quickly to minimize the time the student is away from school. The Board of trustees shall hear and/or determine the appeal within fifteen business days of receiving the notice of intention to appeal (unless the parties agree to an extension).
  5. e) Once an appeal is launched, the school board shall prepare for the student, their parents, and the trustees, a report on the reasons for the refusal to admit, the factual background, and the efforts to return the student to school since the exclusion began. The board staff shall arrange a meeting (pre- appeal meeting) with the student and their family to try to resolve the case or narrow the issues, explain the process, disclose any information the student and their family need, and canvass and address any other matter that might help ensure a smooth and timely appeal.
  6. f) The appeal should be heard in closed session by the entire Board of trustees, not a subcommittee (unless the Board can show it has legal authority to delegate this decision to a subcommittee). Any trustee that votes on a decision in an appeal must have been present for the entire argument of the appeal.
  7. g) A Board of trustees, hearing an appeal from a refusal to admit, should consider whether the school board has justified the student’s initial exclusion from school and its continuation. The burden should be on the School Board to justify the exclusion from school.
  8. h) If the student is not successful on the appeal, they should have a further avenue to appeal to court, with mediation available, or to an expert tribunal designated to hear such cases.

50.10 The school board shall create an emergency process and fund for accelerating education disability accommodations needed to facilitate a student’s remaining at or promptly returning to school, in connection with an actual or contemplated refusal to admit.

50.11 Information and data on refusals to admit shall be collected and aggregated data reported publicly by school boards and by the Ministry of Education.

50.12 The Ministry of Education should develop a central repository/mechanism for sharing effective practices of alternatives to exclusion/refusal to admits and modified days in order to support school board efforts to reduce the number and duration of refusal to admits and modified days.

Major Theme 12: Improving the Collection of Data Concerning Education of Students with Disabilities

Note from the AODA Alliance:

The Ministry of Education regularly requires school boards to collect and report very extensive data and statistics regarding teachers, staff, and other aspects of school board operations. Yet the Ministry collects far too little data on the numbers and needs of students with disabilities, and on what is being done to meet those needs. As such, the Standards Development Committee called for a substantial increase in the collection and public availability of such data regarding students with disabilities.

From the Standards Development Committee Report:

  1. The K-12 Education Accessibility Standard should require the following of any school board and of the Ministry of Education where it operates schools:

51.1 Collect data on students with all types of disability as defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, using Individual Education Plans, or the Identification, Placement, and Review Committee, and such other methods that the Ministry and, school boards devise, rather than only collecting data on students with an “exceptionality” as defined under current Ontario special education laws.

  1. a) Data should be collected about students with disabilities that is consistent and comparable across the province according to the parameters below:
  2. b) Data collection should accurately report the numbers of students with each kind of disability. Where a student has more than one disability, each disability would be separately counted.

51.2 Data should also be collected on the accommodations, or programs and services that are to be provided to the student.

51.3 Collect student data on all incidences of exclusion/refusal to admit, consistent with the recommendations related to exclusions and modified days in Section 7. The data collected should include whether the student has a disability, the nature of the incident, the length of the exclusion/refusal to admit, reasons for the exclusion/modification in writing, the educational services provided to the student while excluded from school and the plan for return to full time school attendance.

51.4 Collect student data on the number of students who are on a modified day, including reason for modified day, duration, and appeals, if any, as well as about the alternative education program provided.

51.5 Collect and analyse annual data on the number of students who are accessing professional services and assessments provided by Regulated Health Professionals and other specialists, both from school board services and community partners who delivery services in schools. Further the data collected should be in compliance with a standardized protocol designed by the Ministry of Education (see also data collection recommendation four). Data collected should include the number of days students wait for the assessments and be publicly reported.

51.6 Collect information on the numbers of staff with specialized expertise relating to students with disabilities such as:

  1. a) Teachers of the Deaf and hard of hearing
  2. b) Teachers of the visually impaired
  3. c) Applied Behavioural Analysists
  4. d) Speech-Language Pathologists
  5. e) Audiologists
  6. f) Physiotherapists, occupational therapists
  7. g) Assistive Technology
  8. h) And other key personnel

51.7 Publicly report on an annual basis data related to disability, exclusions, modified day, wait times for professional assessments, and the number and types of staff who instruct students with disabilities.

Ministry of Education shall:

51.8 Collect all of the above data form each school board and:

  1. a) Publicly report on the data referred to above, as an aggregate and on a school board by school board basis
  2. b) Identify changes over previous year(s) and any gaps or deficits or areas for improvement.
  3. c) Develop a provincial action plan to resolve gaps or unmet needs.

51.10 Provide a standardized provincial rubric for documenting the number of professional and specialist assessments provided by each school board annually that includes information on the prioritization criteria used in referring students for assessments and the length of time from identification of the need for the assessment and the assessment completion and results shared.

Ministry of Education/Equity Secretariat shall:

51.11 Ensure the collection of student census data includes information about disability, including the type of disability, or disabilities, the intersectionality of disability with other key factors such as race, indigenous identity, sexual identity and socio-economic factors. Data collection should be based on processes and questions that are consistent for all school boards.

51.12 Analyse data related to disability and report publicly on information related to the number and types of disabilities and the intersectionality of disability with other factors. In addition, the data should be linked to student outcomes and achievements, including graduation rates, credit accumulation, course selection and other measures.

51.13 Use disability information and analysis to identify gaps and develop plans to improve the outcomes and achievement of students with disabilities.

Major Theme 13: Addressing Barriers Facing Students with Disabilities in Social Realms

From the Standards Development Committee Report:

Educational and Online Events Recommendation

  1. Each school board should only hold educational events at venues on school board property or outside school board property whose built environment is accessible to students and staff with disabilities. The buses used to transport students to the off-site events should also be accessible, so that students with disabilities do not have to travel to the event separate from their classmates.

Educational events include, but are not limited to clubs, teams, field trips, dances, graduation, fundraisers, extracurricular groups or any school or school board event that includes students and school personnel.

Note: To assign specific staff at school board to facilitate transportation for students with disabilities.

  1. Each school board shall provide where needed or requested by a student with disabilities or their family, staff assistance for social interaction and play, particularly during unstructured or minimally supervised times, such as recess or lunch. This is to address social isolation that students throughout their educational journey from K-12. The Individual Education Plan shall include a detailed, specific plan for how to implement and achieve social inclusion both in the formal school activities and informal parts of the school day. Creative and flexible plans should include multiple organizations or programs both inside and outside school board designed to foster inclusiveness in the long term across all levels from students to the administration.

This recommendation is inclusive of all students with disabilities even those who require a communication device or use augmentative communication to communicate.

Major Theme 14: Addressing Barriers Facing Students with Disabilities in School-Related Transportation

Note from the AODA Alliance:

In 2011, the Ontario Government enacted the Transportation Accessibility Standard under the AODA. It includes some provisions aimed at transportation of students with disabilities in connection with school. However, after a decade, it is clear that these have not ensured that these transportation services are accessible and barrier-free for students with disabilities. Moreover, the 2016-2019 review of the Transportation Accessibility Standard by the Transportation Standards Development Committee did not lead to any recommendations that would ensure that transportation for students with disabilities becomes accessible and barrier-free. Therefore, the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee made recommendations in this area, amongst which are the following:

From the Standards Development Committee Report:

Rationale: Up to three organizations may be involved in the transportation of students: A School Board, a consortium of school boards that jointly arrange for student transportation, and private bus companies that are contracted to provide bussing in that area. Students with disabilities and their parents should not have to try to figure out who is responsible for their child’s transportation needs. The following should be required of all three organizations.

  1. To ensure that students with disabilities get the transportation services they need to attend school this recommendation will set criteria for creating monitoring and accountability. The Education Accessibility Standard should require that where a school board provides bussing or other transportation services to students with disabilities in order to enable them to attend school, the school board/bus company’s/transportation consortia shall review and develop policies and procedures that include:

61.1 Individual consultation with each family to identify accessibility and accommodation needs of the student with disabilities in relation to transportation,

61.2 Ensure the Transportation Consortia/bus companies and drivers have been properly trained to accommodate students with disabilities and their individual needs.

61.3 With any bus driver that is changed, they are given the same information and training prior to driving the student, or, in the case of an emergency replacement, as soon as possible.

61.4 Clearly reflect the responsibilities and duties of the school board/bus companies/transportation consortia and acknowledge that they have the shared responsibility to make sure the duties are fulfilled.

61.5 Retention of training records, including when it was provided and report to their respective boards on training twice per year.

61.6 Designate and provide a reachable official at the school board and the transportation, especially during the working hours when students are being transported, to receive and address phone calls, emails and text messages from a family about problems regarding the student’s transportation.

61.7 Documentation of all complaints reported on student transportation services, and the company to which it applies. A summary report including number of complaints, types of complaints and status, be provided to the school board, transportation consortia, Special Education Advisory Committees (SEAC), and accessibility committee on a quarterly basis. These reports shall be made public on the school board’s and transportation consortium’s website.

61.8 The Education Accessibility Standard should make it clear that the fact that the policies and procedures created does not remove or reduce the school board/bus companies/transportation consortia’s duties under this accessibility standard or otherwise under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, the Ontario Human Rights Code or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to ensure that the student has been provided with barrier-free participation in the school board’s educational programs and opportunities. In any contract for bussing, the school boards/bus company’s/transportation consortia should be required to monitor compliance with all obligations regarding bussing, such as the duty to properly train each bus driver on the specific disability-related needs of each passenger, and to document this training. School Boards/bus company’s/transportation consortia should periodically audit consumer satisfaction and compliance with all applicable education accessibility standards and publicly report on the audit’s results. A bus company’s failure to consistently and reliably meet its obligations should trigger penalties and termination of the contract.

61.9 A valuation process for past performance and provision of transportation services for students with disabilities should be included in the Request for Proposal for bussing. A valuation of any company’s past performance on accessibility for students with disabilities should be given a major consideration in deciding the continued use of service.

  1. The Education Accessibility Standard should require that where a school board provides bussing or other transportation to students with disabilities in order to enable them to attend school, the school board shall ensure, and shall monitor to ensure that:

62.1 The school board has individually consulted with each family to identify the accessibility and accommodation needs of the student with disabilities in relation to transportation, and the bus company and driver have been properly trained to accommodate that need.

  1. The Education Accessibility Standard should require that the school board and, where applicable, a bus company with which it contracts, will ensure that pick-up and drop-off locations for a student’s bussing are accessible when needed to accommodate the parents or guardians of students with disabilities.

Major Theme 15: Addressing Disability Barriers to Experiential / Co-Op Learning Opportunities

From the Standards Development Committee Report:

  1. Persons with disabilities face extraordinarily high unemployment rates. Getting the chance for an experiential learning or coop placement while in school can be the gateway, if not the only gateway, to that first letter of reference. Every student’s first letter of reference is essential to getting their first job and more importantly, if you have a disability. Therefore, these recommendations are essential to combating the high unemployment that youth with disabilities too often happen to face. For the success of these recommendations, it is extremely important that school boards provide informal advice and support to all employers, including small businesses.

To ensure that students with disabilities can fully participate in a school board’s experiential learning programs, each school board should:

65.1 Review its experiential learning programs to identify and remove any accessibility barriers.

65.2 Put in place a process to affirmatively reach out to potential placement organizations in order to ensure that there will be a range of accessible placement opportunities in which students with disabilities can participate.

65.3 Ensure that its partner organizations that accept its students for experiential learning placements are effectively informed of their duty to accommodate the learning needs of students with disabilities.

65.4 Create and share supports and advice for placement organizations who need assistance to ensure that students with disabilities can fully participate in their experiential learning placements.

65.5 Monitor placement organizations to ensure they have someone in place to ensure that students with disabilities are effectively accommodated, and to ensure that effective accommodation was provided during each placement of a student with a disability who needed accommodation.

65.6 Survey students with disabilities and experiential learning placement organizations at the end of any experiential learning placements to see if their disability-related needs were effectively accommodated.

  1. The Ministry of Education should provide templates or models for these policies and measures. It should be required to prepare and make available training videos for school boards and employers offering experiential learning programs to guide them on accommodating students with disabilities and the impacts in experiential learning placements.

Major Theme 16: Removing Disability Barriers to a Student Bringing a Trained Service Animal to School

From the Standards Development Committee Report:

Some students on the autism spectrum and their families in Ontario have reported having difficulties at some school boards with being allowed to bring a service animal to school and have even had to take action before the Human Rights Tribunal against a school board. Others have been able to succeed without barriers in bringing their service animal to school.

68.1 When a student with disabilities or their parent/guardian request permission for the student to bring a trained service animal to school with them as an accommodation to their disability, the school board shall consider, decide upon that request, and give reasons for its decision, in accordance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, with the duty to accommodate students with disabilities under the Ontario Human Rights Code, with the policy of the Ontario Human Rights Commission on the duty to accommodate persons with disabilities, available at http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-ableism-and-discrimination-based-disability and the Commission’s Policy on accessible education for students with disabilities available at http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-accessible-education-students-disabilities and with the following requirements set out in this Accessibility Standard. This includes requests regarding a trained service animal from an accredited training organization that provided training to the animal and to the student. Where the service animal was not trained by an accredited training organization, it is open to the student or their family to present to the school board satisfactory evidence that both the service animal and the student have received sufficient training.

68.2 The school board shall put in place a fair and speedy procedure for considering requests for a student to bring a service animal to school. This procedure should include the following:

  1. a) If the school board has any objection to or concerns about the request, the school board will immediately notify the student and family about the specific concerns, and shall work to resolve them, in a manner consistent with the Ontario Human Rights Code.
  2. b) If the school board does not believe that the service animal could assist the student at school, the school board should investigate the request, including how the student’ benefits from the service animal outside the school and in the home.
  3. c) If the school board has any concerns about the feasibility of allowing the student to bring the service animal to school, it shall investigate the experience of other school boards and schools which have successfully enabled a student to bring their service animal to school.
  4. d) If a concern is expressed that the service animal at school would interfere with the human rights of other students or staff, the school board shall take action to effectively accommodate their rights without sacrificing the human rights of the student using the service animal, in accordance with the policy of the Ontario Human Rights Commission on conflicting rights. For example, if an EA, assigned to work with the student, cannot work with the service animal for health or other human rights reasons, the school board shall facilitate the assignment of this responsibility to another staff member.
  5. e) A student shall not be refused the opportunity to bring a qualified service animal to school without the school board first allowing a trial or test period with the service animal at school.
  6. f) Where it is proposed to allow a student with disabilities to bring a service animal to school, the school board shall work out with the student, their family, and the organization providing the service animal, a plan to promote the success of the accommodation, including such things as:
  7. Allowing the service animal’s training organization to provide training in the school to school staff.
  8. Allowing the training organization to provide an orientation to the student population at the school to the presence of the service animal.

iii.           Providing information to other families to reinforce the inclusion of the service animal at school.

  1. g) If the school board does not agree to the service animal being allowed at school, or if there is a problem with implementing the school board’s plans to facilitate its inclusion, the school board shall make available a swift dispute resolution process, including independent mediation if needed, to resolve these issues.

68.3 The Ministry of Education shall obtain information from school boards on where service animals have been allowed in school, to make it easier for a school board to reach out to those schools to gather information, if needed.

68.4 Nothing in this accessibility standard shall reduce or restrict the rights of a person with vision loss who is coming to a school bringing with them their guide dog, trained by an accredited school for training guide dogs.

Major Theme 17: Addressing Physical and Architectural Barriers Facing Students with Disabilities in Ontario’s Education System

From the Standards Development Committee Report:

When it was passed in 2005, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act required Ontario, including its schools, to become fully accessible to persons with disabilities by 2025. The Government did not effectively address the need to achieve this in schools’-built environments up until now. These recommendations are designed to achieve the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act’s goals. It will be for the Government to implement measures to ensure that school boards can fulfil them.

The intent/rationale of these recommendations is to ensure that as soon as possible, and no later than January 1, 2025, the built environment in the education system, such as schools themselves, their yards, playgrounds etc., and the equipment on those premises (such as gym and playground equipment) would all be fully accessible to persons with disabilities and would be designed based on the principle of universal design. Where school programs or trips take place outside the school, these will be held at locations that are disability accessible. The intent/rationale is also to ensure that no public money is used to create new barriers or perpetuate existing barriers in the school system.

  • Ontario Building Code (OBC) and existing accessibility standards do not set out all the modern and sufficient accessibility requirements for the built environment in Ontario.
  • The building code is largely if not entirely designed to address the needs of adults, not children or the specific types of spaces found in K through 12 schools.
  • The Government of Ontario and the Ministry of Education have no accessibility standard for the built environment in schools, whether old or new schools. The Government should develop a Built Environment Accessibility Standard to substantially strengthen the accessibility provisions in the Ontario Building Code.
  • Neither the Ministry of Education nor the individual school boards have any expertise on staff on how to design a school to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Architects and design and construction teams have no standardized education for accessibility beyond building code minima. Many are not aware of or understand the current minimal requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act’s Design of Public spaces enacted in 2013.
  • When the Ministry reviews proposals from a school board for construction of a new school or renovation of an existing school, the Ministry does not require those plans to be accessible to persons with disabilities, but instead, leaves it to each school board to address accessibility as much or as little as it wishes.
  • It is left to each school board to come up with its own designs to address accessibility in the built environment in schools and at other school board locations even though the needs of persons with disabilities to an accessible built environment do not vary from community to community around Ontario. An inaccessible doorway is an inaccessible doorway, whether in Kingston or Chatham.

Summary of Recommendations for Mandatory Beyond Building Code Accessibility Requirements

This section includes 3 different areas of requirements for beyond code additional mandatory requirements for schools and associated facilities including the exterior site elements, the buildings interior elements, and universal design better practices.

The exterior site elements include five topics:

  1. Access to the site for pedestrians
  2. Access to the site for vehicles
  3. Parking
  4. Exterior doors
  5. Public Playgrounds on or Adjacent to School Property

The interior building elements include 10 topics:

  1. Entrances
  2. Door
  3. Layout
  4. Gates, Turnstiles and Openings
  5. Windows, Glazed Screens and Sidelights
  6. Circulation including Elevators, Ramps and Stairs
  7. Drinking Fountains
  8. General Facilities
  9. Washroom Facilities
  10. Specialty Room and Spaces

Finally, enhanced universal design best practice section includes 17 different elements and considerations have been provided based on feedback from a recognized accessibility and universal design expert for ways to improve building and facilities use for all users of the school and community.

Note from the AODA Alliance:

The Standards Development Committee’s detailed recommendations for the built environment in the education setting are set out in full in the June 16, 2021 AODA Alliance Update.

From the Standards Development Committee Report:

Ensuring a Fully Accessible Built Environment at Schools Recommendations

Barriers:

Too often, the built environment where K-12 education programming is offered, have physical barriers that can partially or totally impede some students with disabilities from being able to enter or independently move around. These barriers also impede parents, teachers and other school staff and volunteers with disabilities.

The Ontario Ministry of Education does not effectively survey all school buildings to ensure that they are accessible, or to catalogue what accessibility improvements are needed.

The Ministry of Education’s specifications for new school construction do not require all accessibility features or can even preclude needed accessibility features in a new school or other education facility.

Recommendations:

  1. The K-12 Education Accessibility Standard should set out specific requirements for accessibility of the built environment in schools and other locations where education programs are to be offered. Accessibility requirements should not only include the needs of people with mobility disabilities. They should include the needs of people with other disabilities such as (but not limited to) people with vision and/or hearing loss, autism, intellectual or developmental disabilities, learning disabilities or mental health disorders. There should be no priorities among disabilities. These requirements should meet the accessibility requirements of the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These should include:
  2. a) Specific requirements to be included in a new school to be built.
  3. b) Requirements to be included in a renovation of or an addition to an existing school, and
  4. c) Retrofit requirements for an existing school not slated for a major renovation or addition.
  1. Each school board should develop a plan to ensure that the built environment of its schools and other educational facilities becomes fully accessible to persons with disabilities as soon as reasonably possible, and in any event, no later than January 1, 2025. As part of this:
  2. a) As a first step, each school board should develop a plan for making as many of its schools’ disability-accessible within its current financial context.
  3. b) Each school board should identify which of its existing schools can be more easily made accessible, and which schools would require substantially more extensive action to be made physically accessible. An interim plan should be developed to show what progress towards full physical accessibility can be made by first addressing schools that would require less money to be made physically more accessible, taking into account the need to also consider geographic equity of access across the school board and a school building’s expected lifespan.
  4. c) When designing a new school or managing an existing school, wherever possible, a quiet room should be assigned in a school facility to assist with learning by those students with disabilities who require such an environment. For example, when a school board is deciding what to do with excess building capacity, it should allocate unused or under-used rooms as quiet rooms whenever possible.
  1. When a school board seeks to retain or hire design professionals, such as architects, interior designers or landscape architects, for the design of a new school or an existing school’s retrofit or renovation, or for any other school board construction or other infrastructure project, the school board should include in any Request for Proposal a mandatory requirement that the design professional must have sufficient demonstrated expertise in accessibility design, and not simply knowledge about compliance with the Ontario Building Code or the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. This includes the accessibility needs of people with all kinds of disabilities, and not just those with mobility impairments. It includes the accessibility needs of students and not just of adults.
  1. When a school board is planning to construct a new school, or expanding or renovating an existing school or other infrastructure, a properly qualified and experienced accessibility consultant should be retained by the school board (and not necessarily by a private architecture firm) to advise on the project from the outset, with their advice being transmitted directly to the school board and not only to the private design professionals who are retained to design the project. Completing the 8-day training course on accessibility offered by the Rick Hansen Foundation should not be treated as either necessary or sufficient for this purpose, as that brief course is substantially inadequate and has significant problems.
  1. A committee of the school board’s trustees, and the school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee or Accessibility Committee should be required to review design decisions on new construction or renovations to ensure that accessibility of the built environment is effectively addressed. A school’s Accessibility Committee should also be involved in this review. Consultations should include getting input from students, parents, school employees and school volunteers with disabilities. These Committees should not be seen as technical experts, or as a substitute for the earliest engagement of accessible design experts.
  1. Where possible, a school board should not renovate an existing school that lacks disability accessibility, unless the school board has a plan to also make that school accessible. For example, a school board should not spend public money to renovate the second storey of a school which lacks accessibility to the second storey, if the school board does not have a plan to make that second storey disability accessible. Very pressing health and safety concerns should be the only reason for any exception to this.
  1. When a school board decides which schools to close due to reduced enrollment, a priority should be placed on keeping open schools with more physical accessibility, while a priority should be given to closing schools that are the most lacking in accessibility, or for which retrofitting is the most costly.
  1. Each school board should hold off-site educational events at venues whose built environment is accessible.
  1. The Ministry of Education should be required to revise its funding formula or criteria for school construction to ensure that it requires and covers and does not obstruct the inclusion of all needed accessibility features in a school construction project. The following design features should be required by the Education Accessibility Standard and in any new school construction or renovation, and effectively addressed in the Ministry’s funding/approval requirements for school construction projects. Where an existing school is undergoing no renovation, any of the following measures which are readily achievable should be required. The Ministry should enact technical requirements for the following, as binding enforceable rules, not as voluntary guidelines:

Ensuring Accessibility of Gym, Playground and Like Equipment and Activities Recommendations

Barrier:

Schools or school boards that have gym, playground or other equipment not designed based on the principles of universal design, which some students with disabilities cannot use, as well as certain gym, sports and other activities in which students with disabilities cannot fully participate.

Section 80.18 of the Ontario Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation, as amended in 2012, requires accessibility features to be considered when new outdoor play spaces are being established or existing ones are redeveloped. However, those provisions do not set the spectrum of detailed requirements that should be included. They do not require any action if an existing play space is not being redeveloped. They ultimately leave it to each school board or each school to re-invent the accessibility wheel each time they build or redevelop an outdoor play space. They do not require anything of indoor play spaces or gyms.

Recommendations:

  1. To ensure that gym equipment, playground equipment and other like equipment and facilities are accessible for students with disabilities, the Education Accessibility Standard should set out specific technical accessibility requirements for new or existing outdoor or indoor play spaces, gym and other like equipment, drawing on accessibility standards and best practices in other jurisdictions, if sufficient, so that each school board does not have to re-invent the accessibility wheel.
  1. Each school board should:
  2. a) Take an inventory of the accessibility of its existing indoor and outdoor play spaces and gym and playground equipment, and make this public, including posting this information online.
  3. b) Adopt a plan to remediate the accessibility of new gym or playground equipment, in consultation with the school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee and Accessibility Committee, and widely with the families of students with disabilities.
  4. c) Ensure that a qualified accessibility expert is engaged to ensure that the purchase of new equipment or remediation of existing playground is properly conducted, with their advice being given directly to the school board.
  1. Where playground or other school equipment or facilities to be deployed on school property for use by students is funded and/or purchased by anyone other than the school board, the school board should remain nonetheless responsible for approving the purchases and ensuring that only accessible equipment and facilities are placed on school property for use by students or the public. Decisions over whether accessibility features will be included, or which will be included, should not be totally left to community groups which may fund-raise for such equipment or facilities.

Major Theme 18: Accessible Transitions for Students with Disabilities

Note from the AODA Alliance:

Some of the Standards Development Committee recommendations on transitions are set out in the main initial report of the Committee. Some are in the joint report of the Technical Subcommittee. The following brings together some key recommendations from both places.

From the Standards Development Committee Report:

Committee Initial Report/Recommendations

  1. Each school board should develop and create the role of the Transition Facilitator/Navigator to work with students and their families in collaboration with school staff, and community agencies to explore pathways and develop transition plans. The Transition Facilitator/Navigator would assist students accessing special education supports, consult and liaison with community disability service providers and provide transition planning resource development for all school board and school staff.
  2. Ministry of Education should set up a centralized Transitions Hub. The Hub would support the role of the Transitions Facilitator / Navigator as well as provide a conduit of best practice transitions information and regular communication from across all publicly funded school boards and school authorities in Ontario. If needed it would provide smaller boards the ability to partner and develop successful programs.

From the Standards Development Committee‘s Technical Subcommittee Report

  1. Ensure that co-operative education programs include accommodations and supports for all students as needed, including transportation to and from placements and support staff at placement as needed.
  1. Where possible, and to the point of undue hardship, allow siblings of a student with a disability who attends a special education program outside of their home school, to attend that same school if requested by the family. Note: This does not include provincial schools, for example W. Ross MacDonald School.
  1. Offer learning strategies courses in secondary school that are responsive and aligned with the IEPs of participating students.
  1. Facilitate the participation of all students with disabilities in their IEPs and transition plans through teacher student conferences, beginning in elementary school.
  1. Ensure that students with disabilities receive all necessary accommodations and other supports as outlined in their IEPs and transition plans when accessing summer or night school continuing education courses during their secondary school education.
  1. Ensure that students with an Identification, Placement & Review Committee (IPRC), and their parents/guardians, are informed in grades 7 through 10 about the importance of updating their assessment during Grade 11 and 12.
  1. Ensure that students in Grades 11 and 12 are informed during their IEP review/renewal meetings and transition support meetings if/when their formal professional assessment must be updated.
  1. Ensure that students with an IEP only that includes a transition plan, and their parents/guardians, are informed in Grades 7 through 10 that they will need an IPRC if they will be requesting accommodations when they enter post-secondary education. As well as ensuring students and their parents/guardians understand accommodations in K-12 do not automatically translate to the post-secondary environment and an assessment of accommodations needs will be conducted in post-secondary.

Major Theme 19: Planning for Emergencies and Safety

Note from the AODA Alliance:

The following recommendations are inspired by experience during the COVID-19 pandemic. They identify what should be done to plan in advance for any future emergencies, as well as for coping with the COVID-19 pandemic as it continues.

Last summer, a subcommittee of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee submitted a detailed and comprehensive package of excellent recommendations to the Ontario Government on July 24, 2020 on how to address the urgent needs of students with disabilities during the pandemic. The AODA Alliance strongly endorses that report and all its recommendations. The K-12 Education Standards Development Committee distilled those recommendations for future use in its March 12, 2021 initial report/recommendations. The following are some of the key recommendations.

From the Standards Development Committee Report:

  1. The Ministry of Education establish an independent review committee as soon as possible to assess the COVID-19 response by the Ministry of Education and School Boards by:
  2. a) Documenting the response by the Ministry and school boards to supporting students with disabilities
  3. b) Documenting the coordination and collaboration with other Ministries in responding to the needs of students with disabilities at school and at home during remote learning
  4. c) Identifying key decision points and changes in response activities
  5. d) Surveying key stakeholders, including student voice about the effectiveness of key response activities
  6. e) Assessing the information collected to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges in the response and preparedness to ensure access and delivery of education and health services for students with disabilities
  7. f) Making recommendations for future emergency planning and preparedness
  8. The independent review committee membership should include, but not limited to school boards, students and other individuals with disabilities, and 2 to 3 members of the Education Accessibility K to 12 Standard Development Committee and supported by Ministry of Education staff.
  9. The report of the committee, or interim reports if the COVID-19 pandemic last more than one year, shall be submitted to the Premiere and Cabinet, and made public.
  1. The Ministry of Education should make its own online learning content accessible for persons with disabilities, including TVO and TFO as a provider of centralized support for online learning in the English-language and French-language publicly funded education systems, respectively.
  2. The Ministry of Education should direct its entire staff and all School Boards that whenever making information public in a Portable Document Format (PDF), it must at the same time, make available a textual format such as an accessible Microsoft Word (MSWord) or accessible HTML document. Videos must be audio described (DV) and closed captioned (CC). Templates and technical guides should be developed and provided to school boards.
  3. The Ministry of Education collect and make readily available resources/information on practices, effective strategies in learning environment, and alternate approaches for students struggling with online learning, etc. from School Boards, agencies and disability specific associations to ensure resources are readily available during an emergency.
  4. That Ministry of Education should model leadership to School Boards and provide accessible virtual learning webinars, templates for learning, etc. to be utilized in training administrators and teachers to ensure all educational and training resources are accessible remotely in case of an emergency.
  5. The Ministry of Education should provide guidelines for a coordinated training delivery model to support parents of students with rehabilitation needs, mental health concerns or who have complex or significant medically needs to access and continue education and health services remotely during an emergency.
  6. School Boards should ensure that its hub of learning resources specific to students with disabilities is accessible and available remotely to support teachers and students in their learning during an emergency.
  7. School Boards should plan to provide solely dedicated or designated staff, who are available to support technology including accessibility needs to parents who are supporting the learning needs of students with disabilities.
  8. The Ministry of Education’s Emergency Plan shall include the creation of a Central Education Leadership Command Table with the responsibility of ensuring that students with disabilities have access to all accommodations and supports during an emergency. Structure and membership shall be outlined in the plan, ensuring all students with disabilities and educational partnership groups are represented on the Central Education Leadership Command Table.
  9. School Boards’ Emergency plans shall include the creation of a similar Board Command/Central table as the Ministry of Education’s Central Education Command/Central Table, to develop its own emergency plan following the Ministry of Education’s Guidelines for Emergency Plans for School Boards.
  10. The School Board Emergency Plan should include establishment of a Command/Central Table during an emergency that will be responsible for:
  11. a) Receiving and acting on feedback from teachers, principals and families about problems they are encountering serving students with disabilities during an emergency event. The Table will quickly network with similar offices/Tables at other school boards and can report recurring issues to the Ministry’s command table.
  1. School Boards should utilize the expertise of the Special Education Advisory Committee members by directly involving members in developing the School Board’s Emergency Plan and planning for the delivery of remote learning, other emergency plans, through regular meetings and frequent communications.
  2. School Boards should involve their Accessibility Committee which will review all plans at the school board and school level for mitigating risk of an emergency and to meet the accessibility requirements of all students or persons with disabilities in the case of an emergency.
  3. In the School Board’s Emergency Plan, assign its Senior Staff member responsible for accessibility to ensure that all changes at schools in response to an emergency maintain accessibility for all students with disabilities.
  4. The Ministry of Education develop a rapid response team to receive feedback from school boards on recurring issues facing students with disabilities and to help find solutions to share with school boards.and quickly and resolve issues for students with disabilities as they arise during an emergency.
  5. Ministries should review policies and regulations to allow therapy supports and services that have transitioned successfully to a virtual learning environment be shared to geographic areas that have no access to these services.
  6. The Ministry of Education should develop curriculum for students from Kindergarten to Grade 12 to enable students to develop the skills and knowledge they need for learning in a virtual learning environment. In the interim, the Ministry should share existing, accessible resources on this topic to teachers and School Boards

Major Theme 20: Setting Timelines for Action and Measures to ensure Compliance and Accountability

From the Standards Development Committee Report:

Serious concerns have been expressed for several years about deficiencies in the Accessibility Ministry’s compliance/enforcement of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. The second Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Independent Review conducted by Mayo Moran in 2014 and the third such review conducted by David Onley in 2018 both called for Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act enforcement to be substantially strengthened. Their reports demonstrate that the slow progress on accessibility in Ontario has been due in part to shortcomings in the Ministry`s compliance/enforcement actions in the past. Despite the findings of those Independent Reviews, these deficiencies remain.

The compliance/enforcement actions of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act are more likely to succeed where there is clear delegation of responsibility and accountability within obligated organizations for compliance with the K-12 Education Accessibility Standard and where there is a clear, visible and renewed demonstration by the Government of Ontario of its commitment to achieve Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act compliance through greater education and rigorous regulatory action for willful lawbreakers.

The focus of compliance/enforcement activities should not simply be whether an obligated organization such as the Ontario Ministry of Education or a publicly funded school board has posted a policy on an action required by the K-12 Education Accessibility Standard. It is important to assess the end result i.e. whether obligated organizations have in fact removed and prevented disability barriers that impede students with disabilities and to assess whether students with disabilities are being effectively included in and fully participating in the opportunities that Ontario’s public education system provides to students.

 

The focus of compliance/enforcement activities should not simply be whether an obligated organization such as the Ontario Ministry of Education or a publicly funded school board has posted a policy on an action required by the K-12 Education Accessibility Standard. It is important to assess the end result i.e. whether obligated organizations have in fact removed and prevented disability barriers that impede students with disabilities and to assess whether students with disabilities are being effectively included in and fully participating in the opportunities that Ontario’s public education system provides to students.

Accountability and Compliance Recommendations:

Implementation Planning and Outcomes Measurement

  1. We are proposing that each obligated organization develop a detailed implementation plan, with measurable performance metrics and timelines for achieving milestones towards the implementation of the Standard. The identified performance metrics should have process requirements such as establishing committees with impacted stakeholders (such as students with disabilities) to oversee the implementation planning as well as specific timelines for completion.

It is important to assess the end result i.e. whether obligated organizations have in fact removed and prevented disability barriers that impede students with disabilities and to assess whether students with disabilities are being effectively included in and fully participating in the opportunities that Ontario’s education system provides to students (see Appendix 1 for a model implementation planning template).

Public Reporting: School Boards, College of Teachers and Government

  1. In terms of reporting, each obligated organization should be directed by the Accessibility Directorate to have a section on their web site that publicly reports on the implementation of the Standard. This could be in the form of an annual report, or a completion matrix of the organizations progress to date.
  1. In addition, The Accessibility Directorate of Ontario should be required to promptly make public a detailed, comprehensive annual and multi-year compliance/enforcement plan for the K-12 Education Accessibility Standard. It should publicly report quarterly on actions taken and actual accessibility improvements achieved.
  1. To help promote accountability and compliance, the Ministry of Education should be required to establish and maintain a public searchable data base where all reports, annual plans and updates posted or prepared by school boards or by the Ministry in compliance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act will be made available in an accessible format to the public.
  1. As part of the Government’s compliance/enforcement plan, it should establish and widely publicize a provincial toll-free number, and dedicated email address to receive complaints and concerns from students with disabilities their families or others regarding accessible education for students with disabilities. Those contacting this number should be advised to take up their concern first with the relevant obligated organization through its process for addressing such concerns, before bringing it to the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario. The Ministry should assign a rapid response team to take action where appropriate on input received from this phone number or email address. A summary of input/complaints received (with no identifying information) should be made public quarterly.
  1. Those appointed with Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act compliance/enforcement powers who will be addressing the implementation of the K-12 Education Accessibility Standard should have knowledge and any building permit process for a new school or major renovation should be required to comply with the built environment provisions of the K-12 Education Accessibility Standard in order to get a building permit. The project should be checked for compliance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and not just the Ontario Building Code in that process. In addition, the Accessibility Directorate should have staff with experience in the area of education of students with disabilities or should have a resource team whom they can regularly and readily consult who have that expertise. To avoid conflicts of interest, the members of that resource team should be independent of any organizations that have obligations under the K-12 Education Accessibility Standard.

Internal: School Boards

  1. In terms of school boards, the implementation plan and its milestones should be tabled with and receive input from their Special Education Advisory Committees and Accessibility Advisory Committees every 6 months. In addition, the implementation plan should also be tabled with the school board or board of trustees every 6 months until 2025 (during public board meetings). Student transportation consortia should also report to their respective school boards on their implementation plan.
  1. In terms of implementation planning, boards should build into their multi-year strategic plans accessibility outcomes as part of the process and required goals.

Reporting to the Government: School Boards, College of Teachers, Transportation consortia

  1. In addition, although the Accessibility Directorate has regulatory authority over its obligated organizations, we believe Boards should be also be required to report to the Ministry of Education (and the Accessibility Directorate) each quarter on the results of their implementation actions and performance. Reports should detail successes and challenges in meeting the requirements of the Education Accessibility Standard recommendation with proposed solutions or remediation efforts. The College of Teachers should have the same reporting requirements.

Ensuring Compliance Obligations: Audits and Reviews

As noted above, recent reports have documented how little oversight and enforcement currently exists with respect to various accessibility standards under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Given the relatively short timelines for the full implementation of these recommendations (by 2025 at the latest), we are recommending:

  1. The Accessibility Directorate conduct on-site inspections of a range of obligated organizations each year on the actual accessibility of their facilities and educational programs and services as addressed in the Standard, and not just an audit of their paper records on accessibility documentation.
  1. The Accessibility Directorate conduct “implementation reviews” of a select number of school boards and the College of Teachers within 6 months of the government’s enactment of the Education Standards regulation. The purpose of these reviews is to ensure boards and the College have developed an implementation plan with performance metrics and designated responsibility centers and have started to move forward with the implementation of the Standard.
  1. The Accessibility Directorate conduct a compliance review or audit of Government of Ontario on a quarterly basis.
  1. Under s. 26 of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, the Government should designate a tribunal to hear appeals from monetary penalties and compliance orders under the K-12 Education Accessibility Standard to a tribunal that has expertise in disability, human rights and education, such as the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. Those appeals should not go to the License Appeal Tribunal, as is now the case under other Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act’s accessibility standards, because that commercial tribunal lacks the needed knowledge or expertise in the field of education for students with disabilities.



Source link

15-Page Summary of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s Initial Recommendations, summarized by the AODA Alliance – AODA Alliance


15-Page Summary of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s Initial Recommendations

June 23, 2021

Introduction

What should be done under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) to tear down the many barriers that impede students with disabilities in Ontario schools between Kindergarten and Grade 12, so they can fully participate in and fully benefit from Ontario’s education system? What should we include in a promised new law, to be called the “Education Accessibility Standard”, so Ontario’s school system becomes barrier-free for students with disabilities by 2025? Here is a summary of the 20 themes in the draft or initial recommendations by a Government-appointed committee, the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee. Its members are drawn from the disability community and the school system. They want your feedback. At the end of this summary is a backgrounder.

The non-partisan AODA Alliance prepared this summary. We urge one and all to read The Standard Development Committee’s entire 185-page report and to send The Government your feedback on it by September 2, 2021 by writing [email protected]

Objective of the Education Accessibility Standard

The Education Accessibility Standard’s objective is that by 2025, the publicly funded K-12 education system will be fully accessible, equitable, inclusive and learner-centered:

  1. A) By removing and preventing accessibility barriers impeding students with disabilities from fully participating in, and fully benefitting from all aspects of the education system, and
  2. B) By providing a prompt, accessible, fair, effective and user-friendly process to learn about and seek programs, services, supports, accommodations and placements tailored to the individual strengths and needs of each student with disabilities

…We envision an Ontario public education system K-12 where learning environments are barrier free and fully inclusive of learners with disabilities. All learners with disabilities will have full access to meaningful education and relevant learning experiences that include appropriate instructional supports.

Major Theme 1: Ensure that Schools Effectively Serve All Students with Any Kind of Disability

Ontario’s special education system is now designed to only serve students with a condition that falls within the Ministry of Education’s out-dated definition of “exceptionality.” That definition leaves out some disabilities. It includes some students who have no disability.

Under the Standards Development Committee ‘s recommendations, all disability-related education supports would be available to all students with any kind of disabilities.

Major Theme 2: Training on Disability Accessibility for Everyone Involved in Ontario’s Schools

School boards should provide training on disability accessibility and inclusion for teachers, school staff, parents and all students. Training standards and requirements for teachers and other educational staff who provide specialized support for students with disabilities should be increased.

The Ministry of Education should develop models for this training, which school boards could use. The Ontario College of Teachers and university Faculties of Education should ensure that people trained to be teachers receive effective training on how to teach students with disabilities. Knowledge and experience on inclusion of and full participation by students with disabilities should become an important hiring and promotion criterion for principals, vice-principals and teaching staff.

School curriculum should include lessons about the accessibility barriers facing people with disabilities, and how to remove and prevent them.

Major Theme 3: Removing and Preventing Digital Disability Barriers in Ontario Schools

School boards need to take extensive new proactive measures to tear down the digital accessibility barriers that impede students with disabilities. For example, school boards should design and implement a digital accessibility action plan. Each board should designate an accessible “digital accessibility lead” to support educators in the procurement and use of digital technologies, and to be responsible for all digital information.

Digital technology procured for students and teachers should be accessible, using universal design principles. Books and other instructional materials for use by students, parents or others in the school community should be in accessible formats, as should report cards and other important documents used with students and/or their families. If pdf is used, other accessible formats should be provided at the same time, because pdfs present accessibility problems.

Students who are provided assistive technology for use at school should be permitted to take it home for home use. School boards should remove barriers that prevent students with disabilities from fully accessing adaptive technologies such as restrictions on being able to install apps on laptop computers or mobile devices, or firewalls that restrict access to websites needed to facilitate the use of adaptive technology. The Ministry’s program for funding adaptive technology for students with disabilities should not bar the use of any category of needed adaptive technology, such as smart phones.

The Government should ensure that distance learning becomes accessible to students with disabilities. For example, TVO should make its online learning content accessible to persons with disabilities, and should promptly make public a plan of action to achieve this goal. The Ministry of Education should make public a plan of action to swiftly make its own online learning content accessible for persons with disabilities. Only accessible platforms for distance learning should be permitted in Ontario schools.

Major Theme 4: Ensuring Accessible Curriculum, Assessment and Instruction

The Standards Development Committee made many recommendations aimed at the design of curriculum taught in school, at how students are taught in school, and at how student learning is tested or assessed in school. Curriculum, student instruction and student assessment should be reformed to ensure that they are barrier-free and fully accessible for students with disabilities. This includes ensuring that principles of universal design in learning and differential instruction are built into them. The Ministry of Education should develop tools to help school boards implement these requirements. The Ministry should designate an office or person with lead responsibility for ongoing review of provincially mandated curriculum and resources offered to school boards, for removing accessibility barriers.

Specific strategies are needed to ensure that such things as STEM (science, technology, engineering and Math), physical education, French language immersion, and other specialty programs are accessible to and effectively accommodate students with disabilities.

The Ministry of Education should ensure that school boards use barrier-free tests and other assessments for student performance. The Ministry should provide guides and resources to school boards on how to do this. The Ministry and school boards should monitor student assessments to ensure that they are barrier-free for students with disabilities. The Ministry should ensure that all provincial standardized tests are barrier-free for students with disabilities.

Major Theme 5: Substantially Strengthen Individual Education Plans (IEPs)

A key way Ontario’s education system tries to serve students with disabilities is by having school boards develop and implement an Individual Education Plan (IEP) for each student with special education needs. The Standards Development Committee found that there are important shortcomings with the current regime for these. For example, Ontario’s requirements only apply for students whose disability falls within the out-dated and narrow term “exceptionality.” IEPs should be available for all students with disabilities, whether or not their disability falls within the term “exceptionality.”

The Standards Development Committee recommends that any student with any kind of disability should be entitled to an IEP if they, their family or the school things one would help. An IEP should document in one place all the measures for the student’s disability-related accommodation. The content and implementation of IEPs should be periodically audited to ensure that the needs of students with disabilities are being met.

Major Theme 6: Expanding and Strengthening Parent and Student Participation In the Accommodation of Students with Disabilities

Parents /guardians of students with disabilities, and students with disabilities themselves, need direct, easy access to important information about the menu of programs, services, supports and accommodations available for students including students with disabilities, and how to request or advocate for them. They have a right to know all the important information they need including what is available, what persons and what office to approach to get this information or to request or change the student’s placements, programs, supports, services or accommodations, or to raise concerns about whether the school board is effectively meeting the student’s disability-related education needs.

This information should be easy to find. It should be readily available in accessible formats, plain language and multiple languages. Parents report that too often, it is very difficult to find out this important and basic information. It is inefficient and unreliable to leave this responsibility to individual principals, spread across Ontario, to each deal with this as they choose. Each school should implement a series of measures to ensure that parents of students with disabilities and the students have ready access to all this information.

Parents/guardians of students with disabilities report that too often, they find it very difficult frustrating and demoralizing to advocate for their child’s needs in the school system. Depending on the board, the school and the people involved, it can be welcoming, positive and cooperative, or alienating, bureaucratic and rigid.

The school should offer every family of a student with disabilities a meeting to discuss what should be included in the IEP (an IEP meeting) If any participant in the meeting, such as the student or their parents, need a disability accommodation to participate, this should be provided.

School boards should offer families a system navigator to help them make their way through the bewildering process of trying to get their child’s disability-related needs accommodated. If the family or student think the IEP does not include measures they need, or that the school is not implementing all or part of the IEP, they should have access to a swift, fair, effective internal appeal within the school board. The appeal should be to a board employee or an outside mediator who have expertise in educating students with disabilities, and who was not involved in the actions under appeal.

Students with a disability who move from school board to school board, or school to school, should have the right to an Individual Education Plan with same or comparable programs, services and accommodations. If the school board, or the school to which the student transfers, proposes to deny or to reduce those accommodations or supports, the parent/guardian/student should be able to take their concern to the dispute resolution process. All accommodations shall be maintained until and unless, the school board has justified a reduction of those accommodations.

Major Theme 7: Access for Students with Disabilities to Timely Professional Assessments Needed for Disability Accommodation

Often, students with disabilities need an expert or professional assessment of disability-related needs. There are too often great delays in getting these assessments. The Standards Development Committee made recommendations to speed up these assessments.

Major Theme 8: Reforming the Process for a School Board Identifying and Making the Placement of Student with Disabilities

The current system for a school board’s formal identification and placement of students with disabilities creates barriers for students with disabilities. For a formal decision on a student’s identification and placement, one must have a hearing before a school board committee called an Identification, Placement, and Review Committee (IPRC). The IPRC can only decide on whether the student falls within the definition of “exceptional pupil” and on the students’ “placement”. It can only make recommendations but not binding decisions on the student’s “program” or services”.

More than half of the students receiving special education services and who have an IEP were not identified through an IPRC. This strongly suggests this process is irrelevant to many.

Many school staff and families complain about the IPRC’s administrative burden and delays that can create barriers.

IPRCs are hampered by the arbitrary, undefined and confusing distinction between define “placement” on which the IPRC can decide, and inseparable issues concerning “program” or “services” upon which the IPRC cannot decide.

Families report that they don’t understand the IPRC process or feel included in it. Frequently the meetings are short, and families feel rushed. In addition, families who don’t understand the process may waive their right to a review.

The Standards Development Committee recommended that the IPRC system be reviewed, reformed or replaced with a process that is swift, fair, and user-friendly. Decisions over a student’s placement should not be arbitrarily hived off from decisions over their supports, programs, services and accommodations.

Major Theme 9: Ministry of Education and School Boards Should Each Embed Accessibility Oversight in Their Operations

Several recommendations call for the Ministry of Education and each school board to put in place new measures to ensure that school boards effectively serve students with disabilities.

The Ministry of Education should designate an office or role, such as an Assistant Deputy Minister, responsible for achieving a barrier-free and accessible school system for students with disabilities. A Ministry Ombudsman for complaints regarding disability-related needs of students with disabilities should be created. The Ministry should annually audit school board effectiveness at serving students with disabilities, review disability issues and barriers in Ontario schools, plan strategies to address them, and publicly report on these efforts.

Each school board should ensure that its schools create an accessible and welcoming environment for students with disabilities and their families, including family members with disabilities. This includes ensuring schools encourage and make it easy to seek accommodations for disabilities. Each school board should create a board accessibility committee, school level accessibility committees, and a network of teachers and staff with disabilities. Each board should designate a senior official with lead responsibility for advancing the goal of disability accessibility. Each school board should create and implement multi-year accessibility plans that address all disability barriers, and not just those identified in earlier limited AODA accessibility standards. The board should publicly report on the plan’s implementation.

Major Theme 10: Recommendations Regarding Disability-Specific Needs

Some Standards Development Committee recommendations focus on a specific disability, such as autism. As well, there is a recognized need to better serve students with low-incidence disabilities such as vision loss, which chronically receive less attention from the Ministry of Education and school boards.

Ontario should upgrade its substandard training requirements for teachers of the visually impaired. Where needed, specific added disability-focused curriculum should be required for teaching students with specific disabilities that need this. For example, each school board should be required to teach students with vision loss the Expanded Core Curriculum that has been internationally recognized.

Major Theme 11: Reducing the Exclusions/Refusals to Admit to School/Reduced School Hours

Parents voiced concerns with the principal’s power to exclude students from school. (Also called refusal to admit to school) Section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act requires principals:

“Subject to an appeal to the board, to refuse to admit to the school or classroom a person whose presence in the school or classroom would in the principal’s judgment be detrimental to the physical or mental well being of the pupils.”

Concerns are expressed that a significant proportion of those excluded from school are students with disabilities. The Ministry of Education does not require school boards to track data on exclusions from school.

There is a lack of due process, such as parents not being told the reason for the refusal to admit their child to school, or how to challenge it. There is no limit on how long the refusal to admit can continue. There need not be a plan for the student’s return to school and no assured provision of alternative education program while the student is excluded. There is no consistent, fair process to appeal a child’s exclusion from school. Concerns have been raised that in some situations, a student with disabilities is excluded from school directly or indirectly because the school has not effectively accommodated that student’s disability.

There are many stories from parents about formal and informal arrangements for a student with disabilities to attend for less than the full school day without parents’ voluntary consent. There are no consistent practices for when or how this can occur, the documentation to be kept, or plans for return to full time school.

An AODA Alliance survey of Ontario school boards showed that a majority of boards have no policy on how and when a principal may refuse to admit a student. Of the 33 boards for which a policy was obtained, these policies vary substantially. A student, excluded from school, and their parents are treated very differently from one board to the next. Students and parents across Ontario deserve the same safeguards. Principals are placed in a difficult position, not knowing what they can and should do.

The Standards Development Committee’s recommendations seek to reduce or eliminate the number and duration of exclusion of students with disabilities. It makes detailed recommendations to reduce how and when a student can be excluded from school. The student and their family would be entitled to know the reason for the exclusion from school and its duration. An excluded student would have a right to receive their education while excluded from school. Students would have a right to a fair process before, during and after an exclusion from school. School boards should track and make public data on how often students are excluded from school.

Major Theme 12: Improving Collection of Data on Education of Students with Disabilities

The Ministry of Education regularly requires school boards to collect and report very extensive data on teachers, staff, students and other aspects of board operation. Yet the Ministry collects far too little data on the numbers and needs of students with disabilities, and on what is being done to meet those needs. The Standards Development Committee called for a substantial increase in the collection and public availability of data regarding students with disabilities.

Major Theme 13: Addressing Barriers Facing Students with Disabilities in Social Realms

The Standards Development Committee made detailed recommendations to better enable students with disabilities to participate in social activities in connection with school. This includes, for example, ensuring that activities to take place off school grounds are held in accessible locations, providing staff assistance to help ensure that students with disabilities can socialize with other students, and taking anti-bullying measures.

Major Theme 14: Addressing Disability Barriers in School Transportation

In 2011, the Ontario Government enacted the AODA Transportation Accessibility Standard. It includes provisions aimed at transportation of students with disabilities. After a decade, it is clear that these have not ensured that these transportation services are accessible for students with disabilities. Therefore, the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee made recommendations to ensure that student transportation for students with disabilities is accessible.

The Standards Development Committee recommended that school boards consult individually with each family to identify accessibility and accommodation needs of the student with disabilities regarding transportation, and ensure drivers are properly trained to accommodate each student’s disability needs. If a bus driver is replaced, the school board should ensure that the replacement is given the same training before driving the student, or, in an emergency, as soon as possible.

Each school board should designate a reachable official especially during working hours when students are being transported, to receive and address phone calls, emails and text messages from a family about problems with a student’s transportation.

Major Theme 15: Addressing Disability Barriers to Experiential / Co-Op Learning

People with disabilities face extraordinarily high unemployment rates. Getting the chance for an experiential learning or co-op placement while in school can be the gateway, if not the only gateway, to that first letter of reference. A student’s first letter of reference is essential to getting their first job.

It is important for school boards to provide informal advice and support to all employers, including small businesses.

To ensure that students with disabilities can fully participate in experiential learning programs, each school board should review its experiential learning programs to identify and remove any accessibility barriers and ensure that there will be a range of accessible placement opportunities in which students with disabilities can participate. School boards should ensure that partner organizations that accept its students for experiential learning placements are effectively informed of their duty to accommodate the learning needs of students with disabilities.

Major Theme 16: Removing Disability Barriers to a Student Bringing a Trained Service Animal to School

Some students on the autism spectrum and their families have reported having difficulties at some school boards with being allowed to bring a service animal to school and have had to take legal action against a school board. Others succeeded in bringing their service animal to school.

The Standards Development Committee made recommendations to require any school board to follow a series of swift and fair steps, when a student with disabilities asks to bring a trained service animal to school with them. For example, if the school board has any objection to or concerns about the request, the school board will immediately notify the family about the specific concerns, and shall work to resolve them.

If the school board does not believe that the service animal could assist the student at school, the board should investigate the request, including how the student benefits from the service animal outside the school and at home. If the school board has concerns about the feasibility of allowing the student to bring the service animal to school, it shall investigate the experience of other school boards and schools which have successfully enabled a student to bring their service animal to school.

If a concern is expressed that the service animal at school would interfere with the human rights of other students or staff, the school board shall take action to effectively accommodate their rights without sacrificing the human rights of the student using the service animal. For example, if an EA, assigned to work with the student, cannot work with the service animal for health or other human rights reasons, the school board should assign this to another staff member.

A student shall not be refused the opportunity to bring a qualified service animal to school without the school board first allowing a trial or test period with the service animal at school. If the school board does not agree to the service animal being allowed at school, or if there is a problem with implementing the school board’s plans to facilitate its inclusion, the school board shall make available a swift dispute resolution process. Nothing in the accessibility standard shall reduce or restrict the rights of a person with vision loss bringing with them their guide dog, trained by an accredited school.

Major Theme 17: Addressing Physical and Architectural Barriers

Too often, the built environment where K-12 education programming is offered, have physical barriers that can impede some students with disabilities from being able to enter or independently move around. These barriers also impede parents, teachers and other staff and volunteers with disabilities.

The Ontario Ministry of Education does not effectively survey all school buildings to ensure that they are accessible, or to catalogue needed accessibility improvements. Ministry of Education’s specifications for new school construction do not ensure that news schools are accessible.

The Standards Development Committee recommends that the Education Accessibility Standard should include specific requirements to be included in a new school, requirements to be included in a renovation of or an addition to an existing school, and retrofit requirements for an existing school not slated for a major renovation. Its detailed recommendations, beyond what the Ontario Building Code and existing AODA standards minimally require, are set out in full in the June 16, 2021 AODA Alliance Update. They do not only include the needs of people with mobility disabilities. They include people with other disabilities such as (but not limited to) people with vision and/or hearing loss, autism, intellectual or developmental disabilities, learning disabilities or mental health disorders.

Each school board should develop a plan to ensure that the built environment of its schools and other educational facilities becomes fully accessible to persons with disabilities as soon as reasonably possible, and in any event, no later than 2025. As a first step, each school board should develop a plan for making as many of its schools’ disability-accessible within its current financial context. They should identify which existing schools can be more easily made accessible. An interim plan should be developed to show what progress towards full physical accessibility can be made by first addressing schools that would require less money to be made physically more accessible.

When a school board seeks to hire design professionals, such as architects, interior designers or landscape architects, for a school project the school board should include in any Request for Proposal a mandatory requirement that the design professional must have sufficient demonstrated expertise in accessibility design. This includes accessibility needs of people with all kinds of disabilities, and not just those with mobility impairments. A properly qualified and experienced accessibility consultant should be retained by the school board (and not necessarily by a private architecture firm) to advise on the project from the outset, with their advice being transmitted directly to the school board.

Where possible, a school board should not renovate an existing school that lacks disability accessibility, unless the school board has a plan to make that school accessible. For example, a school board should not spend public money to renovate the second storey of a school which lacks accessibility to the second storey, if the school board does not have a plan to make that second storey disability accessible. Very pressing health and safety concerns should be the only reason for any exception to this.

When a school board decides which schools to close due to reduced enrollment, a priority should be placed on keeping open schools with more physical accessibility, while a priority should be given to closing schools that are the most lacking in accessibility, or for which retrofitting is the most costly.

Each school board should take an inventory of the accessibility of its existing indoor and outdoor play spaces and gym and playground equipment, and make this public. Each board should adopt a plan to remediate the accessibility of new gym or playground equipment.

Major Theme 18: Accessible Transitions for Students with Disabilities

Students with disabilities can encounter difficulties with transitions from one school to another, from elementary school to high school, from school to post-secondary education or from school to work. Detailed recommendations are offered to help with these transitions. For example, each school board should develop and create the role of the Transition Facilitator/Navigator to work with students and their families in collaboration with school staff, and community agencies to develop and carry out transition plans.

To help with transitions, where possible, and to the point of undue hardship, each school board should allow siblings of a student with a disability who attends a special education program outside of their home school, to attend that same school within that school board if requested by the family.

Each school board should ensure that students with an IPRC, and their parents/guardians, are informed in grades 7 through 10 about the importance of updating their assessment during Grade 11 and 12. School boards should ensure that students in Grades 11 and 12 are informed during their IEP review/renewal meetings and transition support meetings if/when their formal professional assessment should be updated.

Major Theme 19: Planning for Emergencies

A subcommittee of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee submitted a comprehensive package of excellent recommendations to the Ontario Government on July 24, 2020 on how to address the urgent needs of students with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. The K-12 Education Standards Development Committee distilled those recommendations for future use in its March 12, 2021 initial report/recommendations. The following are some key recommendations.

The Ministry of Education should establish an independent review committee as soon as possible to assess the COVID-19 response by the Ministry of Education and School Boards from the perspective of students with disabilities, and to make recommendations for future emergency preparedness.

The Ministry of Education’s future Emergency Plan shall include the creation of a Central Education Leadership Command Table with the responsibility of ensuring that students with disabilities have access to all accommodations and supports during an emergency. The Ministry of Education should develop a rapid response team to receive feedback from school boards on recurring issues facing students with disabilities and to help find solutions to share with school boards, and quickly and issues for students with disabilities as they arise during an emergency. The Ministry of Education should collect and make readily available resources/information on practices, effective strategies in learning environment, and alternate approaches for students struggling with online learning, etc.

School Boards’ Emergency plans shall include the creation of a similar Board Command/Central Table, to develop its own emergency plan. A senior school board staff member should be assigned to be responsible for accessibility, to ensure that all changes at schools in response to an emergency maintain accessibility for all students with disabilities. School Boards should plan to provide staff to support technology including accessibility needs to parents who are supporting the learning needs of students with disabilities during distance learning.

Major Theme 20: Setting Timelines for Action and Measures to Ensure Accountability

Serious concerns have been expressed for several years about deficiencies in the Accessibility Ministry’s compliance/enforcement of the AODA. The second Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Independent Review conducted by Mayo Moran in 2014 and the third such review conducted by Hon. David Onley in 2018 both called for Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act enforcement to be substantially strengthened. Their reports demonstrate that the slow progress on accessibility in Ontario has been due in part to shortcomings in the Ministry’s compliance/enforcement actions in the past. These deficiencies remain.

The focus of compliance/enforcement should not simply be whether an obligated organization such as the Ministry of Education or a publicly funded school board has posted a policy on an action required by the K-12 Education Accessibility Standard. It is important to assess the end result i.e. whether obligated organizations have in fact removed and prevented disability barriers that impede students with disabilities and to assess whether students with disabilities are being effectively included in and fully participating in the opportunities that Ontario’s public education system provides to students.

The Accessibility Directorate should conduct on-site inspections of a range of obligated organizations each year on the actual accessibility of their facilities and educational programs and services as addressed in the Standard, and not just an audit of their paper records on accessibility documentation.

To promote accountability and compliance, the Ministry of Education should establish and maintain a public searchable database where all reports, annual plans and updates posted or prepared by school boards or by the Ministry in compliance with the AODA will be made available in an accessible format to the public. As part of the Government’s compliance/enforcement plan, it should establish and widely publicize a provincial toll-free number, and dedicated email address to receive complaints and concerns from students with disabilities their families or others regarding accessible education for students with disabilities. The Ministry should assign a rapid response team to take action where appropriate on feedback there received. A summary of input/complaints received (with no identifying information) should be made public quarterly.

In addition, the Accessibility Directorate should have staff with experience in the area of education of students with disabilities or should have a resource team whom they can regularly and readily consult.

Any building project for a new school or major renovation should be required to comply with the built environment provisions of the K-12 Education Accessibility Standard to get a building permit. The project should be checked for compliance with the AODA and not just the Ontario Building Code.

Background to this Summary

The Ontario Government committed to enact an Education Accessibility Standard under the AODA. It appointed an advisory committee, the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee, to develop recommendations on what the Education Accessibility Standard should include.

On June 1, 2021, the Ontario Government made public the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s initial recommendations. The Government gave the public up to September 2, 2021 to send the Standards Development Committee feedback on its initial recommendations. The Standards Development Committee can use that feedback to refine and finalize its report and recommendations to The Government.

The Standards Development Committee’s initial report and recommendations is 185 pages long. To assist the public, the AODA Alliance prepared a 55-page condensed and annotated version of it. For those who want an even shorter version, the AODA Alliance prepared this summary. The AODA Alliance, and not the Standards Development Committee, is solely responsible for the preparation of both that 55-page condensed version and for this shorter summary. Both the 55-page condensed version and this shorter summary add some of our own headings, and re-arrange the sequence of some of the recommendations. Of course, some content is inevitably omitted when summarizing so much information. In this summary the wording is an inextricable blend of the Committee’s own text and our effort at summarizing it.

The initial recommendations were approved by at least 75% of the entire Standards Development Committee. Half of the Standards Development Committee is made up of disability community representatives. The other half of the Committee comes from the education system. The AODA Alliance endorses the entire 185-page report.



Source link

At the AODA Alliance’s Request, CTV Commendably Corrects an Inaccurate Online News Report About Ontario’s Critical Care Triage Plans


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities
Web: https://www.aodaalliance.org Email: [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

June 8, 2021

SUMMARY

Who watches the watchers? Once again, the AODA Alliance has had to do so, when it comes to monitoring media coverage or lack of coverage of the danger since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic of disability discrimination in access to life-saving critical care in Ontario hospitals.

This is Part 2 of our own coverage on this important question. The June 7, 2021 AODA Alliance Update described how CBC’s flagship national daytime current affairs radio program The Current has failed to cover the dangers of disability discrimination in critical care triage during the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, we look to another network and another storyone with an eventual happy ending.

Back on April 28, 2021, CTV’s nightly national TV news program commendably covered the danger of critical care triage in Ontario. It is good that its report included a reference to disability concerns.

However, CTV’s online news report on this issue (unlike its shorter broadcast TV news item) inaccurately stated as a fact that under Ontario’s critical care triage protocol, people with disabilities are to be treated no differently than others. It stated:

The triage guidelines specify that people with disabilities are not treated any differently than the rest of the population

That statement of fact was absolutely and provably incorrect. We were not contacted by CTV before that story ran.

This story appeared to the AODA Alliance to possibly be one that the physicians at the centre of planning the Ontario critical care triage protocol may have brought to the media. It has the focus and sound of the message that they espoused.

On April 30, 2021, the AODA Alliance reached out by email to CTV news. We showed how that statement was factually wrong. To its credit, after some back-and-forth exchanges, at our request CTV news removed that harmfully inaccurate statement from its online report. We very much appreciate that this story was corrected.

Around May 6, 2021, CTV updated this online story in response to our concerns. However, the change was not an effective solution. The line, quoted above, was revised to read as follows, which was also factually inaccurate:

The triage guidelines specify that people with pre-existing disabilities are not treated any differently than the rest of the population

As well, the following was commendably added later in the story:

Disability advocates, backed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, have raised human rights and discriminatory concerns about the protocol in letters to the provincial government.

On May 18 and 19, 2021, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky again wrote CTV about this story. While appreciating CTV’s effort to correct it, CTV was told that it was still inaccurate for the story to state as a fact that people with pre-existing disabilities are not to be treated any differently than the rest of the population under Ontario’s critical care triage protocol. Shortly after that, CTV again revised the online story to remove the entire unfactual statement. The following words were removed from it:

The triage guidelines specify that people with disabilities are not treated any differently than the rest of the population

As well the online CTV story now includes a link to the AODA Alliance’s detailed February 25, 2021 report on disability discrimination in Ontario’s critical care triage protocol.

Below you can read the following:

a) the original version of this CTV story as posted online on April 28, 2021.

b) the AODA Alliance’s April 30, 2021 email to CTV news.

c) The revised CTV online story as of May 6, 2021.

d) The May 18 and 19, 2021 emails from the AODA Alliance to CTV, and

e) The final version of the story as it now appears online.

We applaud CTV for correcting this story, and for being open to our feedback on it. We have urged CTV’s national news to do a story specifically focusing on the disability discrimination problems with Ontario’s critical care triage protocol. They have not yet done so. It remains an immediate and important story. Things are better in Ontario, but there has been no public accounting for the disability discrimination now embedded in hospital training across Ontario. As well, Manitoba is facing an immediate danger of possible critical care triage.

In contrast, CBC TV’s The National commendably ran a 7-minute story on that topic on 18, 2021. That was a very lengthy story for a national TV news program.

Who watches the watchers? The AODA Alliance and people with disabilities must do so!

For more background on this issue, check out:

1. The online captioned video talk on this issue by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, seen over 1,000 times, and

2. The AODA Alliance website’s health care page.

1 MORE DETAILS

CTV News April 28, 2021

Originally posted at
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/ontario-hospitals-on-the-verge-of-enacting-last-resort-triage-protocols-1.5406746

Ontario hospitals on the verge of enacting ‘last resort’ triage protocols Avis Favaro
Medical Correspondent, CTV National News
@ctv_avisfavaro

Elizabeth St. Philip
CTV News
@LizTV
Ben Cousins
CTVNews.ca Writer
@cousins_ben

Published Wednesday, April 28, 2021 10:00PM EDT
TORONTO As intensive care admissions climb to dangerously high levels in Ontario, health-care workers in the province worry they might soon be forced into the worst-case scenario of choosing who gets the best care and who doesn’t.

On Wednesday, Ontario reported 3,480 new COVID-19 cases. Although a third wave in the province appears to be levelling off, the number of COVID-19 patients in the intensive care units (ICUs) is steadily climbing, to the point where the province is getting assistance from Newfoundland and Labrador and the Canadian military.

The province also reported on Wednesday that 2,281 patients are currently hospitalized, with 877 patients in intensive care.

It’s believed the province could be forced to enact triage protocols if ICU admissions related to COVID-19 exceed 900.

I just can’t say strongly enough just what a horrible position we’re in the health-care sector right now and why it’s so important that we really drive these numbers to the ground, Dr. Chris Simpson, a cardiologist and executive vice-president of Ontario Health, told CTV News.

We simply have to get COVID under control if we’re going to have our health-care system back in a functional state again.

Ontario’s triage protocols, developed in January, are meant as a last resort to determine who should be given intensive care when the demand for critical care exceeds the supply.

It’s going to be extremely emotionally difficult for staff to have to make these decisions to tell family members that we’re not able to offer ICU-level treatments that we would have been able to offer in the past, said Dr. Erin O’Connor, the deputy medical director of the University Health Network emergency departments.

The situation is already dire in the Toronto area, where health officials have been forced to transport patients to other districts as ICU beds in the city fill up. Ontario’s COVID-19 modelling numbers from April 16 suggest the province could see nearly 10,000 new COVID-19 cases per day by the end of May, even under strong public health restrictions.

There is a wall that’s going to be hit at some point, Simpson said. We don’t know where that is yet. We do believe we can build about 200 new ICU beds per week for the next three weeks or so. It gets increasingly tougher, but we think that that will take us into mid-May and we can only hope that things will be cresting by that point.

Under the triage protocols, all patients are assigned four colours — red, purple, yellow and green — depending on how doctors perceive a patient’s likelihood of surviving for another 12 months. Patients deemed red are predicted to have a 20-per-cent chance of surviving for the year, while patients deemed in the green have more than a 70-per-cent chance of surviving.

Under this system, ICU beds would be given to the green patients first, followed by yellow, purple and red.

That doesn’t mean we’re not going to care for people, O’Connor said. We’re going to offer as much medical care as we possibly can, but some people won’t be able to be on a ventilator —
people that we would have put on a ventilator in the past — simply because we’re in a situation where we’re dealing with scarce resources.

The triage system puts doctors and other health-care workers in the unenviable position of deciding who does not receive the best possible care. It would even require doctors to decide who to withdraw from ICU care if they’re unlikely to survive for another year.

For O’Connor, the prospect having to tell a patient and their family that the province cannot provide them with the best care could have long-term consequences on the entire health-care system in Ontario.

The hardest part really is going to be making these decisions, she said. This is going to take a really large emotional toll and I worry about my staff and I worry about people — after this — leaving medicine because they’re not going to be able to recover.

This is not what we’re trained to do. It’s not what we thought we would ever have to do in our careers.

The triage guidelines are also terrifying for people with disabilities, advanced age or pre-existing conditions.

There’s also this very real concern that I may be denied care based on protocols that say that I have a less likely chance of surviving, said Jeff Preston, who has a neuromuscular disorder and works as an assistant professor of disability studies at King’s University College, an affiliate of Western University in London, Ont.

It’s one thing to get COVID and die, it’s a whole other thing to say, as a Canadian citizen, I might not actually have the same access to health care that other Canadians are going to receive and that hurts in a different way.

The triage guidelines specify that people with disabilities are not treated any differently than the rest of the population, but Preston is skeptical in part because doctors sometimes incorrectly estimate life expectancy of people with these conditions.

When I was first diagnosed as a baby, they did not believe I was going to survive more than a couple of years, he said. They predicted that I would probably die before four or five years old. Now here I am, almost 40 years old, many years later and that prognosis didn’t turn out to be true.

QUEBEC FAR FROM TRIGGERING’ TRIAGE PROTOCOLS
Other provinces have also developed similar triage protocols in the event ICU admissions exceed the available beds.

In Quebec for example, prioritization protocols are similar to Ontario’s and those who do not receive ICU admission will not be abandoned; they will continue to receive other care, the most appropriate for their condition and possible in the context, according to a statement from Quebec’s Ministry of Health and Social Services.

The department added that it is far from triggering the prioritization protocols and has not done so since the start of the pandemic. It has also expanded ICU capacity for COVID-19 patients to hopefully make sure it doesn’t happen.

This scenario is one of last resort that we want to avoid at all costs, the statement read. That is why we are asking Quebecers for their contribution by reducing their contact as much as possible and by rigorously applying the recommended health measures.

In Saskatchewan, triage protocols will consider a patient’s chance at survival, but also the length of time a patient may require the most care.

These assessments must be based on the best available scientific evidence, the Saskatchewan Health Authority wrote in a statement.

Patients who are not going to receive ICU level of care will receive compassionate care. The sick and dying would not be abandoned. If a patient is not expected to survive, palliative or comfort care would be provided to reduce pain and suffering.

intensive care admissions
As intensive care admissions climb to dangerously high levels in Ontario, health-care workers in the province worry they might soon be forced into the worst-case scenario of choosing who gets the best care and who doesn’t.

April 30, 2021 Email from AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky to CTV News

CTV’s online April 28, 2021 online news report on the issue of critical care triage in Ontario, entitled Ontario hospitals on the verge of enacting ‘last resort’ triage protocols, includes a seriously inaccurate and deeply disturbing statement that needs to be rectified. It states:

The triage guidelines specify that people with disabilities are not treated any differently than the rest of the population

In fact, and contrary to what CTV reports, the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol explicitly directs that a patient’s disability IS a factor that in some cases is to be weighed AGAINST their getting access to the life-saving critical care they need, if Ontario has more patients needing critical care than it has critical care beds and supports.

For example, if a cancer patient needs critical care, they will be deprioritized if a patient is Completely disabled and cannot carry out any self-care; totally confined to bed or chair. As another example, if a patient needing critical care is over 65 and has a progressive disease (like MS, arthritis or Parkinson’s), their access to critical care is reduced depending on how few of eleven activities of daily living they can perform without assistance. This includes dressing, bathing, eating, walking, getting in and out of bed, using the telephone, going shopping, preparing meals, doing housework, taking medication, or handling their finances. In both examples, this is disability discrimination, pure and simple.

This is not open to factual debate. The secret January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol has been posted on the AODA Alliance website for over three months. No one has disputed that those two features are in the protocol. They can also be found in the terrifying online calculator that we made public, and that critical care doctors are being told to use if critical care triage takes place.

The presence of disability discrimination in the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol has led leading disability organizations to publicly demand that this disability discrimination be removed from it. See our efforts on this at www.aodaalliance.org/healthcare It has led the Ontario Human Rights Commission to raise serious concerns. As well, fully six members of the Ontario Government’s own advisory Bioethics Table have been publicly critical of the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol. This is all documented in detail at www.aodaalliance.org/healthcare

It is good that your story quotes Prof. Jeff Preston as being concerned about the triage protocol. The entire passage, excerpted above, states:

The triage guidelines are also terrifying for people with disabilities, advanced age or pre-existing conditions.

There’s also this very real concern that I may be denied care based on protocols that say that I have a less likely chance of surviving, said Jeff Preston, who has a neuromuscular disorder and works as an assistant professor of disability studies at King’s University College, an affiliate of Western University in London, Ont.

It’s one thing to get COVID and die, it’s a whole other thing to say, as a Canadian citizen, I might not actually have the same access to health care that other Canadians are going to receive and that hurts in a different way.

The triage guidelines specify that people with disabilities are not treated any differently than the rest of the population, but Preston is skeptical in part because doctors sometimes incorrectly estimate life expectancy of people with these conditions.

When I was first diagnosed as a baby, they did not believe I was going to survive more than a couple of years, he said. They predicted that I would probably die before four or five years old. Now here I am, almost 40 years old, many years later and that prognosis didn’t turn out to be true.

It is good that the CTV report notes that people with disabilities are terrified. However, the substantial misstatement of fact to which we here point is not corrected by that aspect of the CTV report. The reader is left with the uncontradicted categorical statement that

The triage guidelines specify that people with disabilities are not treated any differently than the rest of the population

At best, the triage protocol says that people with certain stable disabilities are not thereby to be assessed by the Clinical Frailty Scale that measures their ability to perform the eleven tasks of daily living, listed above, without assistance. However, the protocol goes on to apply that disability-discriminatory Scale to people with progressive disabilities (e.g. MS or arthritis, to name a few).

Especially in a national online news story dealing with a life-and-death issue, and its dangerous implications for society’s most vulnerable, it is essential for CTV to get its facts right. This is all the more so since people with disabilities disproportionately have born the brunt of COVID-19 and disproportionately died from it. It is also especially so since it has been so hard to get the media to cover this story. We’ve been trying for over a year, with success for the most part taking place only very recently.

It would be one thing for your report to include our position and then any defence the Ford Government wishes to offer. CTV did not do so. Instead, it categorically states as objective fact something which is 100% incorrect, and which your reporters on this story did not reach out to us to discuss. Our position on these issues has been widely publicized to the media, including to CTV, via news releases and Twitter.
In marked contrast to the April 28, 2021 CTV online report, on the same day, Global TV News Toronto aired a story commendably bearing the accurate headline: Ontario’s COVID-19 triage protocol discriminates because of disability,’ advocates say.

We know from the January 23, 2021 online webinar that Critical care Services Ontario conducted for hospitals that the Government or its proxies planned to do some sort of public media strategy on the critical care triage protocol. Your story corresponds in large part to the core messages of that strategy. That could very well be a coincidence, and CTV may well have not known about those media relations strategic plans.

We urgently ask you to do a national report on the disability discrimination that is explicitly included in the Ontario critical care triage protocol, the bogus arguments that have been made on the Ontario Government’s behalf to defend it, and the objections to it from the disability community, the Ontario Human Rights Commission and some members of the Government’s own advisory Bioethics Table. We would be please to assist you in any way in such a story.

David Lepofsky CM, O. Ont
Chair Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Twitter: @davidlepofsky

CTV News Online Report Updated by May 6, 2021

Originally posted at https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/ontario-hospitals-on-the-verge-of-enacting-last-resort-triage-protocols-1.5406746 Ontario hospitals on the verge of enacting ‘last resort’ triage protocols Medical Correspondent, CTV National News
Contact @ctv_avisfavaro
Elizabeth St. Philip, CTV News
Contact @LizTV
Ben Cousins, CTVNews.ca Writer
Contact @cousins_ben
Published Wednesday, April 28, 2021 10:00PM EDT

TORONTO — As intensive care admissions climb to dangerously high levels in Ontario, health-care workers in the province worry they might soon be forced into the worst-case scenario of choosing who gets the best care and who doesn’t.

On Wednesday, Ontario reported 3,480 new COVID-19 cases. Although a third wave in the province appears to be levelling off, the number of COVID-19 patients in the intensive care units (ICUs) is steadily climbing, to the point where the province is getting assistance from Newfoundland and Labrador and the Canadian military.

The province also reported on Wednesday that 2,281 patients are currently hospitalized, with 877 patients in intensive care.

It’s believed the province could be forced to enact triage protocols if ICU admissions related to COVID-19 exceed 900.

I just can’t say strongly enough just what a horrible position we’re in the health-care sector right now and why it’s so important that we really drive these numbers to the ground, Dr. Chris Simpson, a cardiologist and executive vice-president of Ontario Health, told CTV News.

We simply have to get COVID under control if we’re going to have our health-care system back in a functional state again.

Ontario’s triage protocols, developed in January, are meant as a last resort to determine who should be given intensive care when the demand for critical care exceeds the supply.

It’s going to be extremely emotionally difficult for staff to have to make these decisions to tell family members that we’re not able to offer ICU-level treatments that we would have been able to offer in the past, said Dr. Erin O’Connor, the deputy medical director of the University Health Networkemergency departments.

The situation is already dire in the Toronto area, where health officials have been forced to transport patients to other districts as ICU beds in the city fill up. Ontario’s COVID-19 modelling numbers from April 16 suggest the province could see nearly 10,000 new COVID-19 cases per dayby the end of May, even under strong public health restrictions.

There is a wall that’s going to be hit at some point, Simpson said. We don’t know where that is yet. We do believe we can build about 200 new ICU beds per week for the next three weeks or so. It gets increasingly tougher, but we think that that will take us into mid-May and we can only hope that things will be cresting by that point.

Under the triage protocols, all patients are assigned four colours — red, purple, yellow and green — depending on how doctors perceive a patient’s likelihood of surviving for another 12 months. Patients deemed red are predicted to have a 20-per-cent chance of surviving for the year, while patients deemed in the green have more than a 70-per-cent chance of surviving.

Under this system, ICU beds would be given to the green patients first, followed by yellow, purple and red.

That doesn’t mean we’re not going to care for people, O’Connor said. We’re going to offer as much medical care as we possibly can, but some people won’t be able to be on a ventilator —
people that we would have put on a ventilator in the past — simply because we’re in a situation where we’re dealing with scarce resources.

The triage system puts doctors and other health-care workers in the unenviable position of deciding who does not receive the best possible care. It would even require doctors to decide who to withdraw from ICU care if they’re unlikely to survive for another year.

For O’Connor, the prospect having to tell a patient and their family that the province cannot provide them with the best care could have long-term consequences on the entire health-care system in Ontario.

The hardest part really is going to be making these decisions, she said. This is going to take a really large emotional toll and I worry about my staff and I worry about people — after this — leaving medicine because they’re not going to be able to recover.

This is not what we’re trained to do. It’s not what we thought we would ever have to do in our careers.

The triage guidelines are also terrifying for people with disabilities, advanced age or pre-existing conditions.

There’s also this very real concern that I may be denied care based on protocols that say that I have a less likely chance of surviving, said Jeff Preston, who has a neuromuscular disorder and works as an assistant professor of disability studies at King’s University College, an affiliate of Western University in London, Ont.

It’s one thing to get COVID and die, it’s a whole other thing to say, as a Canadian citizen, I might not actually have the same access to health care that other Canadians are going to receive and that hurts in a different way.

The triage guidelines specify that people with pre-existing disabilities are not treated any differently than the rest of the population, but Preston is skeptical in part because doctors sometimes incorrectly estimate life expectancy of people with these conditions.

When I was first diagnosed as a baby, they did not believe I was going to survive more than a couple of years, he said. They predicted that I would probably die before four or five years old. Now here I am, almost 40 years old, many years later and that prognosis didn’t turn out to be true.

Disability advocates, backed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, have raised human rights and discriminatory concerns about the protocol in letters to the provincial government.

QUEBEC FAR FROM TRIGGERING’ TRIAGE PROTOCOLS

Other provinces have also developed similar triage protocols in the event ICU admissions exceed the available beds.

In Quebec for example, prioritization protocols are similar to Ontario’s and those who do not receive ICU admission will not be abandoned; they will continue to receive other care, the most appropriate for their condition and possible in the context, according to a statement from Quebec’s Ministry of Health and Social Services.

The department added that it is far from triggering the prioritization protocols and has not done so since the start of the pandemic. It has also expanded ICU capacity for COVID-19 patients to hopefully make sure it doesn’t happen.

This scenario is one of last resort that we want to avoid at all costs, the statement read. That is why we are asking Quebecers for their contribution by reducing their contact as much as possible and by rigorously applying the recommended health measures.

In Saskatchewan, triage protocols will consider a patient’s chance at survival, but also the length of time a patient may require the most care.

These assessments must be based on the best available scientific evidence, the Saskatchewan Health Authority wrote in a statement.

Patients who are not going to receive ICU level of care will receive compassionate care. The sick and dying would not be abandoned. If a patient is not expected to survive, palliative or comfort care would be provided to reduce pain and suffering.

intensive care admissions

As intensive care admissions climb to dangerously high levels in Ontario, health-care workers in the province worry they might soon be forced into the worst-case scenario of choosing who gets the best care and who doesn’t.

May 18, 2021 Email from AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky to CTV News

To: CTVNews
From: David Lepofsky
Date: May 18, 2021

I regret that I must write to again raised concerns about the factual inaccuracy of CTV News’ online April 28, 2021 news report regarding Ontario’s critical care triage protocol. On April 30, 2021, I wrote to alert you to the fact that there was a serious factual error in that report, where it stated the following:

The triage guidelines specify that people with disabilities are not treated any differently than the rest of the population, but Preston is skeptical in part because doctors sometimes incorrectly estimate life expectancy of people with these conditions.

In my April 30, 2021 email to CTV news, I explained that contrary to what CTV reported, the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol explicitly directs that a patient’s disability IS a factor that in some cases is to be weighed AGAINST their getting access to the life-saving critical care they need, if Ontario has more patients needing critical care than it has critical care beds and supports. That is disability discrimination.

I very much appreciate that as a result, CTV reporter Avis Favaro spoke to me about this issue and that CTV news looked into our objection.

As a result, CTV News made two changes to the online CTV News report, on or around May 6, 2021. I regret that the first of those changes included a serious factual inaccuracy. The first change was simply to add the word pre-existing before the word disabilities in the inaccurate statement in the original April 28, 2021 CTV news report. Report’s The revised statement now reads:

The triage guidelines specify that people with pre-existing disabilities are not treated any differently than the rest of the population, but Preston is skeptical in part because doctors sometimes incorrectly estimate life expectancy of people with these conditions.

Second, the May 6, 2021 version later adds this accurate sentence:

Disability advocates, backed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, have raised human rights and discriminatory concerns about the protocol in letters to the provincial government.

It is good that CTV attempted to correct it’s inaccurate April 28, 2021 news report. However, CTV has replaced one serious inaccuracy with another serious inaccuracy. The January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol does not specify that people with disabilities are not treated any differently than the rest of the population (as the inaccurate April 28, 2021 report originally claimed) or that people with pre-existing disabilities are not treated any differently than others (as the May 6, 2021 revision to that article claims. To the contrary, under that critical care triage protocol, if a cancer patient with pre-existing cancer needs critical care, they will be deprioritized if a patient is Completely disabled and cannot carry out any self-care; totally confined to bed or chair. That is disability discrimination, up front. Under that protocol, if a patient needing critical care is over 65 and has a progressive pre-existing disease (like MS, arthritis or Parkinson’s), their access to critical care is reduced depending on how few of eleven activities of daily living they can perform without assistance. This includes dressing, bathing, eating, walking, getting in and out of bed, using the telephone, going shopping, preparing meals, doing housework, taking medication, or handling their finances. That too is disability discrimination, pure and simple, including disability discrimination based on a pre-existing disability. CTV’s insertion of the word pre-existing into the inaccurate statement did not reduce or correct its complete and demonstrable inaccuracy.

I would add that unless I am mistaken or missed something, nothing on the CTV web page displaying this report acknowledges that there previously was a factual inaccuracy in it. In contrast, newspapers regularly print corrections to earlier stories, that are entitled correction, to ensure that the reader is aware that an earlier report had been inaccurate. No one reading the original April 28, 2021 story would know that it was erroneous. No one reading the same report, as revised on or around May 6, 2021, would know that CTV had attempted to correct it. Of course, no one would know from that report that it is inaccurate where it states as a fact that under the protocol, people with pre-existing disabilities are to be treated like everyone else.

We would very much appreciate this story being corrected so that it is accurate. We also would again encourage CTV to run a story that reports specifically on this disability discrimination issue that is anchored in the very wording of the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol. Ontario is not out of the woods, even though ICU cases and overall new COVID-19 cases are reducing. This remains a live issue for your viewers and readers, including the many with disabilities. The newsworthiness of this disability discrimination standing alone is important. The inaccuracy on the CTV website makes the case for a further report even more compelling.

We would be delighted to assist in any way we can. Please stay safe.

David Lepofsky CM, O. Ont
Chair Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Twitter: @davidlepofsky May 19, 2021 Email from AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky to CTV News

Thank you for asking what correction or clarification to the April 28, 2021 CTV News story we would recommend. We respectfully propose that the sentence that requires a change is this:

The triage guidelines specify that people with pre-existing disabilities are not treated any differently than the rest of the population, but Preston is skeptical in part because doctors sometimes incorrectly estimate life expectancy of people with these conditions.

May we propose two alternatives. The first and preferable alternative would read:

The triage guidelines do not ensure that people with pre-existing disabilities are not treated any differently than the rest of the population. Preston is skeptical in part because doctors sometimes incorrectly estimate life expectancy of people with these conditions.

The second and less desirable alternative would be to simply delete the inaccurate words The triage guidelines specify that people with pre-existing disabilities are not treated any differently than the rest of the population, but. The paragraph would therefore read

Preston is skeptical in part because doctors sometimes incorrectly estimate life expectancy of people with these conditions.

You asked for a link to the AODA Alliance website. We again offer two alternatives. The more specific link to our report that exhaustively details the disability discrimination in the Ontario critical care triage protocol is https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/a-deeply-troubling-issue-of-life-and-death-an-independent-report-on-ontarios-seriously-flawed-plans-for-rationing-or-triage-of-critical-medical-care-if-covid-19-overwhelms-ontario-hospitals/ The more general link to all our posts on this issue is www.aodaalliance.org/healthcare

We Hope this helps. If a phone call would assist, let me know.

David Lepofsky CM, O. Ont
Chair Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Twitter: @davidlepofsky

CTV News Online Report As Revised Again on May 19, 2021

Originally posted at: jhttps://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/ontario-hospitals-on-the-verge-of-enacting-last-resort-triage-protocols-1.5406746

CTV News

Ontario hospitals on the verge of enacting ‘last resort’ triage protocols Avis Favaro, Medical Correspondent
Contact @ctv_avisfavaro

Elizabeth St. Philip, CTV News
Contact @LizTV

Ben Cousins , CTVNews.ca Writer
Contact @cousins_ben

Published Wednesday, April 28, 2021 10:00PM EDT
Last Updated Wednesday, May 19, 2021 9:14AM EDT
TORONTO — As intensive care admissions climb to dangerously high levels in Ontario, health-care workers in the province worry they might soon be forced into the worst-case scenario of choosing who gets the best care and who doesn’t.

On Wednesday, Ontario reported 3,480 new COVID-19 cases. Although a third wave in the province appears to be levelling off, the number of COVID-19 patients in the intensive care units (ICUs) is steadily climbing, to the point where the province is getting assistance from Newfoundland and Labrador and the Canadian military.

Related Links
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance on triage protocols
The province also reported on Wednesday that 2,281 patients are currently hospitalized, with 877 patients in intensive care.

It’s believed the province could be forced to enact triage protocols if ICU admissions related to COVID-19 exceed 900.

I just can’t say strongly enough just what a horrible position we’re in the health-care sector right now and why it’s so important that we really drive these numbers to the ground, Dr. Chris Simpson, a cardiologist and executive vice-president of Ontario Health, told CTV News.

We simply have to get COVID under control if we’re going to have our health-care system back in a functional state again.

Ontario’s triage protocols, developed in January, are meant as a last resort to determine who should be given intensive care when the demand for critical care exceeds the supply.

It’s going to be extremely emotionally difficult for staff to have to make these decisions to tell family members that we’re not able to offer ICU-level treatments that we would have been able to offer in the past, said Dr. Erin O’Connor, the deputy medical director of the University Health Network emergency departments.

The situation is already dire in the Toronto area, where health officials have been forced to transport patients to other districts as ICU beds in the city fill up. Ontario’s COVID-19 modelling numbers from April 16 suggest the province could see nearly 10,000 new COVID-19 cases per day by the end of May, even under strong public health restrictions.

There is a wall that’s going to be hit at some point, Simpson said. We don’t know where that is yet. We do believe we can build about 200 new ICU beds per week for the next three weeks or so. It gets increasingly tougher, but we think that that will take us into mid-May and we can only hope that things will be cresting by that point.

Under the triage protocols, all patients are assigned four colours — red, purple, yellow and green — depending on how doctors perceive a patient’s likelihood of surviving for another 12 months. Patients deemed red are predicted to have a 20-per-cent chance of surviving for the year, while patients deemed in the green have more than a 70-per-cent chance of surviving.

Under this system, ICU beds would be given to the green patients first, followed by yellow, purple and red.

That doesn’t mean we’re not going to care for people, O’Connor said. We’re going to offer as much medical care as we possibly can, but some people won’t be able to be on a ventilator —
people that we would have put on a ventilator in the past — simply because we’re in a situation where we’re dealing with scarce resources.

The triage system puts doctors and other health-care workers in the unenviable position of deciding who does not receive the best possible care. It would even require doctors to decide who to withdraw from ICU care if they’re unlikely to survive for another year.

For O’Connor, the prospect having to tell a patient and their family that the province cannot provide them with the best care could have long-term consequences on the entire health-care system in Ontario.

The hardest part really is going to be making these decisions, she said. This is going to take a really large emotional toll and I worry about my staff and I worry about people — after this — leaving medicine because they’re not going to be able to recover.

This is not what we’re trained to do. It’s not what we thought we would ever have to do in our careers.

The triage guidelines are also terrifying for people with disabilities, advanced age or pre-existing conditions.

There’s also this very real concern that I may be denied care based on protocols that say that I have a less likely chance of surviving, said Jeff Preston, who has a neuromuscular disorder and works as an assistant professor of disability studies at King’s University College, an affiliate of Western University in London, Ont.

It’s one thing to get COVID and die, it’s a whole other thing to say, as a Canadian citizen, I might not actually have the same access to health care that other Canadians are going to receive and that hurts in a different way.

Preston is skeptical of the triage guidelines in part because doctors sometimes incorrectly estimate life expectancy of people with these conditions.

When I was first diagnosed as a baby, they did not believe I was going to survive more than a couple of years, he said. They predicted that I would probably die before four or five years old. Now here I am, almost 40 years old, many years later and that prognosis didn’t turn out to be true.

Disability advocates, backed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, have raised human rights and discriminatory concerns about the protocol in letters to the provincial government.

QUEBEC FAR FROM TRIGGERING’ TRIAGE PROTOCOLS
Other provinces have also developed similar triage protocols in the event ICU admissions exceed the available beds.

In Quebec for example, prioritization protocols are similar to Ontario’s and those who do not receive ICU admission will not be abandoned; they will continue to receive other care, the most appropriate for their condition and possible in the context, according to a statement from Quebec’s Ministry of Health and Social Services.

The department added that it is far from triggering the prioritization protocols and has not done so since the start of the pandemic. It has also expanded ICU capacity for COVID-19 patients to hopefully make sure it doesn’t happen.

This scenario is one of last resort that we want to avoid at all costs, the statement read. That is why we are asking Quebecers for their contribution by reducing their contact as much as possible and by rigorously applying the recommended health measures.

In Saskatchewan, triage protocols will consider a patient’s chance at survival, but also the length of time a patient may require the most care.

These assessments must be based on the best available scientific evidence, the Saskatchewan Health Authority wrote in a statement.

Patients who are not going to receive ICU level of care will receive compassionate care. The sick and dying would not be abandoned. If a patient is not expected to survive, palliative or comfort care would be provided to reduce pain and suffering.

Correction:
A previous version of this story suggested triage guidelines




Source link