School discriminated against boy by cutting special-needs program: top court
The Globe and Mail
Last updated Friday, Nov. 09 2012, 9:07 PM EST
Jeffrey Moore, the boy at the centre of a discrimination
case based on his learning disability, became an adult and a successful plumber
in North Vancouver in the years it took his case to reach the Supreme Court of
Canada. (John Lehmann /The Globe and Mail)
A landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision has put schools on strict notice
that they cannot evade their responsibility to accommodate children with special
needs.
Waving aside the financial woes of a North Vancouver school board, the court
concluded on Tuesday that it had discriminated against a dyslexic child who was
not given adequate help to attain literacy.
Madam Justice Rosalie Abella ordered school authorities to reimburse the
family of Jeffrey Moore for several years of costly private education they
sought after Jeffrey fell far behind in school.
“Adequate special education is not a dispensable luxury,” Judge Abella said
for a 9-0 majority. “For those with severe learning disabilities, it is the ramp
that provides access to the statutory commitment to education made to
all children in British Columbia.”
Advocates for the disabled were overjoyed by the judgment. They said that
school boards that cannot furnish compelling evidence to justify under-funding
must henceforth provide genuine help to children with learning disabilities.
“I’m ecstatic,” said Yude Henteleff, a Winnipeg lawyer representing the
Learning Disability Association of Canada. “This is a profoundly important
victory. Time and time, school divisions say: ‘We can’t afford this.’ Well, now
they can’t afford not to.”
Mr. Henteleff said that parents of any child with a learning disability can
demand action from their school board. “If they don’t get it, there will be a
plethora of actions all across the country,” he said.
Rick Moore, Jeffrey’s father, expressed elation. “This case is about the
thousands of kids who can’t afford a private school education and ... are stuck
in the public school system; who end up dropping out and become a burden on
society,” he said.
Mr. Moore, a bus driver in Vancouver, said that his family scrimped to pay
Jeffrey’s private school tuition. Aided by the Vancouver Community Legal
Assistance Society, they simultaneously waged a 15-year war with the school
system that led them through human rights tribunals and law courts.
The family’s lawyer, Frances Kelly, said she focused the case not just on
Jeffrey’s plight, but on the high price society pays when frustrated children
fall by the educational wayside.
“We had evidence that jails and welfare systems and hospitals are full of
people who have learning disabilities that were never properly addressed in the
education system,” Ms. Kelly said.
Now a 24-year-old plumber, Jeffrey Moore recalled losing his confidence as he
struggled to complete school assignments. “I had no idea why everyone in class
was moving forward and I was on the sidelines,” he said. “I didn’t even know how
to put a word together.”
He said it is immensely satisfying to have helped future generations. “Kids
won’t be left in the dark,” he said. “They are going to get the help they need
before the damage is done; before they feel stupid or that they are unable to do
anything.”
One of those children – nine-year-old Griffin Lajoie – has waited many months
for Toronto school authorities to provide resources that will help him rise
above a visual-spatial learning disorder that was diagnosed last year.
“I am over the moon that the Supreme Court has ruled that our kids will have
access to resources that they need,” said Griffin’s mother, Lesley Sargla. “It
is a basic right. It is a reasonable expectation that children with learning
differences be held to the same academic standards as their peers and that our
kids graduate from public school being fully literate.”
Governments fought hard at the Supreme Court hearing to prevent judges from
taking a role in setting educational spending priorities. An Ontario government
brief also warned that reimbursing the Moores for their tuition expenses could
badly skew educational priorities.
“If this remedy is upheld by this court, private school tuition payment
orders will be a widely sought and sanctioned alternative to requiring boards to
provide appropriate accommodation within public schools,” it warned.
A. Wayne MacKay, a Dalhousie University law professor, said that the court
has left governments a certain amount of wriggle room to reduce spending on
special-needs programs – but only if they can show that their budgetary concerns
are truly pressing.
Prof. MacKay said it was unusual for the Supreme Court to intervene in a
policy area such as education, particularly with a decision that has serious
cost implications.
“In my opinion, this may be the most important human-rights case in the last
decade or so,” he said.
With a report from Caroline Alphonso
No comments:
Post a Comment