Barrier area narratives and recommendations

Section one: Attitudes, behaviours, perceptions and assumptions

Both lived and professional experiences from the perspective of a person with a disability were used. We need a blend of voices to ensure a balanced approach. Also, research and perspectives from persons with disabilities are important when making decisions. Our work was informed by key research and policy planning in the sectors of education pedagogy, human and organizational behaviour and human rights. The research-based practice is a must as it validates evidence-based practices to be implemented.

Five key recommendations issued reflect how attitudes, behaviours, perceptions and assumptions underpin the work of all other small groups, given human and organizational behaviour. Referencing human and organizational behaviour is important for barriers are systemic and must be addressed at the macro and micro level simultaneously. To optimize consistency for provincial equality and acknowledge District School Boards jurisdiction, recommendations targeted overarching actions at the level of the Ministry of Education and the Ontario College of Teachers, with implementation at the school board level around using such resources to deliver on the recommendation’s intent. Important to identify and respect jurisdictional decision making. Definitions were approached carefully in order to ensure consistent understanding across all involved ministries/sectors and avoid unintentionally reducing any options in a continuum of inclusion Definitions are essential to provide clarity. The various stakeholders must have a clear direction in their responsibilities. Words may be interpreted differently unless the message is crystal clear.

Section one recommendations:

1. Preamble: Persons with disabilities (students, educators, employees, etc.) should be directly involved in designing and reviewing policies, programs, curriculum, as well as participating in speaking opportunities to students and educators at the school level, school board level, and ministry level, in K-12 Education and whereas the Ministry of Education should play a role in ensuring that students and professionals with disabilities are involved with provincial and system planning. The committee recomends that:

• 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.
• 1.2. the Ministry of Education provide open and accessible opportunities for these student and school staff networks to share information and ideas.

Timeline: two years

2. Preamble: Specific strategies need to be taught so that teacher candidates and future teachers are instructed to ensure inclusive, accessible, equitable education and that there be consistency in the delivery of all Special Education Additional Qualifications. The committee recommends that:

• 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
• 2.2. the Ontario College of Teachers review the initial teacher education program to enhance the quality and content of the Special Education Core Content, by revising the Accreditation Resource Guide and monitor the delivery of all Special Education Additional Qualifications courses, so they are delivered as accredited, reflecting the current Additional Qualification guidelines.

Timeline: two years

3. Preamble: All education staff need to be in-serviced in the philosophy of equity, accessibility and the inclusion of and full participation by students with disabilities, so they are equipped to model inclusive behaviours and attitudes, and to ensure that differences are accepted as a part of life. The committee recommends:

• 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.
• 3.2. the Ministry of Education develop and make available to school boards and the public, sample or model programs for training school board staff on teaching in this area.

Timeline: two years

4. Preamble: School boards must instill accessibility planning into their vision and daily operations to eliminate attitudinal barriers among students, school board employees and families, and whereas they must clearly communicate this accessibility commitment to all families of their students. The committee recommends:

• 4.1. the Ministry of Education create sample or model curriculum and teaching resources (such as, classroom videos) that a school board can opt to use to deliver this curriculum.
• 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. 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. where possible:
     1. 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.
     2. hearing from, meeting and interacting with persons with disabilities (for example, at assemblies and/or via guest presentations).
  3. online posting of resources on these activities to enable sharing with other school boards. 

Timeline: two years

5. Preamble: Supports needed to change attitudes and behaviours include policy frameworks, resources, opportunities and performance expectations. The committee recommends:

• 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. 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. inclusion of and full participation by students with disabilities knowledge and performance in any performance management and performance reviews.

Timeline: two years

Section two: Awareness and training

The group met early on in the process to develop recommendations with respect to gaps in knowledge acquirement for education practitioners based on lived experiences of group members. Central to our discussions was the concept of Universal Design for Learning was absolutely essential for educators to understand and to apply if learners were to succeed. The inclusion of people who self identify as being persons with disabilities is essential in the developments and delivery of any training program for stakeholders in the education sector. Personal gaps in awareness of adaptive technology programs could be achieved using the same model of inclusion as noted above. In order to affect a cultural change within the sector staff, students, parents and community members, must have a clear understanding of what is requested, what is available and how to access it. There must be accommodations that are seamless and part of the school culture. Ultimately as we received our recommendations and those of small group one for final edits it became clear that a few adaptions to the recommendations of group, we could achieve the concepts outlines in our discussions and made those changes.

Section two Recommendations:

6. We recommend: a common Universal Design for Learning training be mandatory for all educators (senior administration, school administration, teachers, occasional teachers, educational assistants and Professional Support Staff Personnel members) both at the pre-service level and on-going throughout the school year. This training should not be delivered solely on-line but through a combination of on-line and in-person formats and should be developed in consultation with people who self-identify as having a disability.
   Timeline: immediate
7. We recommend: the Government of Ontario develop and provide a model training module and template for Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, Ontario Human Rights Code, and Charter of Rights awareness, with a goal of achieving a barrier-free education system. The training module should be developed in consultation with people who self-identify with disabilities and should not only focus on accommodating students but should take into consideration dealing with colleagues, parents and community members who may require some accommodation. The training should include both on-line and in-person components with all materials being available in accessible formats.
   Timeline: immediate
8. We recommend: school boards develop and deliver adaptive/assistive technology and services training programs at:

• 8.1 a general awareness level
• 8.2 more detailed modules for all staff who will need specific training not just special education teachers. This training on how to use, interact with, and support the use of adaptive/assistive technology and services training programs, should be provided at the school level and not on-line.

Timeline: immediate

Section three: Curriculum assessment and instruction

Disability intersects with differing identities, including race, culture, language, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, creed, age and ethnicity. The Curriculum Instruction and Assessment recommendations are informed by the intersection of discrimination impacting persons with disability. This work includes:

1. intersectionality of students, staff, family, and community identities and perspectives
2. intersectionality of curriculum, instruction and assessment and accountability
3. intersectionality of each disability barrier, socially constructed in systems/ individuals

Concepts are developed through the Education K-12 committee process, survey feedback, lived experiences of persons with disability, review of current empirical literature, commissions (for example, Ontario Human Rights Commission), ongoing research and work of associations, organizations, alliances (for example, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 Alliance October 10, 2019 Proposed Framework for the K-12 Education Accessibility Standard), networks, and educator and working group discernment.

The recommendations focus on standards, actions and accountability measures that ministry, school boards, schools, colleges of education and educators need to address in the review, development, implementation and monitoring of curriculum, assessment and instruction to ensure accessibility, equity and inclusion for all students with disabilities.

The K-12 curriculum, instruction and assessment recommendations consider learning in and beyond the classroom, including learning experiences with family, home, school and the broader community, and are aligned with early preschool and post elementary/ secondary learning. Recommendations are informed by ongoing research, global and local curriculum contexts and the interconnection of learning, identities and wellbeing. Accessibility is person-centred within diverse learning communities resulting in significant intersections across the barriers. The lived experiences and voices of those living within the culture provide input and promote understanding of ongoing strategies and effective outcomes to inform the authentic and relevant curriculum, instruction and assessment design that frame barrier-free accessible education for all.

Section three recommendations:

Diversity and accessibility in design and development recommendations

Students’ cultural contexts are fundamental to their learning. Culture is defined here by a student’s identity as well as by their homes, schools and communities. Creating culturally relevant curriculum, assessment practices, and instruction invite students to draw connections between their learning and direct experiences in their communities. To this end, teachers and students should perceive those experiences as valuable assets in all classrooms.

All instruction is culturally responsive. The question is: To which culture is it currently oriented?

Gloria Ladson-Billings

Curriculum and curriculum resources (designed, developed and/or procured) require barrier-free accessibility, equity and inclusion for all students with disabilities. Curriculum, assessment and instruction need to be culturally responsive and universally designed to ensure barrier-free education for students with disabilities. As life-long learners and engaged citizens, all students across disabilities need to develop knowledge, skills and attitudes enabling them to participate fully and actively in society.

Curriculum and instruction recommendation:

9. The design, development and communication of curriculum (resources and lived experiences) ensure the following: full accessibility, equity and inclusion in supporting barrier-free accessibility for students with disabilities, cultural perspectives and responsiveness, Universal Design for Learning, the dignity, developing independence and ongoing learning for each person. This requires:

• 9.1. the Ministry of Education and Boards incorporate Universal Design for Learning in the requirements for curriculum design.
• 9.2. the ministry process for review and renewal of curriculum use principles of accessibility, equity and inclusion in design and development, ensuring full accessibility of curriculum for students with disabilities.
• 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. science, technology, engineering and mathematics, (STEM)
  2. science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics
  3. alternative, expanded curriculum for students with disabilities that is barrier free and addresses relevant life skills
  4. curriculum that is responsive to cultures, history, experiences and perspectives of students and communities; multiple language-based curriculum such as, non- verbal, sign- American Sign Language, Indigenous languages.
  5. curriculum that ensures anti-Black racist education; includes and represents diversity, and differing identities that intersect with disabilities
  6. curriculum design that is: responsive, includes cultural diversity across subject areas, ensures equity, addresses social and cultural perspectives, includes Indigenous ways of knowing.
  7. new and developing curriculum areas and competencies such as multi-literacies, for example, digital literacy, financial literacy that is designed and integrated within specific courses (for example, career studies, mathematics) and across curriculum.
  8. curriculum that addresses experiential learning, employability skills development, specialty pathways such as Specialist High Skills Major (SHSM) and school-to-work transitions.
  9. curriculum that focuses on the development of learning skills that specifically address executive functioning skills (for example, 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.
• 9.6. the ministry be responsible for the development and distribution of relevant guidelines and resources that support review and development of equitable barrier-free design, and adaptations to accommodate needs of students with disabilities.
• 9.7. the ministry make public the results of ongoing review of provincial curriculum.
• 9.8. the ministry develop and communicate guidelines that support school boards and staff with action plans and strategies for ongoing local curriculum reviews. These reviews require Boards communicate results of curriculum review, renewal and new curriculum plans ensuring equitable barrier-free accessibility for students with disabilities.
• 9.9. the ministry develop in collaboration with boards and partners resource guidelines and resources to support professional practice in equitable, barrier-free designed learning experiences.

Timeline: two years

Assessment and accountability recommendation:

10. That educational and clinical school staff engage in culturally responsive (fair) assessment practices that reflect an understanding and respect for perspectives different from our own, and that students have an opportunity to engage in performance assessments that invite them to reflect on and share their personal stories/lived experiences and their identities as learners.
    Timeline: six months

Learning resources and self-assessment recommendations

In the end, a true measure of equity, access and inclusion for all in our schools is how well students from diverse backgrounds and with disabilities achieve in schools. This measure needs to include student voices in assessing how they are doing.

Learners develop an understanding of themselves through ongoing opportunities for self-reflection, self-regulation and self-monitoring supported by educator’s sensitivity to personal needs, culture and development.

Instructional resources and materials need to be reflective and responsive to student identity, culture and learning needs. This requires all those developing resources to ensure design principles of Universal Design for Learning, timely conversion ready access including multiple formats.

Curriculum and instruction recommendation:

11. All learners, including students with disabilities, are ensured every opportunity to fully access and participate in meaningful, challenging learning opportunities and curriculum engagement. This includes 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:

• 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.
• 11.4. accountability for compliance of barrier-free accessibility is the responsibility of the individual supplier or vendor.
• 11.5. procurement practises and use of board or school developed instructional learning materials should include ongoing data gathering on students with disabilities who require accessible instructional materials. This includes data from students, their educators and families, that provides front-line experiences and feedback on timely access to required materials, and potential gaps needing attention. This includes school board procedures for ensuring ongoing surveys and feedback mechanisms from students and their families and educators on their experiences accessing timely instructional materials and input on what is working and required for ongoing individual student learning.
• 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.

Timeline: one year

Assessment and accountability recommendation:

12. Students be instructed in self-assessment methods so that their observations and reflections on their own learning and the experiences and suitability of accessible resources can provide valuable feedback to teachers in refining their instructional plans.
    Timeline: one year

Professional learning and development recommendations

There is a difference between curriculum and pedagogy. Curriculum is all about what we teach. Pedagogy is about how we teach it.

When addressing Curriculum, Assessment, and Instruction, there is an explicit relationship between them. It is impossible to design curriculum without developing a deep understanding of who the students are through assessment (getting to know them) and ensuring their identities are reflected in the curriculum design and classroom resources, in instructional methods (how do we know how they learn best) and in fair assessment practices.

Curriculum and instruction recommendation:

13. 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.
    Timeline: immediate

Assessment and accountability recommendation:

14. The ministry, Boards and Faculties of Education:

• 14.1. ensure that teacher education programs, in-service and on-going job-embedded professional learning on diagnostic, formative and summative curriculum-based and more formal assessments be provided to educators to inform Differentiated Instruction for all learners.
• 14.2. ensure that school and system leaders in their respective roles guide the design, assessment, evaluation, reporting and monitoring of Universal Design for Learning and Differentiated Instruction in their schools as it relates to access, equity and inclusion for all learners.

Timeline: immediate

Student voice in barrier-free policy and practice recommendations

The focus for all curriculum-based and clinical assessments should be primarily used to inform Differentiated Instruction for students based on their talents, strengths and needs, and not as a means to prematurely “remove” students from accessing the provincial curriculum/and or age-appropriate regular education classroom based solely on diagnosis and identification. A developmental gap argument based on assessments, continues to be made in schools, resulting in premature narrowing of pathways (alternative curriculum replaces the Ontario curriculum rather than a balance of both where needed) creating barriers to accessing credit-bearing courses, and postsecondary education destinations. Current research (see Parekh & Brown, 2018, 19) provides evidence that racialized minority students are disproportionately segregated in special education classrooms with fewer pathways remaining open to them over the duration of their school careers. Moreover, students with disabilities from racialized cultural minorities are overrepresented in segregated special education classes and disadvantaged through streaming processes.

Assessment expertise by qualified individuals and sensitivity to specific learner needs and disabilities needs to inform the multi/transdisciplinary team planning and monitoring process with regard to appropriate program and placement options (for example, Regular education placements, special class placements, special school placements, secondary pathways).

Inclusion and Universal Design for Learning principles extend beyond formal classroom learning to multiple experiences including outdoor and experiential learning, social and recreational activities, extra-curricular, community engagement and specialized pathways to success. 

Curriculum and instruction recommendation:

15. The Ministry of Education, Boards, schools and Faculties of Education ensure student voice, lived experiences, student participation and engagement in ongoing curriculum learning and assessment experiences, ensuring opportunity to create person-directed learning and transition plans, and full access to pathways/destinations.
    Timeline: immediate

Assessment and accountability recommendation:

16. That the ministry, educational and clinical school board staff commit to policy, processes, and provision of alternative, timely, flexible assessments for students with disabilities to ensure fair, equitable and barrier-free assessment of student performance and learning.

• 16.1. the ministry requires formal assessments, including provincial assessments, fully accessible, barrier free for students with disabilities providing for fair and equitable assessment practices.
• 16.2. the Board assessment policies provide for fair and equitable, barrier-free accessibility for students with disability.
• 16.3. ministry and Board ensure fair and equitable assessment policies and practices using non-discriminatory and antiracist indicators in their development, design and application.
• 16.4. ministry and Boards assessment requirements:
  1. the ministry ensures all provincial assessments be accessible to and barrier-free for students with disabilities, providing a fair and accurate assessment of learning.
  2. the Boards ensure fair and equitable, barrier-free assessments for students with disabilities, through policy and procedures that commit to ensuring all assessment of student performance and learning meet these provisions.
  3. the ministry and Board educator guidelines, resources and professional learning be developed and available to support the design and practice of fair, equitable, barrier-free assessment, and alternative evaluation methods.
  4. the ministry and Board be required to have ongoing monitoring of fair and equitable, barrier-free assessment practice and design as part of the curriculum and assessment improvement planning.
• 16.5. boards ensure students have full access to learning opportunities, ongoing feedback and diverse programming experiences offered in and beyond the classroom that are responsive to a wide range of individual and cultural learning needs.
• 16.6. boards ensure students have access to multiple adaptive pathways, experiential learning and specialized programs whereby admissions, resources, the learning environment, professional learning and supports are planned, openly communicated and monitored for student need and barrier-free participation and engagement.

Timeline: one year

Early and on-going assessment for students with disabilities’ needs recommendations

Students with disabilities can face difficulties and significant delays in getting professional assessments, (including but not limited to psycho-educational assessments), where needed, for their disability-related needs. Additionally, there is the potential for unfair/biased assessment for some students with disabilities due to a lack of understanding of the students, their lived experiences and identities and can lead to misinterpretations that create unintentional new barriers to an accessible and inclusive education for students with disabilities. The lack of a necessary assessment can impede their access to needed services, and to effective accommodations of their disabilities.

Assessment and accountability recommendation:

17. 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.

Timeline: one year

Interactive Communication in accessible learning environments recommendations

There is a need to recognize and celebrate students’ voice, personal experiences, and family voices as authentic sources of (self) knowledge reflected in co-negotiated program and personalized planning, leading to progressive curriculum, assessment, and instructional design.

The learning environment needs to create spaces for shared learning where all students, including those with diverse learning needs can identify and celebrate their heritage, culture, and identity, for example, ongoing development of provincial curriculum and supports that respect individual disability needs and learning contexts.

The ministries, Boards and public organizations need to have ongoing strategies and procedures that are inclusive and accessible to survey, gather information and create optimal responsive and current learning opportunities for life-long learning for all.

Curriculum and instruction recommendation:

18. Ministry and Boards ensure communication with learners, partners in learning, families, educators, communities and the greater public is open, and fully accessible in preferred formats for persons with disabilities ensuring methods for timely, flexible use and benefit.

• 18.1. ongoing input, survey feedback and monitoring procedures include open communication, regular policy design and review, and practices that ensure full access, equity and inclusion for a wide range of abilities and needs. This is required by the Ministry of Education, Boards and their partners enabling ongoing lifelong learning for students with disabilities, families and the wider community.

Timeline: one year

Assessment and accountability recommendation:

19. On-line learning environments and on-line resources supported by ministry and Boards facilitate learning and engagement with others:

• 19.1. through alternative mechanisms by which information exchange, collaboration, and learning can take place
• 19.2. these learning environments provide accessible curriculum and assessment-informed instructional strategies for a wide range of abilities and needs that students have
• 19.3. the design of these learning spaces be as flexible as possible to accommodate those needs and preferences

Timeline: immediate

Accessibility hub and shared practice recommendations

There is a gap in knowing what accessible, equitable, and inclusive curriculum, assessment, and instructional resources have been developed within school boards, but may not yet been shared widely including in multiple, accessible formats. The question that educators need to ask is “Am I designing curriculum to be as accessible as possible with the resources I have or are out there but not yet accessible to me?”

A resource list is appended with an early sampling of potential references.

Inter-agency, inter-ministry transparency, and seamless points of access and policy alignments, enable families, students, and educators the access to early and on-going shared supports and ensures a school has preparedness and readiness for students of varying diverse learning needs.

Ongoing development of universally designed open-source resources, fully accessible and/or conversion-ready shared across boards and agencies, for students, families, board, ministry training, enables greater effective resource use, awareness and capacity building across sectors.

Curriculum and instruction recommendation:

20. A dedicated accessibility hub of continuously updated centrally located (for example, online) resources and research-based initiatives be developed and be openly accessible across education sectors. That the provincial government be responsible for facilitating infrastructure for accessibility hub frameworks across ministries, education sectors, and the public domain and that boards ensure students, families, educators and stakeholders have access to the resources.
    Timeline: 18 months

Assessment and accountability recommendation:

21. Research-informed culturally responsive pedagogy and assessment-informed practices be widely shared throughout district school boards through professional learning networks and online knowledge repositories, so that all students can be engaged in a fully accessible and strengths-based education that honours their learner identities.
    Timeline: immediate

Teaching and learning about human rights and disability recommendations

Students and staff are being taught about Human Rights and Accessible Education in a variety of ways, often in response to particular issues of exclusion and marginalization. A more systemic and integrated approach to embedding Ontario Human Right Code and Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 throughout the curriculum, instruction and assessment should provide a barrier-free education for students with disabilities. Access to shared curriculum resources that address lived experiences of those with disability, resources and expertise (for example, inter-ministry, community developed resources, association sources, working documents), helps to develop accessibility and inclusion awareness, knowledge and skills.

Curriculum and instruction recommendation:

22. The ministry and Boards ensure that provincial and alternative curriculum and instruction focused on a fully accessible education for students with disabilities include lived experiences of persons with disabilities, and instruction disability rights, Ontario Human Rights Code and Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 requirements.
    Timeline: six months

Assessment and accountability recommendation:

23. Ministry and Board assessment policies and practices ensure the lived experiences of persons with disabilities informs fair, equitable assessment practices connected to the provincial curriculum, core skills, and learning expectations for students and staff.
    Timeline: six months

New and specialized programs recommendations

Curriculum is continually being reformed and renewed, responsive to global and local contexts, learning needs and competencies. Education and skill development require accessibility-related design and content, including e-accessibility in curricular experiences. New and emerging programs need to be accessible and barrier-free for inclusion and engagement of students with disabilities.

Curriculum and instruction recommendation:

24. 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.
• 24.2 the Boards develop action plans to ensure specialized programs are open, accessible and barrier free. This includes regular program reviews and evaluation, and public consultation and communications. For example, the plans include data on participation, admission processes, accessible environments, inclusive designs for curriculum and instruction that are responsive to student need.

Timeline: six months

Physical health and wellness, mental health and well-being recommendations

Physical health and wellness

Regular participation in physical activity develops body composition, skeletal health, and contributes to the prevention or delay of chronic disease. It also improves several aspects of psychological health including self-esteem and promotes social contacts and friendships. It is also an important determinant of health that is associated with a range of physiological benefits in children, including reduced cardiometabolic risk and more preferable body size (Boddy et al., 2014). Physical activity in childhood is also positively associated with mental health (Ahn & Fedewa, 2011) and academic achievement (Fedewa & Ahn, 2011), and it is therefore important that children and young people accrue sufficient physical activity.

Among people with physical disabilities, participation in sport, exercise, and other forms of leisure time physical activity (LTPA) has been shown to yield numerous health benefits (Carroll et al., 2014). Nevertheless, the vast majority of people living with a physical disability do not participate in sufficient PA to achieve health benefits (Carroll et al., 2014). Many children and youth who have intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) do not exercise sufficiently, play sports, or have access to recreational activities (Foley & McCubbin, 2009; Howie et al., 2012; Pitetti et al., 2009; Rimmer & Rowland, 2008; Whitt-Glover et al., 2006).

Mental health and well-being

Research has called for a push toward school-based mental health resources such that schools and teachers play a significant role in shaping healthy child and youth development (CYAC, 2010). There has been shown a convincing link between mental health problems and difficulties with academic engagement, school achievement, absenteeism, retention/dropout and social relationships (Tolan & Dodge, 2005; Owens et al., 2012; Bradley & Greene, 2013).

Curriculum and instruction recommendation:

25. The ministry develop a Health and Well-being strategy and action plan that ensures current research and evidence-based practice in physical, cognitive, mental, social and emotional learning and development of all learners, including those with disabilities. This requires human and material supports and resources that are developed, coordinated and financially supported. The ongoing health and well-being of students including those with disabilities requires safe, caring, accepting and inclusive environments, and skill development in social emotional learning such as in healthy relationships, empathy, self-regulation and conflict resolution. This requires that:

• 25.1. the ministry make available to Boards coordinated resources, guidelines and materials that effectively include students across all disabilities in physical, health and wellness programming within and beyond the school environment (for example, physical education, health education, sports, co-curricular activities). That the resources include disability related sexual health education programming, incorporating training for educators, and that awareness and lived experiences of those with disabilities are part of the overall learning opportunities and content within the inclusive design and education training.
• 25.2 the Boards incorporate in its physical, health and wellbeing program activities that enable students across all disabilities be included, to participate and engage in healthy physical activity. This includes accessibility for all students through individual engagement in physical activity, co-curricular and participation through necessary communications such as captioning, interpreting and virtual means.
• 25.3. the ministry, Boards and associated partners collaborate in ongoing review, development and ready access to social, emotional learning resources, approaches and programming that are inclusive for students across all disabilities.
• 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.
• 25.5. the ministry and Boards expand the curriculum specifically about mental health to provide balance and connection with physical health and well-being for students with disabilities to support the whole child/whole school approach to student achievement and well-being.
• 25.6. the ministry and Boards design strengths-based curriculum resources, assessment methods, and professional development for educators with which to assess resiliency needs of all students, including students with disabilities that will promote and enhance their mental health and well-being. These designs will also support students as they mediate the challenges associated with the numerous transitions, they make throughout their school careers.
• 25.7. this requires that the renewed curriculum and improvement planning address and implement strategies outlined in the School Mental Health Ontario initiative for schools including:
  1. providing resources, training, and implementation support for evidence-based social-emotional learning that fits within Ontario classrooms.
  2. engaging young people, parents/families and adult allies to develop and share resources for building student mental health literacy at school, home, and in the community.
  3. providing resources, training and implementation support to assist school and system leaders, and school staff, to create and sustain mentally healthy schools and classroom.
  4. providing role-specific resources, training and implementation support to enhance knowledge, confidence, consistency and quality in responding to mild-moderate student mental health and addiction needs at school.
  5. providing role-specific resources, training and implementation support to respond to serious student mental health and addiction needs in collaboration with system partners.

Timeline: one year

Indigenous education recommendations

The needs of the whole student are the base considerations in Indigenous descriptions of education, and the guiding principle in Indigenous conceptions of student achievement. What matters to Indigenous peoples is that each member of the community is nurtured and challenged in respectful ways. This form of teaching/learning is done through the honouring of the culture, the teachings, the languages and the gifts of each Nation (Hinton, 2011; Zitzer-Comfort, 2008).

Curriculum and instruction recommendation:

26. The ministry’s Indigenous education strategy is designed to improve opportunities for First Nation, Métis and Inuit students, including students with disabilities, and to increase knowledge and awareness of all students about indigenous histories, cultures, teachings, languages and perspectives. The strategy requires that:

• 26.1. the ministry ensures curriculum design and content including Indigenous curriculum is fully accessible and available for students with disabilities.
• 26.2. the Boards ensure that Indigenous pedagogy, ways of knowing, and experiences (including students across all disabilities) are guided by cultural knowledge and perspectives that can provide fair and un-biased assessment practices, culturally responsive knowledge building and personalized learning pathways to success.
• 26.3 the ministry and Boards address how student achievement and wellbeing for Indigenous students living with disabilities be reconceptualized to include students’ emotional, physical, intellectual and spiritual aspects of the whole being. The focus of curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices must address the ways in which education can be reconceptualized to include Indigenous ways of knowing.

Timeline: immediate

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 centres 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 (for example, apprenticeship programs, Specialist High Skills Major).

Curriculum and instruction recommendation:

27. 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.
• 27.4. for students with developmental disabilities, an inclusive and expanded curriculum be developed and that supplementary resources developed by boards and collaborative partners be readily accessible and shared.
• 27.5. the ministry in partnership with Boards review and develop practice and documentation related to specialized and expanded programs and certificates leading to graduation to ensure required and supported transitions to student’s postsecondary programming, school to workplace and community opportunities are in place.
• 27.6. boards ensure alternative, expanded curriculum and learning expectations be supported by educators (classroom and special education teachers) and other professionals who interact with the student, and that adequate time and resources be given for professional learning, planning and delivery of these curriculum.

Timeline: six months

Assessment and accountability recommendation:

28. 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 (for example, through apprenticeship programs and others).
    Timeline: one year

Resource development and improvement planning recommendations

Research, evidence-based strategies, and practices in curriculum, assessment and instructional design, review, and implementation, continue to inform and transform education. Barrier-free accessibility for learners with disabilities requires ongoing evidence informed, shared resources to respond to new technologies, contexts and issues. This work is person centred, involves ongoing learning and change at individual, system and institutional levels. Boards as champions for all their students have a duty to accommodate students with disabilities through continuous review of practice and process, collaboration, and shared solutions involving transdisciplinary practice.

Curriculum and instruction recommendation:

29. The ministry in collaboration with Boards develop, make accessible and continue to renew resource tools to support full curriculum and assessment accessibility for students with disability including:

• 29.1. resource tools on the process and content of curriculum design.
• 29.2. resource tools and process resources for the development, appropriate design and use of assessment tools and practices.
• 29.3. resource tools and process resources to support educators in the design and development of Universal Design for Learning instructional strategies.
• 29.4. resources tools and process resources for full participation in curriculum, experiential learning, physical and health education, outdoor learning, co-curricular learning.
• 29.5. accountability tools and processes to survey, monitor and communicate student engagement and performance data informed by accessible curriculum, assessment and instruction practices.

Timeline: immediate

Assessment and accountability recommendation:

30. The design of ongoing multi-year improvement processes, transdisciplinary practice, resource sharing and flexible shared solutions advance the elimination and prevention of barriers for full student participation that is responsive to their needs.
    Timeline: immediate

Long term objectives and timeline alignment for curriculum, instruction and assessment recommendations

Multi-year improvement accessibility plan

The ministry, Boards and public organizations need to have procedures and processes in place to meet the long-term objectives of the accessibility standards. This includes the plan for barrier prevention and reduction, systems of gathering information and developing ongoing reporting on the implementation of accessibility standards, recognizing that implementation of all recommendations is ongoing, continuous and responsive to needs of students with disabilities. Guidelines and tools to support process orientation, ongoing development and impact towards standards and continuous improvement enable implementation and goals of equity, accessibility and inclusion.

Assessment and accountability recommendation:

31. By 2025 the Curriculum Instruction and Assessment recommendations will be implemented and will include:

• 31.1. the establishment by ministry and Boards of an annual review process, whereby year over year selected recommendations are monitored using tools for assessing, evaluating and reporting on progress and ongoing status of overall accessibility standards implementation. The progress monitoring tools would include ministry, Board, association, and other relevant research resources for example, Multi Year Strategic Plans, School Effectiveness Framework, Equity and Cultural Responsiveness frameworks and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 Alliance October 10, 2019 Proposed Framework for the K-12 Education Accessibility Standards and tools to audit and report progress and future next steps.
• 31.2. the ministry develop and communicate access to guidelines to support the annual process for recommendation implementation including a variety of tools that can be utilized for auditing, surveying, feedback and next steps.
• 31.3. the Boards collaborate with the ministry and their respective communities in their planning, processes, progress and communications toward the intended outcomes.
• 31.4. Boards as advocates for all students need to demonstrate continuous updating, collaboration and improvement in their duty to accommodate and eliminate barriers for students with disabilities as demonstrated in their annual review and public reporting.

Timeline: two years

Section four: Digital learning and technology

The rationale and motivation for the recommendations of the Digital Learning Technology Group relates to the need for school boards and government ministries to remove systemic barriers for the inclusion and full participation of student and staff in the school community. In the context of digital learning and technology, this requires that boards and government ensure all digital resources are fully accessible to students and staff with disabilities. The recommendations also address training and funding barriers that boards, in particular, face to ensuring the proper use of digital learning technologies.

Based on the groups lived experiences, consultations and research it became clear that several barriers currently exist that prevent students and staff with disabilities from full participation in the life of the school. From learning materials to outdated assistive devices to gaps in board level policies and procedures, many barriers currently exist. The group’s recommendations strive to confront these issues and offer solutions that ensure the inclusion and full participation of students with the school community.

Section four recommendations:

32. Require school boards to consult with educators, parents/caregivers and students in the design of professional development and training activities in the use of accessible technologies.
    Timeline: immediate
33. Require boards to develop, implement, monitor and evaluate comprehensive training programs for its staff on procuring and using accessible digital technology.
    Timeline: six months
34. 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.
    Timeline: immediate

Accessible digital and technology action plan:

Rationale: many school boards do not have policies, procedures or practices to consistently meet the digital and technology requirements to support the learning needs of students with disabilities. This undermines student achievement and well-being for those students. Given the scope of this recommendation an extended timeline is needed.

35. 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.
    Timeline: six months

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.

Recommendations for the Ministry of Education:

36. 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, 2005.
    Timeline: immediate

Rationale: a joint effort to develop a set of pre-service, in-service and board level training and professional development programs will promote a consistent and leading edge set of practices for ensuring students with disabilities have the tools and supports needed for their learning and well-being. Assisting boards in developing training programs and tools to measure student progress will ensure consistent progress is made and documented.

37. Training programs to support boards:

• 37.1. develop resource documents, case studies and training modules in collaboration with experts in adaptive technology, students with disabilities, trustee associations, teacher federations, the College of Teachers and Faculties of Education in the use of accessible technologies.
• 37.2. provide school boards resources to support professional development in assistive technology, its application and Universal Design for Learning for school board staff;
• 37.3. assist boards in developing a process for evaluating the effectiveness of training as it frequently relates to student outcomes, teacher knowledge and skills
• 37.4. require training models for school boards to address student training needs for all students receiving assistive technologies
• 37.5. develop student outcome measures using tools as QUIAT and SETT and document within each student’s Individual Education Plan.

Timeline: one year

38. Removing barriers:

• 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.

Timeline: immediate

39. Digital learning and technology barrier: Both during and after the COVID‑19 pandemic, virtual classroom events and virtual meetings with students, parents and school staff are now common and will likely remain a fact of life in the future. Some virtual meeting platforms are much more accessible than others. Only the most accessible virtual meeting platforms should be used for real time classes and for any meetings with school board staff and families or students.
    The virtual platform offerings on the market are evolving and will continue to evolve, as will the degree of their accessibility. A platform that is not very accessible today could become very accessible in the near future, if sufficiently improved. A platform that is accessible today could have its accessibility broken by a software update. Seventy-two school boards should not each have to duplicate efforts at studying the comparative accessibility of different virtual platforms available on the market.

We therefore recommend:

• 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.

Timeline: immediate

Section five: Organizational barriers

The initial consultation for the Education Accessibility Standards identified a significant number of organizations barriers, particularly concerning special education processes such as the Identification, Placement and Review Committee and the Individual Education Plan processes. Parents raised concern about their lack of meaningful participation in these processes.

Many concerns were also raised about exclusions/refusal to admit which disproportionately impact students with disabilities. Other issues identified by the consultation raised concerns about differences in terminology and understanding of disability rights. In addition, there are challenges in the delivery and access to student support provided in school by community agencies funded by other ministries.

Transitions was also identified as an organization barrier, included transitions into school, between schools, and out of secondary school to postsecondary education, employment or community living.

The recommendations are based on the extensive knowledge of the education system of committee members, their personal experience and input from the sectors they represent.

Section five recommendations:

Compliance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms recommendations

Barrier: the initial consultation process and the review of relevant documents highlighted the disconnect between the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Ontario Human Rights Code, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 and the Education Act and related regulations. In part, this reflects the development of regulations under the Education Act for students with disabilities prior to the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005. Significant areas of difference relate to the rights of students who are determined to be “exceptional” under Regulation 181/98, Identification and Placement of Exceptional Pupils. The categories of exceptionality do not directly relate to the Ontario Human Rights Code definition of disabilities and this means that some students with disabilities are excluded from the right to special education programs and services. It creates a two-tier system.

In addition, the word “accommodations” has two different meanings in education and in a human rights context. Under the Ontario Human Rights Code, a person with a disability has a right to “accommodations” to prevent discrimination to the point of “undue hardship” of the service provider. In education, the term is used in reference to assessment, environmental and instructional accommodations for learning. This discrepancy needs to be addressed with a common definition and understanding.

40. Our recommendations are:
    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, 2005, the Ontario Human Rights Code, or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
• 40.2. broaden the definition of accommodations or “accommodate” used in special education to be consistent with the term, accommodations, used in the Ontario Human Rights Code so that school boards shall ensure that all students receive needed services, supports accommodations or other educational opportunities including but not limited to special education programs and services.
• 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.

Timeline: immediate

District School Boards shall:

• 40.4. ensure that students with a disability shall have access to and receive any programs and services, including special education or other disability-related services or supports that they require, in accordance with the Ontario Human Rights Code on the duty to accommodate persons with disabilities.

Timeline: immediate

Inter-ministry collaboration: to ensure students with disabilities receive the support they need from other ministry-funded services at school recommendations

Barrier: the following recommendations have been developed to address the challenges faced by students who need services from the community in order to access learning and participate effectively in the school life. Without these services, such as rehabilitation services or mental health services, the student’s education may be negatively impacted. These recommendations address the lack of coordination and accountability between different ministries who are each responsible for supporting the student at school.

41. To ensure that students with disabilities receive all of the supports and services that they require at school from programs and services operated by other ministries, including the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services our recommendations are:

• 41.1. the Government of Ontario designate a lead from the Cabinet Office or by a selected ministry, to be responsible to make sure that children/youth programs are adequately funded and that decision making on changes to programs and services are taken with full consideration for the impact on children and youth in all environments.
  Timeline: immediate
• 41.2. collaborative planning for the provision of services and supports by other Ministries and community agencies should occur throughout the system, including between provincial ministries, and at the school board and school level, to ensure consistency and continuity of services to individual students.
  Timeline: six months
• 41.3. the documentation of plans to support students at school be integrated, building on the effective practices related to single plans of care and using the Individual Education Plans as the key document for students with disabilities who need accommodations and other programs and services at school.
  Timeline: immediate
• 41.4. professional development should be provided to school staff including administrators, teachers, and educational assistants, about community prevention and intervention services delivered to students at school and collaborative planning and delivery of these services and supports. Planning and delivery of the professional development for school staff should be held jointly with community professionals who also need professional development about school services. An example of this type of joint professional training, to support tiered interventions for occupational therapy, was used in the CanChild Partnering for Change pilot project.
  Timeline: six months
• 41.5. the inter-ministerial guidelines for transition planning for students with developmental disabilities (2011) has resulted in improvements in school-family and community planning for students after they leave school and this model should be used for transition planning for a broader group of students with disabilities who will require access to support services after graduation.
  Timeline: immediate
• 41.6. the Ministry of Education work with other provincial ministries to develop common transition protocols or guidelines to support effective transition planning for students with disabilities. In addition, a provincial repository should be developed for the sharing of effective transition practices and resources.
  Timeline: six months
• 41.7. a policy should be developed to ensure integrated and collaborative planning between community agencies and school boards for students with disabilities who require services delivered at school, that are funded by other ministries. 
  Timeline: six months
• 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.
  Timeline: immediate
• 41.9. the recommendations from the Ontario Advisory Panel Report (2019) regarding mental health services be implemented. In particular, the recommendations on capacity building amongst school staff about awareness of the mental health needs of students with autism, intervention strategies and the referral pathways for community support. (Alignment with Other Ministries - Ministry of Health page 40 to 46).
  Timeline: six months
• 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.
  Timeline: six months

Accountability recommendations

Barrier: a significant barrier that has been identified by families is the lack of accountability for the implementation of policies and regulations and the delivery of programs and services to students. Families of students with disabilities feel like there is nowhere to turn with their concerns about programs and services that are not being delivered or only partially meet the student needs. Historically, many regulations and policies have not included accountability mechanism such as reporting, reviewing annual progress, or publicly reporting on implementation. Section on Accountability and Timelines covers many of these issues. This section is mainly about what a student, or a parent of a student, can do to raise and resolve concerns. The default mechanism has been an appeal to the Ontario Human Rights Commission Tribunal which can be an expensive and time-consuming process.

Our recommendations are:

42. 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.
  Timeline: immediate
• 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.
  Timeline: six months
• 42.3. designate an assistant deputy minister with the needed authority to be responsible for ensuring a barrier-free and accessible school system for students with disabilities.
  Timeline: immediate
• 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.
  Timeline: immediate
• 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, 2005, the Ontario Human Rights Code, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  Timeline: six months
• 42.6. collaborate with the Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility and make public and provide effective practices in terms of Special Education and Accessibility Planning.
  Timeline: immediate

District School Boards shall:

• 42.7. ensure and demonstrate their accountability that the needs of students with disabilities are met.
  Timeline: six months
• 42.8. ensure that their mission, vision and values statements, and all of their policies, procedures, and practices, are in compliance with the equality rights of students with disabilities in the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, the Ontario Human Rights Code, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  Timeline: six months

Individual education plans recommendations

Barrier: currently, students with special education needs are entitled to have an Individual Education Plan. This right should be extended to all students with disabilities. Parents/guardians must be consulted in the development of the Individual Education Plan and regular review and updating. Yet Ontario’s special education regulations do not spell out important and much-needed details on such things as:

• exactly how the Individual Education Plan is to be developed, and how parents, guardians, and the student is to be involved in that process.
• what parents /guardians of students with disabilities are to be told in advance or during the Individual Education Plan development process, about the Individual Education Plan development process, and their rights in the Individual Education Plan development process.
• establishing a prompt, fair, independent and impartial process for parents /guardians of students with disabilities to go if they are not satisfied with the Individual Education Plan that a school board proposes, in order to get a review of the proposed Individual Education Plan.
• establishing a prompt, fair, independent and impartial process which parents /guardians of students with disabilities can use, if they believe that the school board is not fully implementing a student’s Individual Education Plan.

43. The Ministry of Education shall mandate that any students with disabilities their disability have the right to an Individual Education Plan and should be provided one by their school board to ensure that students with disabilities obtain the accommodations or programs and services needed to support their success at school.
    Timeline: one year
44. 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, behaviour 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.
    Timeline: six months
45. The Ministry of Education make changes to the Individual Education Plan content and format, and the method of reporting to the ministry about students with an Individual Education Plan, to ensure that consistent and comparable data can be collected and aggregated from all school boards. (See also Section 6 Recommendations about Data Collection).
    Timeline: six months
46. 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.
    Timeline: immediate
47. 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 standards.
    Timeline: six months
48. School boards shall conduct annual audits of Individual Education Plan compliance and publicly report on the results of the audit.
    Timeline: 18 months

Parent and student participation recommendations

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.

49. 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.
    Timeline: immediate

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.
  Timeline: six months
• 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.
  Timeline: six months
• 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.
  Timeline: one year

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).
  Timeline: six months
• 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. what “special education” is and who is entitled to receive it.
  2. 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. the menu of options, placements, programs, services, supports and accommodations available at the school board for students with disabilities.
  4. 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.
     Timeline: six months
• 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.
  Timeline: immediate
• 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. the goal of the plan.
  2. what information will be made available to parent/guardian/students with disabilities.
  3. how information will be formatted to make it easy to understand and jargon free.
  4. the types of formats that will be used to make the information available and accessible.
  5. where information will be available to parents/guardians/students (in schools and on-line including school and school board websites).
  6. 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. who will be responsible for ensuring information is provided to parent/guardian/students with disabilities.
  8. how the distribution of information will be tracked or measured.
  9. what measures will be used to evaluate the value and impact of providing the information.
  10. how the action plan will be evaluated.
  11. how the action plan will be shared publicly with regular progress updates.
      ​​​​​​Timeline: six months
• 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.
  Timeline: immediate
• 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.
  Timeline: six months
• 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.
  Timeline: six months
• 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. the school board should bring to the table all key professionals who can contribute to the discussions.
  2. the family should be invited to bring to the table any supports and professionals that can assist the family and the planning process.
  3. parents should have the right to bring with them anyone who can assist them in advocating for their child.
  4. parents/families should be given a wide range of options for participating for example, in person or by phone. They should be told in advance who will attend from the school board.
  5. any proposal for accommodations including a draft individualized education plan should include a summary of key points to assist families in understanding them.
  6. 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.

  Timeline: six months

• 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 plans.
  The dispute resolution process shall be:
  1. fair, independent and impartial
  2. respectful
  3. non-adversarial
  4. timely
  5. accessible
  6. one where the decision is provided in writing.
  Timeline: one year
• 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.
  Timeline: immediate
• 49.14. in cases of dispute, the ministry shall appoint a mediator.
  Timeline: six months
• 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.
  Timeline: immediate
• 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.
  Timeline: immediate
• 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 these accessibility standards, the school board has justified a reduction of those accommodations.
  Timeline: one year
• 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.
  Timeline: six months
• 49.19. ensure that parent/guardians and students with disabilities have the opportunity and training to develop self advocacy skills.
  Timeline: six months

The ministry and District School Boards shall:

• 49.20. collate effective practices for enhancing student and parent involvement from around the province and develop a repository and/or mechanism to share the resources with school boards and make them publicly available.
  Timeline: six months

Exclusions/refusals to admit to school/reduced school hours recommendations

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. These measures should be set out in the K-12 Education Accessibility Standards.

Our recommendations regarding Refusal to Admit are:

50. The K-12 Education Accessibility Standards 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 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. 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. 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. 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:
     1. what a refusal to admit is and the duration
     2. the permissible reasons
     3. the school board's process for reviewing that decision, and
     4. the student/family's right to appeal (including how to use that right of appeal)
     5. 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
     6. the expected timeline for the completion of these steps
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. the refusal to admit shall be documented, and the record shall include information on:
     1. the reason for the refusal to admit
     2. the duration of the refusal to admit and any extensions
     3. the plan to provide an educational program to the student for the duration of the refusal to admit
     4. the plan for the student to return to full time school attendance
  8. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Timeline: one year for boards; six months for the Ministry of Education

Data collection recommendations

Barrier: the review of accessibility barriers in education and the discussions by the committee members have identified a major barrier as the lack of data collection regarding accessibility and students with disabilities, as well as the challenges of comparing data from across the province. A critical change that is needed is to start tracking data about students with disabilities, rather than on students who have been identified as ‘exceptional.’’ The following recommendations focus on ensuring comparable data is collected, analysed and publicly reported regarding students with disabilities and the accessibility barriers they face.

51. The K-12 Education Accessibility Standards 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, 2005, 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. data should be collected about students with disabilities that is consistent and comparable across the province according to the parameters below.
  2. 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. teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing
  2. teachers of the visually impaired
  3. applied behavioural analysists
  4. speech-language pathologists
  5. audiologists
  6. physiotherapists, occupational therapists
  7. assistive technology
  8. 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

Timeline: one year

Ministry of Education shall:

• 51.8. collect all of the above data form each school board and:
  1. publicly report on the data referred to above, as an aggregate and on a school board by school board basis.
  2. identify changes over previous year(s) and any gaps or deficits or areas for improvement.
  3. develop a provincial action plan to resolve gaps or unmet needs.
• 51.9. redesign the mandatory contents of the individual education plans to support collection of data about students with disabilities and the accommodations, or programs and services, which are required to support their 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.

Timeline: one year

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.

Timeline: one year

School board accessibility committees and plans recommendations

Barrier: earlier standards of Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 have required organizations, including school boards and the ministry, to document their multi-year plans for improving accessibilities, including identifying specific barriers. While some school boards have multi-stakeholder accessibility committees, there are significant variations in the membership, roles and responsibilities of accessibility committees. The committee members believe that the development of more comprehensive expectations for accessibility committees and plans will improve education accessibility and accountability and remove accessibility barriers. In addition, these recommendations identify the importance and value of having students and individuals with disabilities with lived experience included in these committees and plans.

52. The K-12 Education Accessibility Standards 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. processes to identify accessibility barriers, including complaints/reports from schools, students, and community members.
  2. plans for removing and preventing accessibility barriers.
  3. clear assignment of responsibilities for action.
  4. performance measures for monitoring progress.
  5. requirements to report to the school board's trustees regularly.
  6. requirements for seeking input from the school board's special education advisory committee.
  7. an annual report on progress towards the elimination of accessibility barriers.
  8. feedback mechanisms to collect and review input from school accessibility committees, staff students and the community.
  9. 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.

Timeline: one year

• 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.

Timeline: six months

• 52.7. the Ministry of Education shall provide templates and resources to ensure consistency of processes and documentation for accessibility committees and accessibility plans.
• 52.8. the Ministry of Education shall provide school boards with accessibility expectations for programs and services.
• 52.9. the Ministry of Education shall establish a publicly accessible depository and/or other mechanisms for the sharing of best practices with school boards and other stakeholders about accessible education programs, services and facilities.
• 52.10. the Ministry of Education should be required to annually:
  1. analyze the barriers and accessibility problems identified by each school board ‘s accessibility committee, and the actions identified or proposed for corrective action.
  2. 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.

Timeline: six months

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.

Professional learning recommendations

Barrier: the earlier sections on attitudes, technology and curriculum have identified the importance and value of professional development about ableism, accessibility, Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, Ontario Human Rights Code and disability as critical to the effective education of students with disabilities. These recommendations focus on professional development related to organizational barriers the related recommendations.

53. Ministry of Education shall:

• 53.1. ensure that training is provided to teachers, and other staff, on new data collection methods for students with disabilities once standards are developed.
• 53.2. develop training models on the use of clear definitions, common language and consistent practices and definitions to ensure clarity for staff, students, and parents.
• 53.3. work with district school boards and community organizations to collaborate on the development of joint professional learning resources to support students with disabilities at school. This should include working with non-educators such as occupational therapists, medical practitioners, and paraprofessionals and parent/guardians to ensure diverse perspectives and expertise.
• 53.4. ensure that training is provided to teachers, and other staff, on how to effectively support students with disabilities in experiential learning opportunities, and in the development and practice of employment skills.

Timeline: six months

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. to add more credits on teaching students with disabilities in the pre-service program
  2. 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.

Timeline: six months

District School Boards shall:

• 53.9.  provide opportunities for the development of advocacy skills to parents and students with disabilities.
• 53.10. develop resources and professional learning opportunities for teachers, and other staff, to better communicate with parents and encourage collaborative planning of Individual Education Plans.
• 53.11. share best practices around fostering parent engagement with teachers and other staff.

Timeline: six months

Process for a school board identifying and making the placement of student with disabilities recommendations

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.

54. The identification, placement and review committee process and regulation should be reviewed to determine if it needs to be re-designed, retained or replaced.
    Timeline: six months
55. The review panel should include students or persons with disabilities, families, school board and Ministry of Education representatives.
    Timeline: immediate
56. If the identification, placement, and review committee process is to be redesigned, the following principles should be included:
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.

Timeline: one year

Section six: Social realms

The area of social realms is often overlooked as being an important part of education and should be seen as an integral part of the student’s education and development.

“I see the impact of the gap where students are excluded due to lack of transportation to support them. It is not just the students that are feeling the impact as I see the “hurt” of their parents. Students with disabilities have a right to be with their peers and classmates where they can learn and develop as they should”.

“Service animals is a big one for me as I trained mine to be one and experienced what he could do to ease fear, decrease depression and get our clients to a level of openness and confidence to learn and grow. I also have seen the impact that many clients have experienced and what they were like before their service dogs came into their lives.”

Social realms should not be viewed just as social activities outside the classroom but also in the classroom where the social interaction among students is an integral part of learning process.

Our group had diverse knowledge and experiences which played an important part in creating these recommendations and ensuring that we took an intersectional perspective on removing barriers within social realms.

“As someone who has experienced the barriers in the education system, it was
important to ensure that lived experience and student voice guided the process in
creating the recommendations and are evident in the completed recommendations.”

Section six recommendations:

Educational and online events recommendation

57. 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. Please refer to built environment definition in the glossary.
Timeline: Immediate

Transitions facilitator/navigator recommendations

58. 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. See description of role and responsibilities.
    Timeline: one year
59. 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.
    Timeline: immediate

Transportation recommendations

60. The obligations under this part of the standards should be binding, both on school boards and transportation consortia. Both parties have the duty to adhere to the standards and to work together to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities are honoured.
    Timeline: six months

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.

61. 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 Standards 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 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 Standards 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 these accessibility standards or otherwise under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, 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.

Timeline: six months

62. The Education Accessibility Standards 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.
  Timeline: six months

63. The Education Accessibility Standards 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.
    Timeline: immediate

Bullying/cyberbullying workshops recommendation

64. 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.
    Timeline: six months

Experiential / co-op learning opportunities recommendations

65. 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.

Timeline: one year

66. 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.
    Timeline: six months

Social isolation recommendation

67. 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.
Timeline: one year

Service animals (as per Accessibility for Ontarians With Disabilities Act, 2005 customer service standards) recommendation

Barrier: some school boards or schools do not let students with disabilities bring a sufficiently trained service animal to school as an accommodation to their disability, either because the school board or school does not allow for this or lacks a proper policy to allow for this.

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. We therefore recommend:

• 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, and the Commission’s Policy on accessible education for students with disabilities and with the following requirements set out in these accessibility standards. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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:
     1. allowing the service animal’s training organization to provide training in the school to school staff.
     2. allowing the training organization to provide an orientation to the student population at the school to the presence of the service animal.
     3. providing information to other families to reinforce the inclusion of the service animal at school.
  7. 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 these accessibility standards 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.

Timeline: six months

Section seven: Physical and architectural barriers

When it was passed in 2005, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 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:

• Ontario Building Code 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.

Accessibility standards

• the Government of Ontario and the Ministry of Education have no accessibility standards for the built environment in schools, whether old or new schools. The government should develop a Built Environment Accessibility Standards 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 three 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.

Section seven recommendations:

Timeline: six months for all recommendations

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:

69. The K-12 Education Accessibility Standards 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:
    1. specific requirements to be included in a new school to be built.
    2. requirements to be included in a renovation of or an addition to an existing school, and
    3. retrofit requirements for an existing school not slated for a major renovation or addition.
70. 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:
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
71. 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, 2005. 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.
72. 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 eight-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.
73. 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.
74. 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.
75. 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.
76. Each school board should hold off-site educational events at venues whose built environment is accessible.
77. 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 Standards 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, O. Reg. 191/11 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:

78. To ensure that gym equipment, playground equipment and other like equipment and facilities are accessible for students with disabilities, the Education Accessibility Standards 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.
79. Each school board should:
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
80. 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.

Specific accessibility requirements recommendations

Recommendation part three: usable accessible design for exterior site elements

The following should be required:

81. Access to the site for pedestrians:
    1. clear, intuitive connection to the accessible entrance.
    2. a tactile raised line map shall be provided at the main entry points adjacent to the accessible path of travel but with enough space to ensure users do not block the path for others.
    3. path of travel from each sidewalk connects to an accessible entrance with few to no joints to avoid bumps. The primary paths shall be wide enough to allow two-way traffic with a clear width that allows two people using wheelchairs or guide dogs to pass each other. For secondary paths where a single path is used, passing spaces shall be provided at regular intervals and at all decision points. The height difference from the sidewalk to the entrance will not require a ramp or stairs. The path will provide drainage slopes only and ensure no puddles form on the path. Paths will be heated during winter months using heat from the school or other renewable energy sources.
    4. bike parking shall be adjacent to the entry path. Riders shall be required to dismount and not ride on the pedestrian routes. Bike parking shall provide horizontal storage with enough space to ensure users and parked bikes do not block the path for others. The ground surface below the bikes shall be colour contrasted and textured to be distinct from the pedestrian path.
    5. rest areas and benches with clear floor space for at least two assistive mobility devices or strollers or a mix of both shall be provided. Benches shall be colour contrasted, have back and arm rests and provide transfer seating options at both ends of the bench. These shall be provided every 30 metres along the path placed adjoining. The bench and space for assistive devices are not to block the path. If the path to the main entrance is less than 30 metres at least one rest area shall be provided along the route. If the drop-off area is in a different location than the pedestrian route from the sidewalk, an interior rest area shall be provided with clear sightlines to the drop-off area. If the drop-off area is more than 20 meters from the closest accessible entrance an exterior accessible heated shelter shall be provided for those awaiting pick-up. The ground surface below the rest areas shall be colour contrasted and textured to be distinct from the pedestrian path it abuts.
    6. tactile directional indicators shall be provided where large open paved areas happen along the route.
    7. accessible pedestrian directional signage at decision points.
    8. lighting levels shall be bright and even enough to avoid shadows and ensure it’s easy to see the features and to keep people safe.
    9. accessible duress stations (emergency safety zones in public spaces).
    10. heated walkways shall be used where possible to ensure the path is always clear of snow and ice.
82. Access to the site for vehicles:
    1. clear, intuitive connection to the drop-off and accessible parking.
    2. passenger drop-off shall include space for driveway, layby, access aisle (painted with non slip paint), and a drop curb (to provide a smooth transition) for the full length of the drop off. This edge shall be identified and protected with high colour contrasted tactile attention indicators and bollards to stop cars, so people with vision loss or those not paying attention get a warning before walking into the car area. Sidewalk slopes shall provide drainage in all directions for the full length of the dropped curb.
    3. overhead protection shall be provided by a canopy that allows for a clearance for raised vans or buses and shall provide as much overhead protection as possible for people who may need more time to load or off-load.
    4. heated walkways from the drop-off and parking shall be used to ensure the path is always clear of snow and ice.
    5. a tactile walking directional indicator path shall lead from the drop-off area to the closest accessible entrance to the building (typically the main entrance).
    6. a parking surface will only be steep enough to provide drainage in all directions. The drainage will be designed to prevent puddles from forming at the parking or along the pedestrian route from the parking.
    7. parking design should include potential expansion plans for future growth and/or to address increased need for accessible parking.
    8. parking access aisles shall connect to the sidewalk with a curb cut that leads to the closest accessible entrance to the building. (so that no one needs to travel along the driveway behind parked cars or in the path of car traffic).
    9. lighting levels shall be bright and even enough to avoid shadows and to ensure it’s easy to see obstacles and to keep people safe.
    10. if there is more than one parking lot, each site shall have a distinctive colour and shape symbol associated with it that will be used on all directional signage especially along pedestrian routes.
83. Parking:
    1. the provision of parking spaces near the entrance to a facility is important to accommodate persons with a varying range of abilities as well as persons with limited mobility. Medical conditions, such as anemia, arthritis or heart conditions, using crutches or the physical act of pushing a wheelchair, all can make it difficult to travel long distances. Minimizing travel distances is particularly important outdoors, where weather conditions and ground surfaces can make travel difficult and hazardous.
    2. the sizes of accessible parking stalls are important. A person using a mobility aid such as a wheelchair requires a wider parking space to accommodate the manoeuvring of the wheelchair beside the car or van. A van may also require additional space to deploy a lift or ramp out the side or back door. An individual would require space for the deployment of the lift itself as well as additional space to manoeuvre on/off the lift.
    3. heights of passage along the driving routes to accessible parking is a factor. Accessible vans may have a raised roof resulting in the need for additional overhead clearance. Alternatively, the floor of the van may be lowered, resulting in lower capacity to travel over for speed bumps and pavement slope transitions.
    4. wherever possible, parking signs shall be located away from pedestrian routes, because they can constitute an overhead and/or protruding hazard. All parking signage shall be placed at the end of the parking space in a bollard barricade to stop cars, trucks or vans from parking over and blocking the sidewalk.
84. A building’s exterior doors:
    1. level areas on both sides of a building’s exterior door shall allow the clear floor space for a large scooter or mobility device or several strollers to be at the door. Exterior surface slope shall only provide drainage away from the building.
    2. 100 per cent of a building’s exterior doors will be accessible with level thresholds, colour contrast, accessible door hardware and in-door windows or side windows (where security allows) so those approaching the door can see if someone is on the other side of the door.
    3. main entry doors at the front of the building and the door closest to the parking lot (if not the same) to be obvious, prominent and will have automatic sliders with overhead sensors. Placing power door operator buttons correctly is difficult and often creates barriers especially within the vestibule.
    4. accessible security access for after hours or if used all day with two-way video for those who are deaf and/or scrolling voice to text messaging.
    5. all exit doors shall be accessible with a level threshold and clear floor space on either side of the door. The exterior shall include a paved accessible path leading away from the building.

Accessible design for interior building elements – general requirements recommendations

The following should be required:

85. Entrances:
    1. all entrances used by staff and/or the public shall be accessible and comply with this section. In a retrofit situation where it is technically infeasible to make all staff and public entrances accessible, at least 50 per cent of all staff and public entrances shall be accessible and comply with this section. In a retrofit situation where it is technically infeasible to make all public entrances accessible, the primary entrances used by staff and the public shall be accessible.
86. Door:
    1. doors shall be sufficiently wide enough to accommodate stretchers, wheelchairs or assistive scooters, pushing strollers, or making a delivery
    2. threshold at the door’s base shall be level to allow a trip free and wheel friendly passage.
    3. heavy doors and those with auto closers shall provide automatic door openers.
    4. room entrances shall have doors.
    5. direction of door swing shall be chosen to enhance the usability and limit the hazard to others of the door opening.
    6. sliding doors can be easier for some individuals to operate and can also require less wheelchair manoeuvring space.
    7. doors that require two hands to operate will not be used.
    8. revolving doors are not accessible.
    9. full glass doors are not to be used as they represent a hazard.
    10. colour-contrasting will be provided on door frames, door handles as well as the door edges.
    11. door handles and locks will be operable by using a closed fist, and not require fine finger control, tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist to operate
87. Gates, turnstiles and openings:
    1. gates and turnstiles should be designed to accommodate the full range of users that may pass through them. Single-bar gates designed to be at a convenient waist height for ambulatory persons are at neck and face height for children and chest height for persons who use wheelchairs or scooters.
    2. revolving turnstiles should not be used as they are a physical impossibility for a person in a wheelchair to negotiate. They are also difficult for persons using canes or crutches, or persons with poor balance.
    3. all controlled entry points will provide an accessible width to allow passage of wheelchairs, other mobility devices, strollers, walkers or delivery carts.
88. Windows, glazed screens and sidelights:
    1. broad expanses of glass should not be used for walls, beside doors and as doors can be difficult to detect. This may be a particular concern to persons with vision loss/no vision. It is also possible for anyone to walk into a clear sheet of glazing especially if they are distracted or in a hurry.
    2. windowsill heights and operating controls for opening windows or closing blinds should be accessible...located on a path of travel, with clear floor space, within reach of a shorter or seated user, colour contrasted and not require punching or twisting to operate.
89. Drinking fountains:
    1. Drinking fountain height should accommodate children and that of a person using a wheelchair or scooter. Potentially conflicting with this, the height should strive to attempt to accommodate individuals who have difficulty bending and who would require a higher fountain. Where feasible, this may require more than one fountain, at different heights. The operating system shall account for limited hand strength or dexterity. Fountains will be recessed, to avoid protruding into the path of travel. Angled recessed alcove designs allow more flexibility and require less precision by a person using a wheelchair or scooter. Providing accessible signage with a tactile attention indicator tile will help those who with vision loss to find the fountain.
90. Layout:
    1. the main office where visitors and others need to report to upon entering the building shall always be located on the same level as the entrance, as close to the entrance as possible. If the path of travel to the office crosses a large open area, a tactile directional indicator path shall lead from the main entrance(s) to the office ID signage next to the office door.
    2. all classrooms and or public destinations shall be on the ground floor. Where this is not possible, at least two elevators should be provided to access all other levels. Where the building is long and spread out, travel distance to elevators should be considered to reduce extra time needed for students and staff or others who use the elevators instead of the stairs. If feature stairs (staircases included in whole or in part for design aesthetics) are included, elevators shall be co-located and just as prominent as the stairs.
    3. corridors should meet at 90-degree angles. Floor layouts from floor to floor should be consistent and predictable so the room number line up and are the same with the floors above and below along with the washrooms.
    4. multi-stall washrooms shall always place the women’s washroom on the right and the men’s washroom on the left. No labyrinth entrances shall be used. Universal washrooms shall be co-located immediately adjacent to the stall washrooms, in a location that is consistent and predictable throughout the building.
91. Facilities:
    1. the entry doors to each type of facility within a building should be accessible, colour contrasted, obvious and prominent and designed as part of the wayfinding system including accessible signage that is co-located with power door openers controls.
    2. tactile attention indicator tile will be placed on the floor in front of the accessible ID signage at each room or facility type. Where a room or facility entrance is placed off of a large interior open area.

Accessible design for interior building elements – circulation recommendations

The following should be required:

92. Elevators:
    1. elevator doors will provide a clear width to allow a stretcher and larger mobility devices to get in and out.
    2. doors will have sensors so doors will auto open if the doorway is blocked
    3. elevators will be installed in pairs so that when one is out of service for repair or maintenance, there is an alternative available.
    4. elevators will be sized at allow at least two mobility device users and two non-mobility devices users to be in the elevator at the same time. This should also allow for a wide stretcher in case of emergency.
    5. assistive listening will be available in each elevator to help make the audible announcements heard by those using hearing aids.
    6. emergency button on the elevator’s control panel will also provide two-way communication with video and scrolling text and a keyboard for people who are deaf or who have other communication disabilities.
    7. inside the elevators will be additional horizontal buttons on the side wall in case there is not enough room for a person using a mobility aid to push the typical vertical buttons along the wall beside the door. If there are only two floors the elevator will only provide the door open, close and emergency call buttons and the elevator will automatically move to the floor it is not on.
    8. the words spoken in the elevator’s voice announcement of the floor will be the same as the braille and print floor markings, so the button shows one as a number, one in braille and the voice says first floor not G for Ground with M in braille and voice says first floor.).
    9. ensure the star symbol for each elevator matches ground level appropriate to the elevator. The star symbol indicates the floor the elevator will return to in an emergency. This means users in the elevator will open closest to the available accessible exit. If the entrance on the north side is on the second floor, the star symbol in that elevator will be next to the button that says two. If the entrance on the south side of the building is on the first floor, the star symbol will be next to the button that says one.
    10. the voice on the elevator shall be set at a volume that is audible above typical noise levels while the elevator is in use, so that people on the elevator can easily hear the audible floor announcements.
    11. lighting levels inside the elevator will match the lighting at the elevator lobbies. Lighting will be measured at the ground level.
    12. elevators will provide colour contrast between the floor and the walls inside the cab and between the frame of the door or the doors with the wall surrounding in the elevator lobbies. Vinyl peel and stick sheets or paint will be used to cover the shiny metal which creates glare. Vinyl sheets will be plain to ensure the door looks like a door, and not like advertising.
    13. in a retrofit situation where adding two elevators is not technically possible without undue hardship, platform lifts may be considered. Elevators that are used by all facility users are preferred to platform lifts which tend to segregate persons with disabilities and which limit space at entrance and stair locations. Furthermore, independent access is often compromised by such platform lifts, because platform lifts are often requiring a key to operate. Whenever possible, integrated elevator access should be incorporated to avoid the use of lifts.
93. Ramps:
    1. a properly designed ramp can provide wait-free access for those using wheelchairs or scooters, pushing strollers or moving packages on a trolley or those who are using sign language to communicate and don’t want to stop talking as they climb stairs.
    2. a ramp’s textured surfaces, edge protection and handrails all provide important safety features.
    3. on outdoor ramps, heated surfaces shall be provided to address the safety concerns associated with snow and ice.
    4. ramps shall only be used where the height difference between levels is no more than 1 meter (4 feet). Longer ramps take up too much space and are too tiring for many users. Where a height difference is more than 1 meter in height, elevators will be provided instead.
    5. landings will be sized to allow a large mobility device or scooter to make a 360-degree turn and/or for two people with mobility assistive devices or guide dogs to pass.
    6. slopes inside the building will be no higher than is permitted for exterior ramps in the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 Design of Public Spaces Standards, to ensure usability without making the ramp too long.
    7. curved ramps will not be used, because the cross slope at the turn is hard to navigate and a tipping hazard for many people.
    8. colour and texture contrast will be provided to differentiate the full slope from any level landings. Tactile attention domes shall not be used at ramps, because they are meant only for stairs and for drop-off edges like at stages.
94. Stairs:
    1. stairs that are comfortable for many adults may be challenging for children, seniors or persons of short stature.
    2. the leading edge of each step (aka nosing) shall not present tripping hazards, particularly to persons with prosthetic devices or those using canes and will have a bright colour contrast to the rest of the horizontal step surface.
    3. each stair in a staircase will use the same height and depth, to avoid creating tripping hazards.
    4. the rise between stairs will always be smooth, so that shoes will not catch on an abrupt edge causing a tripping hazard. These spaces will always be closed as open stairs create a tripping hazard. The top of all stair entry points will have a tactile attention indicator surface, to ensure the drop-off is identified for those who are blind or distracted.
    5. handrails will aid all users navigating stairways safely. Handrails will be provided on both sides of all stairs and will be provided at both the traditional height as well as a second lower rail for children or people who are shorter. These will be in a high colour contrasting colour and round in shape, without sharp edges or interruptions.

Accessible design for interior building elements – washroom facilities recommendations

The following should be required:

95. General washroom requirements
    1. washroom facilities will accommodate the range of people that will use the space. Although many persons with disabilities use toilet facilities independently, some may require assistance. Where the individual providing assistance is of the opposite gender then typical gender-specific washrooms are awkward, and so an individual washroom is required.
    2. parents and caregivers with small children and strollers also benefit from a large, individual washroom with toilet and change facilities contained within the same space.
    3. circumstances such as wet surfaces and the act of transferring between toilet and wheelchair or scooter can make toilet facilities accident-prone areas. An individual falling in a washroom with a door that swings inward could prevent his or her own rescuers from opening the door. Due to the risk of accidents, emergency call buttons are vital in all washrooms.
    4. the appropriate design of all features will ensure the usability and safety of all toilet facilities.
    5. the identification of washrooms will include pictograms for children or people who cannot read. All signage will include braille that translates the text on the print sign, and not only the room number.
    6. there are three types of washrooms. Single use accessible washrooms, single use universal washrooms, and multi-use stalled washrooms. The number and types of washrooms used in a facility will be determined by the number of users. There will always at least be one universal washroom on each floor.
    7. all washrooms will have doors with power door opening buttons. No door washrooms will be hard to identify for people who have vision loss.
    8. stall washrooms accessible-sized stalls – At least two accessible stalls shall be provided in each washroom to avoid long wait times. Schools with accessible education programs that include a large percentage of people with mobility disabilities should to have all stalls sized to accommodate a turn circle and the transfer space beside the toilet.
    9. all washrooms near rooms that will be used for public events shall include a baby change table that is accessible to all users, not placed inside a stall. It shall be colour contrasted with the surroundings and usable for those in a seated mobility device and or of shorter stature.
    10. at least one universal washroom will include an adult-sized change table, with the washroom located near appropriate facilities in the school and any public event spaces. These are important for some adults with disabilities and for children with disabilities who are too large for the baby change tables. This helps prevent anyone from needing to be changed lying on a bathroom floor.
    11. where shower stalls are provided, these shall include accessible-sized stalls.
    12. portable toilets at special events shall all be accessible. At least one will include an adult-sized change table.
96. Washroom stalls:
    1. size: manoeuvrability of a wheelchair or scooter is the principal consideration in the design of an accessible stall. The increased size of the stall is required to ensure there is sufficient space to facilitate proper placement of a wheelchair or scooter to accommodate a person transferring transfer onto the toilet from their mobility device. There may also be instances where an individual requires assistance. Thus, the stall will have to accommodate a second person.
    2. stall door swings are normally outward for safety reasons and space considerations. However, this makes it difficult to close the door once inside. A handle mounted part way along the door makes it easier for someone inside the stall to close the door behind them.
    3. minimum requirements for non-accessible toilet stalls are included to ensure that persons who do not use wheelchairs or scooters can be adequately accommodated within any toilet stall.
    4. universal features include accessible hardware and a minimum stall width to accommodate persons of large stature or parents with small children.
97. Toilets:
    1. automatic flush controls are preferred. If flushing mechanisms are not automated, flushing controls shall be on the transfer side of the toilet, with colour contrasted and lever style handles.
    2. children-sized toilets and accessible child-sized toilets will be required in kindergarten areas either within the classroom or immediately adjacent to the facilities.
98. Sinks:
    1. each accessible sink shall be on an accessible path of travel that other people, using other sinks or features (like hand-dryers), are not positioned to block.
    2. the sink, sink controls, soap dispenser and towel dispenser should all be at an accessible height and location and should all be automatic controls that do not require physical contact.
    3. while faucets with remote-eye technology may initially confuse some individuals, their ease of use is notable. Individuals with hand strength or dexterity difficulties can use lever-style handles.
    4. for an individual in a wheelchair and younger children, a lower counter height and clearance for knees under the counter are required.
    5. the insulating of hot water pipes shall be assured to protect the legs of an individual using a wheelchair. This is particularly important when a disability impairs sensation such that the individual would not sense that their legs were being burned.
    6. the combination of shallow sinks and higher water pressures can cause unacceptable splashing at lavatories.
99. Urinals:
    1. each urinal needs to be on an accessible path of travel with clear floor space in front of each accessible urinal to provide the manoeuvring space for a mobility device.
    2. urinal grab bars shall be provided to assist individuals rising from a seated position and others to steady themselves.
    3. floor-mounted urinals accommodate children and persons of short stature as well as enabling easier access to drain personal care devices.
    4. flush controls, where used, will be automatic preferred. Strong colour contrasts shall be provided between the urinal, the wall and the floor to assist persons with vision loss/no vision.
    5. in stall washrooms with Urinals, all urinals will be accessible with lower rim heights. For primary schools the urinal should be full height from floor to upper rim to accommodate children. Stalled washrooms with urinals will have an upper rim at the same height as typical non-accessible urinals to avoid the mess taller users can make. All urinals will provide vertical grab bars which are colour contrasted to the walls. Where dividers between urinals are used, the dividers will be colour contrasted to the walls as well.
100. Showers:
     1. roll-in or curb less shower stalls shall be provided to eliminate the hazard of stepping over a threshold and are essential for persons with disabilities who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices in the shower.
     2. grab bars and non-slip materials shall be included as safety measures that will support any individual.
     3. colour contrasted hand-held shower head and a water-resistant folding bench shall be included to assist persons with disabilities. These are also convenient for others.
     4. other equipment that has contrasting colour from the shower stall shall be included to assist individuals with vision loss/no vision.
     5. shower floor drain locations will be located to avoid room flooding when they may get blocked.
     6. colour contrast will be provided between the floor and the walls in the shower to assist with wayfinding.
     7. shower curtains will be used for individual showers instead of doors as much as possible as it.
     8. where showers are provided in locker rooms each locker room will include at least one accessible shower, but an additional individual shower room will be provided immediately adjacent to allow for those with opposite sex attendants to assist them with the appropriate privacy.

Accessible design for interior building elements – specific room requirements recommendations

101. Performance stages
     The following should be required:
     1. elevated platforms, such as stage areas, speaker podiums, etc., shall be accessible to all.
     2. a clear accessible route will be provided along the same path of access for those who are not using mobility assistive devices as those who do. Lifts will not be used to access stage or raised platforms, unless the facility is retrofitting an existing stage and it is not technically possible to provide access by other means.
     3. the stage shall include safety features to assist persons with vision loss or those momentarily blinded by stage lights from falling off the edge of a raised stage, such as a colour contrasted raised lip along the edge of the stage.
     4. lecterns shall be accessible with an adjustable height surface, knee space and accessible audio visual (AV) and information technology (IT) equipment. Lecterns shall have a microphone that is connected to an assistive listening system, such as a hearing loop. The office and/or presentation area will have assistive listening units available for those who may request them, for example people who are hard of hearing but not yet wearing hearing aids.
     5. lighting shall be adjustable to allow for a minimum of lighting in the public seating area and backstage to allow those who need to move or leave with sufficient lighting at floor level to be safe.
102. Sensory rooms
     The following should be required:
     1. sensory rooms will be provided in a central location on each floor where there are classrooms or public meeting spaces.
     2. they will be soundproof and identified with accessible signage.
     3. the interior walls and floor will be darker in colour, but colour contrast will be used to distinctly differentiate the floor from the wall and the furniture.
     4. lighting will be provided on a dimmer to allow for the room to be darkened.
     5. weighted blankets will be available along with a variety of different seating options including beanbag chairs or bouncy seat balls.
     6. they will provide a phone or other two-way communication to call for assistance if needed.
103. Offices, work areas and meeting rooms
     The following should be required:
     1. offices providing services or programs to the public will be accessible to all, regardless of mobility or functional needs. Offices and related support areas shall be accessible to staff and visitors with disabilities.
     2. all people, but particularly those with hearing loss/persons who are hard-of-hearing, will benefit from having a quiet acoustic environment – background noise from mechanical equipment such as fans, shall be designed to be minimal. Telephone equipment that supports the needs of individuals with hearing and vision loss shall be available.
     3. the provision of assistive speaking devices is important for the range of individuals who may have difficulty with low vocal volume thus affecting production of normal audible levels of sound. Where offices and work areas and small meeting rooms do not have assistive listening, such as hearing loops permanently installed, portable assistive hearing loops shall be available at the office.
     4. tables and workstations shall provide the knee space requirements of an individual in a mobility assistive device. Adjustable height tables allow for a full range of user needs. Circulation areas shall accommodate the spatial needs of mobility equipment as large as scooters to ensure all areas and facilities in the space can be reached with appropriate manoeuvring and turning spaces.
     5. natural coloured task lighting, such as that provided through halogen bulbs, shall be used wherever possible to facilitate use by all, especially persons with low vision.
     6. in locations where reflective glare may be problematic, such as large expanses of glass with reflective flooring, blinds that can be louvered upwards shall be provided. Controls for blinds shall be accessible to all and usable with a closed fist without pinching or twisting.
104. Outdoor athletic and recreational facilities
     The following should be required:
     1. areas for outdoor recreation, leisure and active sport participation shall be designed to be available to all members of the school community.
     2. outdoor spaces will allow persons with a disability to be active participants, as well as spectators, volunteers and members of staff. Spaces will be accessible including boardwalks, trails and footbridges, pathways, parks, parkettes and playgrounds, parks, parkettes and playgrounds, grandstand and other viewing areas, and playing fields.
     3. assistive listening will be provided where game or other announcements will be made for all areas including the change room, player, coach and public areas.
     4. noise cancelling headphones shall be available to those with sensory disabilities.
     5. outdoor exercise equipment will include options for those with a variety of disabilities including those with temporary disabilities undergoing rehabilitation.
     6. seating and like facilities shall be inclusive and allow for all members of a disabled sports team to sit together in an integrated way that does not segregate anyone.
     7. seating and facilities will be inclusive and allow for all members of a sports team of persons with disabilities to sit together in an integrated way that does not segregate anyone.
105. Arenas, halls and other indoor recreational facilities
     The following should be required:
     1. areas for recreation, leisure and active sport participation will be accessible to all members of the community.
     2. assistive listening will be provided where game or other announcements will be made for all areas including the change room, player, coach and public areas.
     3. noise cancelling headphones will be available to those with sensory disabilities.
     4. access will be provided throughout outdoor facilities including to; playing fields and other sports facilities, all activity areas, outdoor trails, swimming areas, play spaces, lockers, dressing/change rooms and showers.
     5. interior access will be provided to halls, arenas, and other sports facilities, including access to the site, all activity spaces, gymnasia, fitness facilities, lockers, dressing/change rooms and showers.
     6. spaces will allow persons with disabilities to be active participants, as well as spectators, volunteers and members of staff.
     7. indoor exercise equipment will include options for those with a variety of disabilities including those with temporary disabilities who are undergoing rehabilitation.
     8. seating and facilities will be inclusive and allow for all members of a sports team of persons with disabilities to sit together in an integrated way that does not segregate or stigmatize anyone.
106. Swimming pools
     The following should be required:
     1. primary considerations for accommodating persons who have mobility impairments include accessible change facilities and a means of access into the water. Ramped access into the water is preferred over lift access, as it promotes integration (everyone will use the ramp) and independence.
     2. persons with low vision benefit from colour and textural surfaces that are detectable and safe for both bare feet or those wearing water shoes. These surfaces will be provided along primary routes of travel leading to access points such as pool access ladders and ramps.
     3. tactile surface markings and other barriers will be provided at potentially dangerous locations, such as the edge of the pool, at steps into the pool and at railings.
     4. floors will be slip resistant to help those who are unsteady on their feet and everyone even in wet conditions.
107. Cafeterias
     The following should be required:
     1. cafeteria serving lines and seating area designs shall reflect the lower sight lines, reduced reach, knee-space and manoeuvring requirements of a person using a wheelchair or scooter. Patrons using mobility devices may not be able to hold a tray or food items while supporting themselves on canes or while manoeuvring a wheelchair.
     2. if tray slides are provided, they will be designed to move trays with minimal effort.
     3. food signage will be accessible.
     4. all areas where food is ordered and picked up will be designed to meet accessible service counter requirements.
     5. self-serve food will be within the reach of people who are shorter or using seated mobility assistive devices.
     6. where trays are provided, a tray cart that can be attached to seated assistive mobility devices or a staff assistant solution that is readily available shall be available on demand, because carrying trays and pushing a chair or operating a motorized assistive device can be difficult or impossible.
108. Libraries
     The following should be required:
     1. all service counters shall provide accessibility features
     2. study carrels will accommodate the knee-space and armrest requirements of a person using a mobility device.
     3. computer catalogues, carrels and workstations will be provided at a range of heights, to accommodate persons who are standing or sitting, as well as children of different ages and sizes.
     4. workstations shall be equipped with assistive technology such as large displays, screen readers, to increase the accessibility of a library.
     5. book drop-off slots shall be at different heights for standing and seated use with accessible signage, to enhance usability.
109. Teaching spaces and classrooms
     The following should be required:
     1. students, teachers and staff with disabilities will have accessibility to teaching and classroom facilities, including teaching computer labs.
     2. all teaching spaces and classrooms will provide power door operators and assistive listening systems such as hearing loops.
     3. additional considerations may be necessary for spaces and/or features specifically designated for use by students with disabilities, such as accessibility standards accommodations for complex personal care needs.
     4. students teachers and staff with disabilities will be accommodated in all teaching spaces throughout the school.
     5. this accessibility will include the ability to enter and move freely throughout the space, as well as to use the various built-in elements within (such as, blackboards and/or whiteboards, switches, computer stations, sinks, etc.). Classroom and meeting rooms must be designed with enough room for people with mobility devices to comfortably move around.
     6. individuals with disabilities frequently use learning aids and other assistive devices that require a power supply. Additional electrical outlets shall be provided throughout teaching spaces to accommodate the use of such equipment.
     7. except where it is impossible, fixtures, fittings, furniture and equipment will be specified for teaching spaces, which is usable by students, faculty, teaching assistants and staff with disabilities.
     8. providing only one size of seating does not reflect the diversity of body types of our society. Offering seats with an increased width and weight capacity is helpful for persons of large stature. Seating with increased legroom will better suit individuals that are taller. Removable armrests can be helpful for persons of larger stature as well as individuals using wheelchairs that prefer to transfer to the seat.
110. Laboratories will provide, in addition to the requirements for classrooms, additional accessibility considerations may be necessary for spaces and/or features in laboratories.
111. Waiting and queuing areas
     The following should be required:
     1. queuing areas for information, tickets or services will permit persons who use wheelchairs, scooters and other mobility devices as well as for persons with a varying range of user ability to easily move through the line safely.
     2. all lines shall be accessible.
     3. waiting and queuing areas will provide space for mobility devices, such as wheelchairs and scooters.
     4. queuing lines that turn corners or double back on themselves will provide adequate space to manoeuvre mobility devices.
     5. handrails, not flexible guidelines, with high colour contrast will be provided along queuing lines, because they are a useful support for individuals and guidance for those with vision loss.
     6. benches in waiting areas shall be provided for individuals who may have difficulty with standing for extended periods.
     7. assistive listening systems will be provided, such as hearing loops, will be provided along with accessible signage indicating this service is available.
112. Information, reception and service counters
     The following should be required:
     1. all information, reception and service counters will be accessible to the full range of visitors. Where adjustable height furniture is not used, a choice of fixed counter heights will provide a range of options for a variety of persons. Lowered sections will serve children, persons of short stature and persons using mobility devices such as a wheelchair or scooter. The choice of heights will also extend to any speaking ports and writing surfaces.
     2. counters will provide knee space under the counter to accommodate a person using a wheelchair or a scooter.
     3. the provision of assistive speaking and listening devices is important for the range of individuals who may have difficulty with low vocal volume thus affecting production of normal audible levels of sound. The space where people are speaking will have appropriate acoustic treatment to ensure the best possible conditions for communication. Both the public and staff sides of the counter will have good lighting for the faces to help facilitate lip reading.
     4. colour contrast will be provided to delineate the public service counters and speaking ports for people with low vision.

Accessible design for interior building elements – other features recommendations

113. Lockers
     The following should be required:
     1. lockers will be accessible with colour contrast and accessible signage.
     2. in change rooms an accessible bench will be provided in close proximity to lockers.
     3. lockers at lower heights serve the reach of children or a person using a wheelchair or scooter.
     4. the locker operating mechanisms will be at an appropriate height and operable by individuals with restrictions in hand dexterity (such as, operable with a closed fist).
114. Storage, shelving and display units
     The following should be required:
     1. the heights of storage, shelving and display units will address a full range of vantage points including the lower sightlines of children or a person using a wheelchair or scooter. The lower heights also serve the lower reach of these individuals.
     2. displays and storage along a path of travel that are too low can be problematic for individuals that have difficulty bending down or who are blind. If these protrude too much into the path of travel, each will protect people with the use of a trip free cane detectable guard.
     3. appropriate lighting and colour contrast are particularly important for persons with vision loss.
     4. signage provided will be accessible with braille, text, colour contrast and tactile features.
115. Public address systems
     The following should be required:
     1. public address systems will be designed to best accommodate all users, especially those that may be hard of hearing. They will be easy to hear above the ambient background noise of the environment with no distortion or feedback. Background noise or music will be minimized.
     2. technology for visual equivalents of information being broadcast will be available for individuals with hearing loss/persons who are hard-of-hearing who may not hear an audible public address system.
     3. classrooms, library, hallways, and other areas will have assistive listening equipment that is tied into the general public address system.
116. Emergency exits, fire evacuation and areas of rescue assistance
     The following should be required:
     • 116.1 in order to be accessible to all individuals, emergency exits will include the same accessibility features as other doors. The doors and routes will be marked in a way that is accessible to all individuals, including those who may have difficulty with literacy, such as children or persons speaking a different language.
     • 116.2 persons with vision loss/no vision will be provided a means to quickly locate exits – audio or talking signs could assist.
     • 116.3 Areas of rescue assistance
       1. in the event of fire when elevators cannot be used, areas of rescue assistance shall be provided especially for anyone who has difficulty traversing sets of stairs.
       2. areas of rescue assistance will be provided on all floors above or below the ground floor.
       3. exit stairs will provide an area of rescue assistance on the landing with at least two spaces for people with mobility assistive devices sized to ensure those spaces do not block the exit route for those using the stairs.
       4. the number of spaces necessary on each floor that does not have an at-grade exit should be sized by the number of people on each floor.
       5. each area of refuge will provide a two-way communication system with both two-way video and audio to allow those using these spaces to communicate that they are waiting there and to communicate with fire safety services and or security.
       6. all signage associated with the area of rescue assistance will be accessible and include braille for all controls and information.
117. Other features
     The following should be required:
     • 117.1 Space and reach requirements
       1. the dimensions and manoeuvring characteristics of wheelchairs, scooters and other mobility devices will allow for a full array of equipment that is used by individuals to access and use facilities, as well as the diverse range of user ability.
     • 117.2 Ground and floor surfaces
       1. irregular surfaces, such as cobblestones or pea-gravel finished concrete, shall be avoided because they are difficult for both walking and pushing a wheelchair. Slippery surfaces are to be avoided because they are hazardous to all individuals and especially hazardous for seniors and others who may not be sure-footed.
       2. glare from polished floor surfaces is to be avoided because it can be uncomfortable for all users and can be a particular obstacle to persons with vision loss by obscuring important orientation and safety features. Pronounced colour contrast between walls and floor finishes are helpful for persons with vision loss, as are changes in colour/texture where a change in level or function occurs.
       3. patterned floors should be avoided, as they can create visual confusion.
       4. thick pile carpeting is to be avoided as it makes pushing a wheelchair very difficult. Small and uneven changes in floor level represent a further barrier to using a wheelchair and present a tripping hazard to ambulatory persons.
       5. openings in any ground or floor surface such as grates or grilles are to be avoided because they can catch canes or wheelchair wheels.
118. Universal design practices beyond typical accessibility requirements
     The following should be required:
     • 118.1 areas of refuge should be provided even when a building has a sprinkler system.
     • 118.2 no hangout steps* should ever be included in the building or facility.
       * Hangout steps are a socializing area that is sometimes used for presentations. It looks similar to bleachers. Each seating level is further away from the front and higher up but here people sit on the floor rather than on seats. Each seating level is about as deep as four stairs and about three stairs high. There is typically a regular staircase provided on one side that leads from the front or stage area to the back at the top. The stairs allow ambulatory people access to all levels of the seating areas, but the only seating spaces for those who use mobility assistive devices are at the front or at the top at the back, but these are not integrated in any way with the other seating options.
     • 118.3 there should never be “stramps.” A stramp is a staircase that someone has built a ramp running back and forth across. These create accessibility problems rather than solving them.
     • 118.4 rest areas should be differentiated from walking surfaces or paths by texture- and colour-contrast.
     • 118.5 keypads angled to be usable from both a standing and a seated position.
     • 118.6 finishes
       1. no floor-to-ceiling mirrors
       2. colour luminance contrast will be provided at least between:
          1. floor to wall
          2. door or door frame to wall
          3. door hardware to door
          4. controls to wall surfaces
     • 118.7 furniture – Arrange seating in square or round arrangement so all participants can see each other for those who are lip reading or using sign language.
     • 118.8 no sharp corners especially near turn circles or under surfaces where people will be sitting.
119. Requirements for public playgrounds on or adjacent to school property
     The following should be required:
     • 119.1 accessible path of travel from sidewalk and entry points to and throughout the play space. Tactile directional indicators would help as integrated path through large open spaces.
     • 119.2 accessible controlled access routes into and out of the play space.
     • 119.3 multiple ways to use and access play equipment.
     • 119.4 a mix of ground-level equipment integrated with elevated equipment accessible by a ramp or transfer platform.
     • 119.5 where stairs are provided, ramps to same area.
     • 119.6 no overhead hazards.
     • 119.7 ramp landings, elevated decks and other areas should provide sufficient turning space for mobility devices and include fun plan activities not just a view.
     • 119.8 space to park wheelchairs and mobility devices beside transfer platforms.
     • 119.9 space for a caregiver to sit beside a child on a slide or other play element.
     • 119.10 provide elements that can be manipulated with limited exertion.
     • 119.11 avoid recurring scraping or sharp clanging sounds such as the sound of dropping stones and gravel.
     • 119.12 avoid shiny surfaces as they produce a glare.
     • 119.13 colour luminance contrast will be provided at least at:
       1. different spaces throughout the play area.
       2. differentiate the rise and run on steps. include colour contrasting on the edge of each step.
       3. play space boundaries and areas where children should be cautious, such as around high traffic areas for example, slide exits.
       4. entry to play areas with shorter doors to help avoid hitting heads.
       5. tactile edges where there is a level change like at the top of the stairs or at a drop-off.
       6. transfer platforms.
       7. railings and handrails contrasted to the supports to make them easier to find.
       8. tripping hazards should be avoided but if they exist, providing colour contrast, to improve safety for all. this is more likely in an older playground.
       9. safe zones around swings, slide exits and other play areas where people are moving, that might not be noticed when people are moving around the playground.
     • 119.14 play surfacing materials under foot will be pour-in-place rubber surfacing that should be made of either:
       1. rubber Tile
       2. engineered wood fiber
       3. engineered carpet, artificial turf, and crushed rubber products
       4. sand
     • 119.15 accessible parking and curbs, where provided, at least one clearly marked accessible space positioned as close as possible to the playground on a safe, accessible route to the play space.
     • 119.16 accessible signage:
       1. accessible signage and raised line map at each entrance to the park.
       2. provide large colour contrasted text, pictograms, braille.
       3. provide signage at each play element with id text and braille, marked with a tactile attention paver to make it easier to find.
       4. identify the types of disability included at each play equipment/area.
     • 119.17 for caregivers:
       1. junior and senior play equipment within easy viewing of each other.
       2. sitting areas that offer a clear line of sight to play areas and equipment.
       3. clear lines of sight throughout the play space.
       4. access to all play areas in order to provide assistance.
       5. sitting areas with back support, arm rests and shade.
       6. benches and other sitting areas should be placed on a firm stable area for people using assistive devices such as wheelchairs.
     • 119.18 for service animals:
       1. nearby safe, shady places at rest area benches where service animals can wait with a caregiver with a clear view of their handlers when they are not assisting them.
       2. spaces where dogs can relive themselves – dog relief area with nearby garbage can.
     • 119.19 tips for swings:
       1. providing a safe boundary area around swings which is identified by surface material colour and texture.
       2. swings in a variety of sizes.
       3. accessible seat swings or basket swings that require transfer. If size and space allow provide two accessible swings for friends with disabilities to swing together. Platform swings eliminate the need to transfer should be integrated.
     • 119.20 tips for slides:
       1. double slides (side by side) allow caregivers to accompany and, if needed, to offer support.
       2. slide exits should not be directed into busy play areas.
       3. transfer platforms at the base of slide exits.
       4. seating spaces with back support adjacent to the slide exit where children/caregivers can wait for their mobility device to be retrieved.
       5. metal versus plastic slides (metal slides avoid static electricity which damaged cochlear implants, while sun exposure can leave metal slide hot, so shade devices are vital).
       6. roller slides are usually gentler in slope and provide both a tactile and sliding experience or an avalanche inclusive slide.

Timeline: six months for all recommendations

Section eight: Planning for emergencies and safety framework

The current COVID‑19 pandemic has provided an opportunity to test and evaluate the education system preparedness for a large-scale emergency. From feedback and experience, the first seven months of the COVID‑19 pandemic has shown that the education system was not ready to ensure the needs for students with disabilities were effectively met and accommodated during an emergency. Barriers and gaps identified by the Education Accessibility K-12 Standards Committee related to students with disabilities were heightened or increased. Additional barriers were also identified by committee members. As a result of these observations, the K-12 committee created the Planning for Emergencies and Safety Working group to identify additional barriers faced by students with disabilities during the pandemic and make recommendations to ensure that the needs of students with disabilities are met during any emergency, when the emergency affects the ability to delivery education and health services.

The Planning for Emergencies and Safety Working Group gathered resources from experts including A Strategic Framework for Emergency Preparedness – World Health Organization, Emergency Response Plans, Ministry of Solicitor General, Ontario Health Plan for an Influenza Pandemic, and barriers and gaps identified through experiential learning from COVID‑19 to develop recommendations to support a the development of strategic framework for preparing for emergencies and safety for students with disabilities.

Recommendations from previous sections in the committee report along with key principles from the WHO’s Strategic Framework for Emergency Preparedness was applied when making recommendations for emergency planning. Recommendations are organized in this section based on the four phases of the emergency management process.

It is important to note that implementation of recommendations within this section of the report would benefit all students; not just students with disabilities during an event of an emergency and assumes that the recommendations would be integrated in an education system wide emergency plan.

Section eight recommendations

By learning from innovations and emergency processes, systems can adapt and scale up the more effective solutions. In doing so, they could become more effective, more agile, and more resilient

(COVID‑19 Pandemic: shocks to education and policy responses, World Bank)

The current COVID‑19 pandemic has provided an opportunity to test and evaluate the education system preparedness for a large-scale emergency. From feedback and experience, the first 7 months of the COVID‑19 pandemic has shown that the education system was not ready to ensure the needs for students with disabilities were effectively met and accommodated during an emergency. Barriers and gaps identified by the Education Accessibility K-12 Standards Committee related to students with disabilities were heightened or increased as noted in the report from the Accessibility Education K-12 Committee, Planning for Emergencies & Safety Working Group COVID‑19 Barriers for Students with Disabilities & Recommendations, July 2020.

Under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, each ministry is required to develop an Emergency Response Plan. As students return to school and return-to-school plans are enacted, it is important for that an evaluation of Ontario’s education system emergency response to the COVID‑19 pandemic on the education system be undertaken and that the results of the evaluation be used to inform the revision or development of emergency plans for future events.

The following discussion and recommendations build upon lessons learned during COVID‑19 pandemic and provides long term recommendations that should be in place in the event of any future emergencies.

120. We recommend: The Ministry of Education review its Emergency Response Plan for the delivery of education and health services during an emergency that meets learning needs of all students with disabilities during an emergency. To ensure continued learning, health and wellbeing during an emergency event, this plan should include and incorporate:
     1. an outline of the functional structure, roles and responsibilities for all stakeholders in the delivery of education and health services during an emergency and ensure the safety of students with disabilities.
     2. an all-hazard approach to address different emergency events and the continued delivery of education and health services for students with disabilities.
     3. a collaborative, coordinated, multilevel government and education inter-sectoral approach to the development of an emergency plan for all types of emergencies that is responsive and inclusive and reduces or limits consequences or impact of an emergency event for students with disabilities.
     4. various options to delivering education and health services (for example, normal school day with enhances health protocols, modified school day routine based on smaller class sizes, cohorting and alternative day or week delivery, at-home learning with ongoing enhanced remote delivery) depending on the type of hazard.
     5. measures to address the possible surge in demand and increase capacity to provide specialized disability supports, including enhanced staffing, for the return to in-class and distance learning (increase in in-class supports, social workers, psychologists, guidance counsellors).
     6. collection and maintenance on status of affected students and schools, capacity of and condition of infrastructure to support continued learning for students with disabilities.
     7. provision of digital resources and any communications during an emergency event is in a format that is accessible to students with disabilities and their parents.
     8. an outline for all points of transition (virtual to online, elementary to secondary, secondary to work, secondary to postsecondary, etc.) are continued and supported during and post emergency for students with disabilities.
     9. student voice in the development of the emergency plan.

Timeline: 18 months

Preamble: as the pandemic progressed, Ministries had to develop individual guidelines and/or policies to help school board create back to school plans and protocols for COVID‑19 management. The education sector, parents and students’ anxieties increased as there appeared to be an inconsistent approach to school plans, remote learning, etc. from school board to school board.

121. We recommend: In collaboration with other ministries, The Ministry of Education should develop an Emergency Plan Guideline for school boards and school authorities that outlines principles and elements for developing a responsive and effective emergency plan and process to anticipate, respond to and recovery from impacts of an emergency so that:
     1. it identifies all potential hazards that may cause an emergency event that may disrupt usual operations of the education system and addresses them to mitigate risks and consequences for students with disabilities.
     2. during an emergency where there is a disruption to the usual operations of Ontario's education system, the Strategic Emergency Framework ensures students with disabilities will be able to access, fully participate in and fully benefit from all educational programming that is provided to Ontario students.
     3. the needs of students with disabilities will be fully included and addressed in any emergency plan developed to ensure continued and consistent access to education and health support services.
     4. there will be collaboration and include an education inter-sectorial approach to stakeholder engagement to allow for an integrated and unified approach to the development of emergency plans by school boards across the province.
     5. includes a process to assess emergency preparedness and response or operational review in the delivery of education and health services after an emergency to support continuous improvement to emergency responses, sharing of resources, emergency plans, emergency preparedness training exercises, and experiences.
     6. the Guideline for Emergency Plans for School Boards be developed with a specific focus on students with disabilities and utilizes lessons learned from COVID‑19 and previous reports to lay out a planning and implementation process that the government and school boards can use to strengthen their policies, strategic and operational plans in supporting students with disabilities.
     7. as there are significant differences in the education delivery model between secondary and elementary, the Guideline for Emergency Plans for School Boards should be developed to incorporate those differences.
     8. the Guideline for Emergency Plans for School Boards allows and enhances an interlinked, coordinated and inter-sectorial education approach in providing a seamless service delivery model to provide services and supports to students with disabilities (Psychology, Physical Therapy, Speech Therapy, Mental Health, etc.) during an emergency event.
     9. once the guideline for emergency plans for School Boards is developed, School Boards will review and revise their emergency plans to reflect the Ministry of Education’s Guidelines.

Timeline: 18 months

121. Disability and accessibility should be front and centre in the upcoming review of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act. The Solicitor General, who is responsible for Emergency Management, should involve persons with disabilities. It should involve the Accessibility Standards Advisory Committee. The same process should occur when the Fire Code is reviewed next.

Note: no timeline suggested as lead would not be the Ministry of Education and falls out of the mandate of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee.

123. 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:
     1. documenting the response by the ministry and school boards to supporting students with disabilities.
     2. 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.
     3. identifying key decision points and changes in response activities.
     4. surveying key stakeholders, including student voice about the effectiveness of key response activities.
     5. 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.
     6. making recommendations for future emergency planning and preparedness.

     Timeline: immediate

124. 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-12 Standards Development Committee and supported by Ministry of Education staff.
     Timeline: immediate
125. 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.
     Timeline: immediate
126. The Government of Ontario shall be responsible to ensure that lessons learned, and recommendations are used to inform future emergency planning and preparations.
     Timeline: immediate
127. This process to assess response to emergencies shall be used after each future provincial level emergency that impacts students with disabilities.
     Timeline: immediate

Emergency management system recommendations

By learning from innovations and emergency processes, systems can adapt and scale up the more effective solutions. In doing so, they could become more effective, more agile, and more resilient” (quoted from the COVID‑19 Pandemic: shocks to education and policy responses, World Bank)

Emergency management does not only include the response to an emergency event but is a continuous and ongoing cycle of four major stages. Each stage informs the other, are fluid and interactive.
The four stages are: 1) Mitigation and Prevention, 2) Planning and Preparedness, 3) Response and 4) Recovery.

This section of the report addresses the need to include the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee provisions and recommendations from the Planning for Emergencies Working Group to ensure that the need for students with disabilities are met during an emergency, when the emergency affects the ability to delivery education and health services.

Recommendations below are made in the context of the four phases of the emergency management process.

Stage one - mitigation and prevention

The mitigation and prevention stage include actions to eliminate or reduce hazards and their impacts should an emergency occur. It should be considered as an ongoing process, requiring monitoring and updating. This involves a hazard risk assessment is the process to identify hazardous events or situations with potential harm, the likelihood and severity of hazards to occur, and analysis of what could happen if a hazard occurs to identify weakness or vulnerabilities.

128. The outcomes of risk assessment should include:
     1. identification of relevant hazards and risks to the delivery and education and health services for students with disabilities.
     2. assessment of the level of impact and consequences of the hazards and risks for the delivery of education for students with disabilities, all students, staff, parents/caregivers, teachers, delivery of health services, confidence of the community.
     3. analysis of the capabilities and capacity available (preparedness) for mitigating hazards and risks to the delivery of education and health services for students with disabilities.
     4. priority setting for mitigation, planning response and recover of the delivery of education and health services.
     5. development of plans to address the identified hazards and risks through mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery strategies/activities
     6. an understanding of community/organization’s risk to deliver education services for students with disabilities.
     7. assessment of existing safety status of existing mitigation structures (buildings, information technology, utility systems, supply systems, material, etc.).

Data collection and analysis of data collected pre, during and post emergency event is required to make informed evidence-based decisions in developing of emergency plans and to take action in responding to and mitigate risks during an emergency event.

Recommendations for risk assessment

It is important when conducting a risk assessment prior to developing an emergency plan, that the process in inclusive and collaborative and involves all stakeholders in the provision of education and health services, students, staff, teachers, community education providers, etc.

To prepare for any potential emergency, it is recommended that:

129. The Ministry of Education perform a risk assessment to identify relevant potential hazards and risks, capabilities, and capacity for the delivery of education and health support services for students with disabilities.
     Timeline: 18 months
130. The risk assessment process be inclusive and collaborative and involve stakeholders in the delivery of education and health services and persons with or represent persons with disabilities.
     Timeline: 18 months
131. That the report from the Independent Review Committee (recommendation 4) be utilized as a resource for the Ministry of Education in performing a risk assessment.
     Timeline: 18 months
132. School Boards perform a risk assessment to identify relevant potential hazards, risks, capabilities, and capacity for the delivery of education and health service supports for students with disabilities in an emergency event.
     Timeline: 18 months
133. School Board’s risk assessment process be inclusive and collaborative and involve local stakeholders in the delivery of education and health services for students with special needs including local health, education service providers, Special Education Advisory Committee and/or Accessibility Committee and students with learned experience with disabilities.
     Timeline: 18 months
134. The report from the Independent Review Committee be utilized as a resource for School Boards when performing a risk assessment.
     Timeline: 18 months

Stage 2 - planning and preparedness

Preparedness and planning involve ensuring that processes, school boards, schools and education and health services providers, students, parents and the community are ready to respond to an emergency. Using the information and data collected in the mitigation and prevention phase, it is critical that detailed plans developed involve collaboratively working with representatives of all parties who will be impacted, including ministries involved in the delivery of education and health services, education sector community partners, school boards, school communities, students, and parents. Training and organizing staff and volunteers are critical.

Recommendations planning:

In addition to the recommendations outlined in Key Recommendations to Emergency Planning, it is recommended that:

135. For efficiency and to maintain infrastructure to support online learning during an emergency, The Ministry of Education should immediately engage an arms-length digital accessibility consultant to evaluate the comparative accessibility of different digital learning and virtual learning environments or platforms available for use in Ontario schools.
     Timeline: immediate
136. The Ministry of Education should provide a list of acceptable accessible, cross platform virtual learning environments and synchronous teaching systems to be used by school boards to ensure remote access to education services during an emergency. This list should be regularly reviewed within the emergency management cycle and updated as technology and applications continually evolve, and capabilities increase.
     Timeline: immediate
137. 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.
     Timeline: one year
138. 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.
     Timeline: immediate
139. The government enhance and update the central hub of mental health and wellbeing information resources at provincial and regional levels with key messages and links to other resources to ensure they are readily available during an emergency. Ensure all resources are in an accessible digital format (as per Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation, O. Reg. 191/11), well publicised and shared with school boards.
     Timeline: six months
140. Ministries should ensure there is enough capacity and infrastructure backup plans for Ontario Telehealth Network (OTN) and other privacy protected health platforms to allow for school boards to use and deliver services by regulated health care professionals that protect the privacy of the health services and Identification, Placement, and Review Committees.
     Timeline: one year
141. 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.
     Timeline: one year
142. 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.
     Timeline: immediate
143. 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.
     Timeline: immediate
144. 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.
     Timeline: immediate
145. School Boards should assess and document accommodations, modifications, resources and supports for all students with disabilities to plan for continuation of learning in virtual environment in the event of an emergency or transition back to school after an emergency.
     Timeline: immediate
146. School Boards should independently collect board wide data on gaps, barriers, emerging issues, transition challenges, technology challenges, additional students’ needs and supports as a result of an emergency event through assessment, student and parent feedback to address and plan for system wide supports and services required by students with disabilities to allow for continuous improvement of emergency response plans.
     Timeline: one year
147. 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.
     Timeline: one year
148. School Boards should provide focused, practical training for administrators and teachers to support students with disabilities’ health, wellbeing and learning in a mixed or virtual environment during an emergency.
     Timeline: immediate
149. School Boards should provide administrators training and guidelines on supporting students with disabilities through transitioning and change during an emergency.
     Timeline: immediate

Preparedness:

Preparedness involves establishing roles and responsibilities for actions or functions carried out during an emergency and gathering the resources to support them. Investment in these resources requires investment for upkeeping. Staff must receive training and infrastructure must be maintained in working order. Infrastructure needs to be maintained to it can be function when needed during an emergency. Emergency management teams and personnel must be trained to function effectively and efficiently when need during an emergency through a program of tests, drills, and exercises.

It is important for everyone that is affected in an emergency event, including staff, students, parents, education community partners, health and safety organizations, know the emergency plan and how they are to act during an emergency. Training for all involved in important will ensure responses are implemented calmly and effectively during an actual emergency. Testing/practices or drills are critical to a successful response to an emergency.

Recommendations Preparedness

150. 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.
     Timeline: six months
151. The Ministry of Education shall pre-assign a communication lead to provide clear and consistent communication and guidance on expectations in education, health service delivery, etc. during an emergency.
     Timeline: six months
152. The government/Ministry of Education Emergency plans shall include a cross sectorial Partnership Table at provincial and regional levels with the responsibility for ensuring that the need of students with disabilities are viewed from a holistic perspective and that they have access to all accommodations and supports they require during any emergency. The Partnership Table will be responsible to integrate, coordinate and foster cross sector planning and response to emergencies. Responsibilities of this table are to:
     1. enhance an interlinked, coordinated and inter-ministerial approach in providing a seamless service delivery model to provide services and supports to students with disabilities (psychology, physical therapy, speech therapy, mental health, etc.)
     2. provide clear communication and guidance developed from evidence-based data on school opening, health service delivery, etc.

​​​​​Timeline: 18 months

153. Leadership tables (Command and Partnership) at the provincial level should include advisors that can provide insight on the needs and challenges of students with disabilities from lived experience and the collective experience of disability support groups, as well as students with disabilities.
     Timeline: 18 months
154. 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.
     Timeline: two years
155. School Board’s Emergency Plan should include pre-assigning a communication lead to provide clear and consistent communication and guidance on expectations in education, education and health service delivery model, updates on emergencies and action plans.
     Timeline: six months
156. The School Board Emergency Plan should include establishment of a Command/Central Table during an emergency that will be responsible for:
     1. 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.
157. 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.
158. 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.
159. 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.
     Timeline Note: No timelines have been set for recommendations 156-159 as actions to the recommendations should take place during an emergency event.

Stage 3 - responding to an emergency

Information access and the ongoing collection of data during an emergency is crucial to decision making and action plans during an emergency.

During an emergency, it is recommended that:

160. As soon as an emergency event occurs, the Ministry of Education’s Central Leadership Command Table and the Ministerial cross sectorial Partnership Table will assume their roles.
161. As identified in the Emergency Plan, the ministry’s assigned communication lead for emergencies will assume their role to provide consistent messaging and protocols on updates and responses to the emergency, return to school plans, etc. All communications should be accessible by all persons with disabilities.
162. 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.
163. The Ministry Central Leadership Command table will collect data on the emergency using evidence-based data collection methods for persons with disabilities. Data collected should include existing and emerging issues, impact on learning and student wellbeing, and effective responses of other jurisdictions in supporting students with disabilities during an emergency. Data will be analyzed to provide clear direction or action to be taken by School Board or share solutions in resolving issues for students with disabilities during an emergency.
164. The Ministerial cross sectorial Partnership Table collect data, from respective sectors, health services, education, service agencies, etc. to identify existing and emerging barriers, know exactly which students with disabilities and how they are impacted, their needs, and how to better direct resources to support them
165. The Ministry of Education should collect and aggregate International data, resources and information from other countries experiences for use in planning transitions between in-school and distance education, including continuation of virtual learning at home.
166. That the School Board’s communication lead assumes their role and provide clear communication around education delivery model, protocols and return to school plans. All communication should be made readily available in writing and accessible by everyone in the community, parents and students.
167. School Boards should independently collect board wide data on gaps, barriers, emerging issues, transition challenges, technology challenges, additional students’ needs and supports arising during an emergency through assessment, student and parent feedback to plan and take action for system wide supports and services required by students with disabilities during an emergency.

Timeline note: no timelines have been set for recommendations 160 to 167 as actions to the recommendations should take place during an emergency event.

Stage 4 - debriefing and revising

Emergency management is a continuous process of preparation, testing/practices and revision of emergency plans. Each step informs the others and are interconnected. To close an emergency cycle, it is important to debrief the emergency event to inform practice, improve response and revise an emergency plan.

In addition to the above recommendations, it is recommended that:

168. Ensure that after each emergency event, the Ministry of Education and School Boards ensure emergency plans are reviewed and updated with a focus on continued access to education and health services to support and accommodate the learning, health and wellbeing needs of students with disabilities.
169. Ministry of Education and School Boards ensure that all supplies, infrastructure and equipment for the continued provision of education and health services to students with disabilities are funded, replenished and maintained.
170. Ministry of Education and School Boards will ensure that debriefing includes receiving feedback from education sector providers supporting students with disabilities, as well as students with disabilities and their families.
171. Policy/Program Memorandum 164, provided direction to school boards on remote learning requirements, including implementation and reporting. It identifies effective practices that school boards should develop to support students with students with disabilities. The ministry and School boards should continue to collect feedback on remote learning from parents and students with disabilities to identify continued barriers and the implementation of the requirements.
172. 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. As Emergency Planning is a continuous cycle and learned experiences should be utilized to inform and improve practices to better prepare the education sector for future emergencies, it is recommended that:
173. The Ministry of Education should provide clear guidelines and expectations to school boards on the implementation of Public Health Guidelines to mitigate risks during an emergency event to ensure that school buildings and grounds be fully accessible for students with disabilities.
174. Ministries of Education, Health and Children, Community and Social Services should remove any cross-jurisdictional barriers related to the provision of health and education services to ensure students with disabilities can be provided with the mental health and wellbeing services they require to be delivered remotely during an emergency.
175. 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.
176. The Ministry of Education should develop guidelines that provide for alternate or enhanced childcare opportunities to be made available to families of students with a disability, for students required to stay home due to adapted model classroom scheduling during an emergency.
177. In the case of emergency School Boards, in consultation with Public Health Regional Health, must develop clear protocols and procedures with accommodations for students with disabilities for the detection, isolation, tracing and follow up those students who develop symptoms for the virus, flu, respiratory infection, etc.
178. School Boards should develop a clear system-wide plan to address increased classroom and school supports and services (Educational Assistants, Education Works, social workers, psychologists, guidance councillors) identified through assessments to help mitigate issues and support learning for students with disabilities during an emergency.
179. School Boards should develop protocols and procedures to mitigate security risks for online and virtual learning platforms to help protect privacy of students with disabilities and staff. Online and virtual learning platforms should also be accessible for all students with disabilities.
180. Many students and adults with disabilities volunteer at school events, school events, school daycares and kindergarten classes. School Boards should develop/review guidelines and health and safety protocols that mitigate risks for person with disabilities while allowing them to continue to volunteer during an emergency. Volunteer hours have a valued learning experience and provide opportunities for students and adults with disabilities to be contributing members of the community.
181. School Board should develop virtual learning opportunities for volunteering and co-op courses for students with disabilities during emergencies.
182. The Individual Education Plan is revised to detail, a 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 during an emergency.
183. School Boards should develop and/or review guidelines for transitions plans for students with disabilities to outline supports and accommodations that may be offered in a virtual learning environment or enhanced by online tools and resources to support the physical and emotions wellbeing of student with disabilities when transitioning back to school. Accommodations or strategies should be reviewed and adapted to the virtual learning environment to support transitions. (An example would be for students with disabilities have access to audio described (DV) and closed-captioned (CC) virtual tours of the school facilities, so students could familiarize themselves with the school prior to the start of school. (See also transition section).
184. In consultation with community agencies, School Boards should develop/revise procedures and protocols for volunteers and community agencies that support the health and wellbeing of students with disabilities continue to operate in the school (example, food nutrition programs, clothing exchanges, etc.)
     Timeline note: as recommendations are related to debriefing after an emergency event, the required action on the recommendations should take place three – six months after the emergency event.

Section nine: Timelines and accountability small group

The rationale for the Timelines and Accountability Group relates to the complex and demanding work to be completed by obligated organizations – school boards, transportation consortia, government ministries – with respect to implementation of the Education Accessibility Standards regulatory requirements by 2025. The group’s mandate was to develop an implementation framework, a set of accountability/compliance mechanisms for obligated organizations and specific timelines for the completion of the requirements of the Education Accessibility Standards.

Mandate of the small group:

To propose implementation timelines and accountability measures regarding the recommendations of the Education Accessibility Standards Committees for school boards, the College of Teachers and the Ontario government.

Overview:

The overall goal in this context is to assess the end result of the implementation of the Education Accessibility Standards, that is, whether obligated organizations have in fact removed and prevented disability barriers that impede students with disabilities to effectively be included in and fully participating in the opportunities that Ontario's public education system provides to students.

We use the formal language of “time from enactment of the regulation” instead of when the government accepts the recommendation. This means the group’s recommendation as incorporated into the Education Accessibility Standards regulation must be implemented within the timeframe suggested once the regulation is enacted.

Timeline categories:

• immediately from enactment of the Education Accessibility Standards regulation (“immediate”)
• six months from enactment (“six months”)
• one year from enactment (“one year”)
• 18 months from enactment (18 months)
• two years from enactment (“two years”)

Where a proposed timeline would make a specific obligation go into effect immediately, that means that the activity required must be in effect immediately upon the enactment of the Education Accessibility Standards. This is proposed where the recommendation relates to a duty that pre-dates this regulation being enacted, for example, under the Ontario Human Rights Code and/or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is also based on the fact that obligated organizations such as the Ministry of Education would be well aware of what will be expected of it long before this regulation is enacted. The Ministry of Education is expected to be fully involved in decisions within the government on what the final Education Accessibility Standards will include. The ministry has been fully aware of what the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee has been considering over the past three years, since it has a non-voting member on this committee. As well, it is expected that the ministry will give school boards ample advance notice of the expectations of school boards, long before this regulation is finally enacted.

Rationale for timelines:

Many of the recommendations, if included in the Education Accessibility Standards regulation, relate to practices the obligated organizations are currently implementing, for example, school boards have policies for using Universal Design for Learning and Differentiated Instruction for students with disabilities. That explains why we suggest the “immediate” timeframe. Or in the context of new capital projects, boards should within six months require prospective firms in the design and construction of schools to ensure full accessibility as outlined in the Group 7 report.

Curriculum change processes do require multi-year timelines; however, recent experience with changes to the math curriculum show that those processes can be accelerated in a reasonable fashion. Given the importance of removing barriers for students with disabilities, we have suggested ambitious timelines for consideration.

Ontario government ministries impacted:

• Ministry of education
• Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility
• minister of children, community and social services
• minister of health

Overview of regulatory and enforcement responsibilities under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005

Timeline issues

Under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 accessibility standards can set different timelines for different requirements. When it comes to a specific requirement, the accessibility standards can set different timelines for different categories of obligated organizations^{footnote 1[1]}. Typically, this focuses on whether an obligated organization is in the public sector or private sector or if they are larger or smaller. In the case of school boards, all are treated as public sector.

To measure which obligated organizations are larger or smaller, earlier Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 accessibility standards governing other areas have divided classes of obligated organizations by their number of employees. The K-12 Education Accessibility Standards Development Committee will aim to ensure accessibility for students with disabilities. The numbers of employees at a school board, however, is not an appropriate way to divide up or classify the size of school boards. A more appropriate approach for purposes of the K-12 Education Accessibility Standards is to divide school boards into classes based on their numbers of students.

When deciding how long the timeline should be for a specific provision in the K-12 Education Accessibility Standards, the following is taken into account:

• the standards’ requirements implement pre-existing duties under the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
• timelines should give a school board the requisite time to fulfill the requirement
• before specific timelines are set for each requirement in the standards, it is important to look at and take into account the totality of new actions that the K-12 Education Accessibility Standards will require of an obligated organization

Some earlier accessibility standards have required some measures to be taken immediately upon the standards being enacted. For example, the Transportation Accessibility Standards required public transit providers to begin announcing route stops immediately upon the enactment of those standards in 2011. The standards should require a measure to go into effect immediately on enactment of the standards, if no time is needed to begin compliance. This should take into account the fact obligated organizations will not have heard about these requirements for the first time when the accessibility standards are enacted. Its development has been a very public process. Its enactment will have been preceded by several public consultation processes.

In the case of some requirements, smaller school boards will need longer timelines than large school boards. This happens where a large school board has greater capacity to implement the measure more quickly than has a small school board.

In the case of some requirements, a small school board would be able to implement a measure more quickly than does a large school board such as, if is a more complicated process for larger boards. For example, a small organization can fix accessibility problems in a small website more quickly than can a large obligated organization with a much larger website.

Role of the Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility

We here start from and build upon the enforcement provisions that are included in the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 assigns responsibility for regulatory compliance and enforcement to the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario (ADO) at the Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility. As under any Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 accessibility standards, the ministry is responsible for assisting obligated organizations by providing guides, training materials and templates to enable them to effectively understand what the accessibility standards require them to do.

Compliance and enforcement processes undertaken by the directorate regularly involve a graduated step-by-step series of increasing measures to ensure that obligated organizations comply with a specific legal requirement. It is hoped that escalated measures won’t be needed. However, the knowledge that there are real and serious consequences for those who do not comply promotes compliance, especially for any who are otherwise more reluctant.

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, 2005. The second Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 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, 2005 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, 2005 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 Standards 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, 2005 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 Standards. It is important to assess the end result such as, 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.

Overview of definitions

Definition of accountability measures:

Implementation plans must include clearly stated qualitative and quantitative performance metrics to measure of the success or failure to implement a specific course of action or recommendation for school boards, government ministry and related third parties (student transportation consortia for example).

Definition of implementation:

Recommendations of the Education Accessibility Standards Development Committee approved by government are acted on (within set timelines) by those responsible parties — school boards, ministries. The government establishes working committees to develop PPMs to ensure consistent understanding of the requirements of the recommendations across school boards, while introducing compliance measures.

School boards:

For purposes of the Education Accessibility Standards Development Committee`s recommendations, school boards will be classified as large, medium and small, depending on the number of students served. Large boards will have a student population over 50,000, medium boards 20,000 to 50,000 and small boards under 20,000 students.

Timelines recommendations overview:

We think it is advisable to characterize the timelines for the implementation of Education Accessibility Standards Development Committee recommendations as follows:

1. immediately upon enactment of the regulation.
2. one year after enactment of the regulation.
3. two years after enactment of the regulation and/or with a gradual roll out to sector, based on size and capacity of the school board but no later than January 1, 2025.

All affected parties should begin implementation planning to reach the targeted deadline for implementing the recommendations prior to the formal enactment of the Education Accessibility Standards Regulation. This should ensure compliance with the suggested timeline requirements.

Accountability and compliance principles:

In general, accountability mechanisms can be broken down in the following manner:

• to whom the organization is accountable (public, government, regulators, committees of the governing board)
• what action, process or outcome the organization is accountable for securing
• when the organization will be assessed or measured (every quarter or annually)
• how the organization will be assessed or measured (key performance indicators, achieving specific milestones along a defined pathway).

Compliance mechanisms are ways in which an organization can be incentivized to be accountable. These can be in the form of penalties, audits, spot checks, reporting obligations, annual reviews and the expectation that one or more of these mechanisms will be enforced by the relevant regulatory authority.

All the actions we propose as part of the Standards are ones which should have been in place for years by the obligated organizations. Implementation of them good practices should be starting now, if not already underway.

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 Standards. It is important to assess the end result such as, 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

185. 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 Standards. 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 such as, 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 model implementation planning template).

Public reporting: school boards, college of teachers and government

186. In terms of reporting, each obligated organization should be directed by the Accessibility Directorate (Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility) to have a section on their web site that publicly reports on the implementation of the Standards. This could be in the form of an annual report, or a completion matrix of the organizations progress to date.
187. In addition, the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario (Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility) should be required to promptly make public a detailed, comprehensive annual and multi-year compliance/enforcement plan for the K-12 Education Accessibility Standards. It should publicly report quarterly on actions taken and actual accessibility improvements achieved.
188. 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, 2005 will be made available in an accessible format to the public.
189. 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 (Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility). 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.
190. Those appointed with Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 compliance/enforcement powers who will be addressing the implementation of the K-12 Education Accessibility Standards 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 Standards in order to get a building permit. The project should be checked for compliance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 and not just the Ontario Building Code in that process. In addition, the Accessibility Directorate (Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility) 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 Standards.

Internal: school boards

191. 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 six months. In addition, the implementation plan should also be tabled with the school board or board of trustees every six months until 2025 (during public board meetings). Student transportation consortia should also report to their respective school boards on their implementation plan.
192. 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

Role of the Ministry of Education

193. As noted above, the Accessibility Directorate (Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility) has regulatory authority to ensure compliance with Standards under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 of all obligated organizations, including government ministries. However, we believe that the ministry of education should play a support role in enabling the timely implementation of the Standards for school boards and the College of Teachers. For example, the Standards may require changes in the obligated organizations service animal policy and procedure. The ministry of education would be then directed by the Accessibility Directorate (Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility) to facilitate that policy review with boards and be required to revise its current PPM.
194. In addition, although the Accessibility Directorate (Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility) 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 Standards 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, 2005. Given the relatively short timelines for the full implementation of these recommendations (by 2025 at the latest), we are recommending:

195. The Accessibility Directorate (Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility) 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 Standards, and not just an audit of their paper records on accessibility documentation.
     The Accessibility Directorate (Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility) conduct “implementation reviews” of a select number of school boards and the College of Teachers within six 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 centres and have started to move forward with the implementation of the Standards.
196. The Accessibility Directorate (Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility) conduct a compliance review or audit of Government of Ontario on a quarterly basis.
197. Under s. 26 of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, the Government should designate a tribunal to hear appeals from monetary penalties and compliance orders under the K-12 Education Accessibility Standards 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, 2005 accessibility standards, because that commercial tribunal lacks the needed knowledge or expertise in the field of education for students with disabilities.