May 15, 2025
What the education system does not want you to know about the exclusion of ADHD students.
Mom Is Very Involved: Exploiting the Exclusion Provision
This blog is a little more complicated because it involves another youth, and I suspect she is not aware of how she may have been used to ostrasize my daughter.
What does the legislation say about discipline and exclusions?
Under the Code, “education providers have a duty to assess each student with a disability individually before imposing disciplinary sanctions. Disciplinary sanctions include detentions, exclusions, suspensions, expulsions, and other forms of punishment”.
The Education Act, clause 265(1)(m) permits a principal to “refuse to admit” to the school or to a class someone whose presence in the school would be “detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of the pupils”. This provision is frequently referred to as the “exclusion provision.”
This clause also states, “Exclusion is not to be used as a form of discipline. If a principal does decide that it is necessary to exclude a student from the school, the principal is expected to notify the student’s parents of the exclusion as soon as possible under the circumstances, and to inform them of their right to appeal under clause 265(1)(m).
There is an abundance of information on how students with special education needs are disproportionately suspended, expelled, and excluded when compared to their non-identified peers. Just last month, Community Living released a detailed report, Crisis In The Classroom, that highlights significant concerns related to the use of exclusion, seclusions, and restraints in Ontario classrooms.
This report states, “Unfortunately, less is known about the informal exclusion of students with disabilities from schools. Despite growing attention to and concern about students being excluded, Ontario Ministry of Education data is incomplete, inconsistent, and often unpublished.”
Informal exclusions are no different than a determination of guilt and a jail sentence without due process.
Take into consideration that as a member of the public, it is not our responsibility to know and understand the legislation that applies to every profession.
It is the responsibility of the profession and its governing bodies to know, understand, follow, and hold their members accountable to the legislation.
The VP who informed us of our daughter’s two informal exclusions never informed us that we could appeal this decision. She explained it to us like a favour.
Maybe you have heard this too: “It won’t impact her school record”.
What she should have said is that it won’t impact our school record.
This is both an alarming misrepresentation and a blatant violation of the laws governing educators.
This is how exclusion was used against my daughter the first time.
Nearing the end of January 2021, I received a call from the VP stating that my daughter had uttered a racial slur to another student.
As per the school, for a few weeks in grade 9, she was targeting a grade 11 student because of her race.
For context, my daughter has had no history of racially motivated aggression before or after this moment.
We will not deny that there was a conflict brewing between my daughter and this student.
They did not like each other; that was obvious.
When we obtained the school’s investigative notes, we learned what my daughter was alleged to have said.
We also learned that 1 person heard her. The person that it was allegedly directed at did not hear her, nor did any of the other interviewed students.
Whether or not we agreed with their version of events and actions, we understood our daughter was involved in this conflict and did not challenge the school’s decision.
We were not aware that exclusion could not be used as discipline.
Our compliance was not an informed choice.
This is how exclusion was used against my daughter the second time.
Once back at school, it wasn’t long before the conflict between my daughter and the student erupted again.
After serving her exclusion, my daughter was repeatedly called a white supremacist and racist by the other student and her peer group.
My daughter was vehemently denying the allegations, trying to protect her character.
I imagine the other student, believing she was a victim of racism, was trying to protect herself too.
While on their lunch break, hanging out at the local convenience store, they got into a yelling match.
The school’s investigative notes corroborate this, documenting that all the witnesses reported the same thing: both students equally engaged in the verbal confrontation. The only discrepancy relates to who started it. Predictably, each side blamed the other.
As they both made their way back to the school, separately, and in their respective groups, one of them initiated a physical altercation.
It was caught on video because, as you know, most students carry a phone.
This video, as you can imagine, went like wildfire through the school.
I know for certain that it was viewed by the VP and principal because I asked them.
The video showed my daughter walking and being pounced upon from behind by the other student.
It was clear as day.
So, how did the school handle this?
They disciplined my daughter. Only my daughter.
She was informally excluded for the second time.
This decision was made after the school officials locked her in a windowless room, without her phone, for an undetermined amount of time.
She said it was for hours. It may have been. Or it may have just felt like that.
We have no way of knowing how long she was kept in that room because they never documented it.
It didn’t stop there.
I received a call from the community police officer. He shared that the school reported the altercation and that he had followed up with the victim’s family.
They had kindly decided not to press charges.
What?
He went on to say something like, “Everyone just wants your daughter to get the help she needs”, suggesting we consider Elizabeth Fry.
Don’t get me wrong, Elizabeth Fry is valuable and needed in all of our communities. They are best known for their support of women who have been, or are at risk of, being criminalized.
An odd recommendation for a 14-year old youth who has never had any involvement with the justice system.
In response to his comment about charges, I said, “Go ahead and charge her if you think she should be”. I also asked if he watched the video. I don’t know if he answered me. No charges were ever laid.
I was confident that we did not want any more favours.
These favours left our daughter in windowless locked rooms, excluded from the classroom, and with no ability to defend herself, or appeal decisions made.
Off the book discipline allows schools to be the judge and jury.
To control and condemn students as they see fit, with no accountability.
After the second exclusion.
The VP and I had another conversation.
I again raised concerns about her treatment, noting that her needs were neither recognized, supported, nor accommodated.
The VP’s tone was dismissive and patronizing.
After our conversation, I went to my husband and told him how I felt. He stated, “Let’s file a freedom of information request to find out more”.
After our conversation, the VP emailed the principal, “Where I am worried is that this level of parent avoidance of consequences doesn’t allow their daughter to move forward after a mistake. I suspect that this means they are going to pursue further intervention with the superintendent (Feels a bit like a so there).”
In other words, bad parenting, nothing to do with ADHD, the environment, their handling of the situation.
This is stigmitizing.
Stigma is one of the reason parents of ADHD children live with higher stress and isolation.
Let’s also acknowledge how her email reflects a confidence that only a professional with significant authority and little oversight can hold.
Your ADHD advocate,
Lynn