January 8, 2026
Collective accountability happens when we are brave enough to acknowledge our errors and
committed enough to fix them.
Mom Is Very Involved
Our schools cannot claim to provide inclusive education through a social justice lens if they deny
the existence of invisible disabilities and the essential accommodations required for individuals
with these disabilities to succeed.
Our education system is fundamentally misaligned.
A better place to learn?
Some of you may have wondered why we didn’t change schools, given our experiences at our current school.
The short answer is that we tried to.
At the end of grade 10, we talked it out and applied to our catchment area Catholic High School. It was late in the school year, and we were informed that they would not be able to review the application until the start of the next school year. That sounded reasonable.
We were confident that the transfer would be a straightforward process since our children had attended a Catholic elementary school, received all their sacraments, and this was their designated Catholic high school.
In September, the Catholic school was slow to respond, so I reached out to them directly. A staff member, whom I believe was an office assistant, informed me that they would not be accepting our daughter for this school year. The person on the phone mentioned that this decision was probably for the best, as the school was currently struggling with conflicts among the girls.
What an odd thing to say, I thought to myself. Did every female student who applied that year hear the same message?
I informed the person on the phone that I believed they could not deny the application because we are within their catchment area. She replied, “You’re right, we can’t, but we can say that we are unable to accept her because we cannot provide her with the necessary timetable.” Since they are a public school and she is in grade 11, taking the standard courses for that grade, this situation seems impossible. The person I spoke to appeared to be unconcerned about this misuse of their process.
I said nothing; by now, I had learned that this was part of the maze.
We submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to uncover the actual reason for her denial of entry. Thirty days later, we received the FOI response, which included only our original application forms and a scribbled note on the office calendar referencing a telephone call. The absence of documentation suggests that there may be no established student review process, no clear standards for documentation, or a possibility that information is being withheld. It could also mean that administrative staff are making decisions based on informal conversations regarding a student’s eligibility to attend.
This is how it would be done in the upside-down.
Over the years, I have observed that our local Catholic board has minimal documentation practices. I’m not sure if this issue is common among Catholic boards throughout Ontario, but it may be worth investigating.
My FOI request led to an invitation to a meeting at the Catholic high school, which I attended. Ultimately, they offered admission for the second semester. To my amusement, every staff member they could find was present and gathered for this meeting. Picture a large boardroom with a long formal table. I sat at the center seat along one side, while at least ten staff members surrounded the table.
One of the people at the table was the principal, and she stated that the Catholic board does not recognize ADHD as a disability and that they do not provide accommodations for people with ADHD.
And that, my readers, is the focus of this month’s blog.
Is there a policy stating that the Catholic school board does not recognize ADHD as a
disability?
No, but I hear it from parents all the time.
Imagine how a board must view itself to state this so openly to so many people without fear of reprisal.
This strong sense of confidence drives many individuals, including students, parents, caregivers, and educators, to firmly embrace this belief.
If you’re interested in this topic, consider watching “Understanding ADHD,” which premiered on TVO Today one year ago. Around the 27-minute mark, it discusses how the education system denies ADHD as a disability.
ADHD is a disability.
Every person affiliated with our education system should recognize that they do not possess the authority to define what a disability is or is not. The Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC) provides that definition for us.
“The definition of disability in the Code, and as interpreted in human rights case law, is broader than the Ministry of Education exceptionality categories. For example, human rights jurisprudence has explicitly recognized ADHD as a disability requiring accommodation under
the Code.[25]”
Better yet, “The OHRC has heard concerns from parents and advocacy organizations that some Ministry of Education documents fail to specifically name ADHD as an “exceptionality” and that, as a result, some education providers are failing to provide accommodation for this
condition.[24] “
Equity and Inclusive Education Policies.
Let’s take a moment to review the Equity and Inclusive Education Policies 700 and 701 of the local Catholic school board I have been discussing. They assert that they uphold the teachings of God and comply with the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005.
In their policies, they clearly define terms such as: 2SLGBTQQIA+, accommodations, accommodations for students with special education needs, anti-racism, anti-racist education, anti-oppression, barrier, bias, caregiver, creed, culturally relevant teaching, discrimination, diversity, equity, gender, gender expression, harassment, inclusive education, intersectionality, positive school climate, progressive discipline, racialized group, racism, religious accommodation, sexual orientation, and social justice.
They do not define disability. In fact, it is only minimally referenced.
Section 10 of the Code defines “disability” as:
a. any degree of physical disability, infirmity, malformation or disfigurement that is caused by bodily injury, birth defect or illness and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes diabetes mellitus, epilepsy, a brain injury, any degree of paralysis,
amputation, lack of physical co-ordination, blindness or visual impediment, deafness or hearing impediment, muteness or speech impediment, or physical reliance on a guide dog or other animal or on a wheelchair or other remedial appliance or device,
b. a condition of mental impairment or a developmental disability,
c. a learning disability, or a dysfunction in one or more of the processes involved in understanding or using symbols or spoken language,
d. a mental disorder, or
e. an injury or disability for which benefits were claimed or received under the insurance plan established under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.
And let’s not forget, “human rights jurisprudence has explicitly recognized ADHD as a disability requiring accommodation under the Code.”
The Code also affirms the social model of disability, highlighting the critical role that environments and attitudes play in creating disabling experiences.
What would the uproar be if racism and 2SLGBTQQIA+ were omitted? Would anyone dare to claim it is due to a lack of government funding? And if that were the excuse given, would you accept it?
Fellow advocates, keep in mind that the Code takes precedence over other legislation, including the Education Act. For your upcoming meeting, bring a copy of the Code, copies of their policies, reach out to the congregation affiliated with the school, and voice your concerns.
The discrimination against children with ADHD and other invisible executive functioning disorders will only end when we choose to stop it. Meaningful change occurs only when we hold ourselves collectively accountable.
Your ADHD advocate,
Lynn