September 02, 2025

What the education system doesn’t want you to find out about their practices of negligence and indignity.

Mom Is Very Involved: Eroding the principle of equal value.

As you read this post, I want you to remember what I mentioned in August: “You can be confident that if there had been any evidence to support this incident, they would have suspended her.” This refers to the situation where a teacher accused my daughter of being physically threatening.

I want you to remember this, as this post shows how far they were willing to go to continue spreading their false narrative about her character.

Introducing the newly appointed VP.

In late September, the new VP initiated an investigation that resulted in a one-day suspension for our daughter, who had engaged in “inappropriate physical contact”.

Stated simply, she punched a male classmate.

While I do not condone fighting, I understand why it sometimes occurs.

The mystery lies in why the VP did not understand, and why he did not also suspend the other student involved.

Inappropriate physical contact.

It was either September 26 or 27, 2021, when our daughter attended the office, upset and asking to speak with someone.

She confessed to the VP that she punched a male student after discovering he had taken a photo of her breasts and shared it with other male students.

The VP initiated an investigation into the allegations.

The investigation.

I have summarized the VP’s notes. The changes I have made are minimal and only to support your understanding, as he used fragmented sentences. His notes are dated September 29, 2021.

Here is the summary:

Our daughter was making a TikTok video with her friend; they were just dancing. She has been the victim of cyberbullying and was being called a slut and whore. Screenshot images of her chest were taken and shown to others, prompting a question about their thoughts. Her mom knows about it. The photos taken are down her shirt. She is mad at the person. The photos were taken as screenshots, zoomed, and then shared. At lunch, while sitting in the cafeteria, she was informed about what had happened. One of the male students involved apologized, while another threatened to retaliate if she reported it. Suspension: 1 day.

Dad called to follow up on the investigation. He is upset because she did the right thing by coming to the office and reporting the incident, and she was the only one punished. I explained that we had no corroborating evidence regarding the sexual imagery. No one else saw it, except for one other student, who expressed that he did not want to be involved in the drama of the situation. Without this student’s willingness to be on the record regarding seeing the image, nothing can be done.

Where to start?

The VP’s actions, better understood as inactions, constitute differential treatment, among other issues.

I believe there is differential treatment because it is clear that all the educators involved have concluded that our daughter has poor character and consistently overlook the environmental and disability-related context of her dysregulation.

Under the Code, differential treatment becomes discrimination when treatment is “based on stereotypes of a presumed group or personal characteristics, or might perpetuate or promote the view that an individual is less capable or worthy of recognition or value as a human being or as a member of Canadian society who is equally deserving of concern, respect, and consideration.”

The next concern relates to the VP’s statement that he could not take any action because the witness did not want to go on record. This is absurd. A person is still considered a witness, even if they do not wish to be one.

The VP’s claim that there is no record of the incident is also puzzling. He created a record by interviewing the witness and documenting their conversation. He also shared his findings with her father. Every aspect of this meets the definition of having a record.

The VP deliberately labeled this incident as drama, ignoring both our daughter’s and the witness’s statements about what happened.

This minimization of our daughter’s sexualization and the redefinition of record-keeping to justify his decision to suspend her are alarming.

It frightens me that he, someone with power and authority, chose to disregard the facts in order to achieve his desired outcome, showing a lack of respect for her personal value.

Let’s pretend.

During the telephone call, the VP informed her dad that both he and the principal had seen messages exchanged between the involved male students. He said these messages did not contain any sexual imagery; they only included close-up images of her face.

It seems that the VP and principal interpreted this to mean that the photos of her breasts were never taken.

Strangely, they didn’t consider the possibility that the pictures might have been deleted or not shared with them.

Let’s pretend they are correct and only her face was photographed.

That scenario can only mean that a male classmate took a photo of her face, photoshopped it to look like her breasts, and then showed it to other students.

That is still wrong.

Definitely worse.

After the suspension, the principal told me that what happened to our daughter was worse than her reaction to it.

Yes, I agree.

My question for the principal is: Why did you allow this to happen?

I would like the principal to know that the Code states, “There is also a clear human rights duty not to condone or further a discriminatory act that has already happened. To do so would extend or continue the life of the initial discriminatory act. This duty extends to people who, while not the main actors, are drawn into a discriminatory situation through contractual relations or in other ways.”

Our daughter’s dignity and value should have been prioritized over the principal’s professional dilemma.

Value

The conversation with the VP ended with her dad stating, “he and family had come to the conclusion that the only people working in the best interest of the kids are parents. Insists that parents are a part of all convos regarding all their kids going forward.”

In response to this request, the VP diligently sought to create opportunities that would inevitably draw us into involvement, even when it wasn’t necessary.

In other words, he rendered our request insignificant, making sure we understood his authority and ability to diminish our merit in their school.

Your ADHD Advocate,

Lynn Galeazza

August 18, 2025

What the education system doesn’t want you to know about how they poison the well.

Mom Is Very Involved: The Poisoning of Our Educational Environment.

From this point forward, I will adopt a broader perspective by highlighting instances of code violations, legislation, and policy. While I cannot address every microaggression that has occurred in the past four years, I hope to continue providing you with an understanding of the poisoned environments in which our ADHD students learn.

As you read, keep in mind that Ontario human rights laws are based on a balance of probabilities, with the claimant having to show “it is more reasonable and probable than not that discrimination took place.”

Adults have choices that youth do not.

When September 2021 began, I was still holding hope, trust, and confidence in the school’s ability to support us.

I was not disillusioned. I always knew this was going to be hard. The complexities that often come with ADHD are no joke.

But hard is what we signed up for, right? As parents? Teachers? Professionals who have chosen to work with and for others? People who are invested in the health and wellness of the generations to come.

Regret.

That September, the school appointed a new VP, while the principal and SERT remained the same.

Repairing the relationship with the SERT was very challenging for me. If I had treated my clients as she had treated my daughter and me, I would be fired. Not only was she not disciplined, but we were obligated to work with her.

Despite this, I chose to trust and encouraged my daughter to do the same. For most of the grade 10 school year, the principal, SERT, and I met bi-weekly for 60-90 minutes. This required me to take time off work, adjust my schedule, or work extra hours on the weekend. I shared every aspect of our lives, including detailed information about assessments, appointments, medications, and strategies. I cried. I laughed. I believed them (until I didn’t).

The educators chose to poison the well.

The first day of grade 10 was September 7, 2021.

Two days into the school year, on September 9, 2021, one of her teachers wrote the following email to the principal and VP.

“I typically do not seek admin’s guidance on these issues, but have been advised to do so. This student frequently and regardless of requests consciously lowers her mask throughout the period (morning). I would appreciate your support with this matter. Similarly, she is the only student who consistently ignores requests to put away her phone. Students who demonstrate the inability or unwillingness to abide by the classroom expectation regarding healthy use of phones have been told that phones will be expected to stay in a secure location behind my desk. I intend to implement this classroom expectation universally, so again, your reinforcement of this expectation is important for consistency and everyone’s learning.”

Every time I read this email, her statements —“have been advised to do so,” “only student,” and “inability or unwillingness” — catch me. They imply that, once again, instead of a fresh start, they opted to discriminate, stigmatize, harass, bully, and practice differential treatment.

Let’s briefly jump ahead to grade 11. This same teacher wrote an almost identical email on September 6, 2022, the first day of grade 11.

To the principal, VP, and SERT, she wrote, “Good afternoon, In the middle of second period today, she left the class abruptly, rudely, etc. She arrived about 20 minutes late, but I had overheard her in the hall talking with a teacher about going to guidance, so I did not mark it as a late. Repeatedly, she was the only student who needed multiple reminders about her phone, respectful behaviour, etc. She has also repeatedly made the statement to her friends, she’s asking for it (in regards to myself), as I explained classroom expectations and the new and invigorated approach to the latest, cell phone use, bathroom etiquette, and overall tone.

Despite reminders about respectful manner, tone, language, and behaviour, she escalated to the point of walking out and loudly closing the door. After her departure, I was able to continue teaching with success and without interruption. I have no idea where she chose to go. Given the fact that I was mid-teaching, I did not have the time or appropriate comportment to draft an email.

Given the situation last year when she tried to push by me to have access into the classroom after having been told to leave and swearing at me, continued to frequent my classroom despite having been assigned to an alternative location for the rest of the semester, and the fact that neither of these situations was ever formally resolved, I am requesting that administration intervene and discuss the next steps with her and her parents. Please advise. Thank you.”

This teacher failed to mention that she said something similar to, “Groundhog Day, eh, I guess we are going to do this again,” as my daughter walked into the grade 11 classroom. In her email, she omitted crucial details about the grade 10 incident she mentioned.

The grade 10 incident.

On September 14, 2021, my daughter came home and informed me of an incident that happened in this teacher’s classroom. I immediately wrote an email to the principal, who promptly responded, letting me know that she and the VP would investigate the matter further and follow up.

The teacher accused my daughter of being a safety threat after she pushed past her in the classroom doorway.

Investigating the incident.

The next day, the VP and principal initiated their investigation.

The following is a summary of the VP’s investigative notes:

My daughter reported that she had a bagel that morning, requested water, and was kicked out of the classroom without her belongings. She waited for 20 minutes in the hallway while repeatedly knocking on the classroom door. The teacher ignored her, and she felt increasingly angry. My daughter demanded her belongings, and when the teacher finally opened the door, my daughter responded with angry, inappropriate language. The teacher berated her, both in private and in front of her classmates.

Our daughter was sent down to the office, and disclosed that the teacher had made statements of concern for “kids like me,” also saying, “I hate kids like you,”. Our daughter reported that this teacher targets her and doesn’t react the same way when other students misbehave. Our daughter shared that she was trying to manage her anger, but the teacher kept yelling at her. She did slam the door as she left the classroom. Her mask only fell once; she did not push the door (into the teacher), and did not hit the teacher.

I arrived at the school, having been summoned by my daughter in a near-hysterical phone call. The VP wrote that I “expressed frustration that there were systemic issues at play from last year. The principal attended a meeting (last year). (Wanted) Problem-solving to get her daughter into a safe and positive environment”. I also asked him to read what had happened in grade 9 by accessing our Freedom of Information request.

The following is a summary of the principal’s investigative notes:

The teacher identified challenges with our daughter’s use of the phone and non-adherence to the COVID masking procedure. She stated that our daughter became agitated and refused to go to the office. She paged the office, and our daughter then left the classroom, slamming the door. The teacher stated she had felt unsafe when our daughter pushed past her to leave the classroom. The teacher then apologized to the class for having to witness the event.

Neither my daughter nor the teacher suffered any disciplinary action from this incident.

For our daughter’s safety, we immediately removed her from this teacher’s classroom. She was then required to complete the course online in the library, with some support from an educational assistant.

A lesson on how to poison an environment.

On September 17, 2021, a seemingly unrelated meeting took place between a few other teachers, who were not involved in the above incident. The minutes of their meeting notes included a statement about our daughter. They wrote that she “ was not accepting responsibility for preventing harm by swearing at a teacher and physically pushing a teacher aside”.

The gross misrepresentation of this grade 10 incident in the meeting minutes of uninvolved teachers, demonstrating affinity bias, constitutes a violation of confidentiality and discrimination, and robbed our daughter of her right to learn in a safe, inclusive learning environment.

Additionally, these teachers later used these falsehoods to support their rationale in removing our daughter from a school program.

Let me explain the human rights violation. The Code states, “Stigma, negative attitudes, and stereotypes can lead to inaccurate assessments of students’ personal characteristics. They may lead educational institutions to develop policies, procedures, and decision-making practices that exclude or marginalize students with disabilities. They can also create barriers for students with disabilities, with some students not feeling welcome or included in class activities, or social situations at school.”

The Code also states, “Educators must consider a range of strategies to address disruptive behaviour. Such strategies will include reassessing and, where necessary, modifying the student’s accommodation plan, providing additional supports, implementing alternative learning techniques, and other forms of positive behavioural intervention.”

The targeting of our daughter, which occurred before she arrived in grade 9, on day two of grade 10, and on day one of grade 11, demonstrates stigmatization, negative attitudes, bias, and no one considered various strategies to address the disruptive behavior that they were supposedly concerned about.

Furthermore, the Code states, “To avoid labelling or stereotyping, it is essential that education-providers take precautions to safeguard the disability-related information of students” and “Maintaining confidentiality for students with disabilities is an important procedural component of the duty to accommodate”.

The minutes of the meeting indicate that no one protected her personal information.

Reasonable and probable.

After the incident and our removal of our daughter from the teacher’s classroom, the involved teacher completed a Serious Student Incident Report on September 24, 2021.

The teacher wrote, “Emotionally shaken. Once the room was secured and she was gone. I sat down to compose myself and sent an email to the admin at the school. I waited in my room to avoid her gaining re-entry, as she repeatedly returned to the room and refused to go to the office. I made sure the door was locked and the window covered and continued with my lesson. On my prep period, I went to my office. I informed the coverage teacher to not re-admit her to the class.”

Rich.

For the record, our daughter has no history of aggression towards any teacher.

You can be confident that if they had found any evidence supporting this incident, they would have suspended her. Remember last year, when they excluded her for two incidents? One had a single witness, and the other had video evidence that clearly showed she did not initiate the physical altercation.

This teacher knew exactly what would happen when she singled our daughter out, withheld her belongings, locked her out of the classroom, closed the window covering, and ignored her requests, after whispering how she “hated kids like her”.

She knew how to manipulate our daughters’ emotions to trigger a dysregulated state. The email from grade 11 further supports this likelihood.

I suspect this teacher, and many others, know a lot about ADHD and the resulting emotional vulnerability.

Perhaps the statistics showing high suspension, expulsion, exclusions, and poor graduation rates for ADHD students reflect how our educational systems and associated professionals are, at times, poisoning the environment for these vulnerable youth?

Could teachers be contributing to the rise of violence in classrooms?

Is their reporting sometimes distorted and not representative of the truth? 

Your ADHD Advocate,

Lynn Galeazza