March 18, 2026

Collective accountability happens when we are brave enough to acknowledge our errors and
committed enough to fix them.

Mom Is Very Involved: Just How It Is

Our schools cannot claim to provide inclusive education 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.

Grade 11 began with the same vice principal and a new principal.

I can’t deny that I was feeling cynical at that moment. I no longer believed that collaboration was possible. This belief was neither 100 % correct nor 100% wrong. A few teachers were very invested, and like us, they deserved better.

During the first semester of grade 11, we heard back from the Ontario College of Teachers. 18 months had elapsed since we filed our complaint, and the opportunity to take action that could have led to positive change had passed. Their follow-up was so late and their process so riddled with errors that it bordered on ridiculous.

It made no sense to appeal the decision. What was the point of having the same people review the same information for another year and a half?

The College confused the roles of the involved teachers, failed to interview anyone at the school who could verify our claims, and sought no clarifying information. They stated that I failed to prove my complaint and used COVID as a reasonable rationale for an educator’s violation of human rights.

They are supposed to protect the public.

They are not protecting the public.

The VP continued to behave as he always did. He was calm, lacking in compassion, and confident that he never did anything wrong and had nothing more to learn. On most days, I could expect multiple telephone calls from either the VP or the principal; the first one usually came before I had even crossed the threshold of my workplace. Each of these gentleman had their own unique style.

The VP usually called me because someone had told him something. The individuals involved were usually the same people. Many teachers, likely influenced by their own teenage experiences, remembered the most effective ways to hurt a teenage girl and rarely hesitated to do so.

The new principal adopted a more authoritarian approach and seemed to expect everyone, including me, to fall in line. He would approach my daughter to ask why I did not answer his calls. He asked me where I had been some days. He told me over and over again that my daughter just needed to be kind and that I was making the teachers uncomfortable. While an overused term these days, this is a textbook example of gaslighting.

He frequently talked about how the school system was outdated and no longer met students’ needs. Although he aimed to find common ground by sharing this perspective with me, it only emphasized our differences. He expressed his view of the system’s failures with resignation, stating, “That’s just how it is,” while I rejected that notion.

He was not interested in progress. He was interested in compliance, and under his leadership, the environment became even more toxic

I could write a novel about the microaggressions and blatant abuses that occurred during four years of high school. I have already shared many examples, and I am confident you understand the point.

I will highlight a few incidents to help you understand how learning from home became a reality.

The first incident involves a Child and Youth Worker (CYW). By the end of October, our daughter was spending more time at home due to the increasingly negative effects of the school environment. The principal recommended that a CYW be assigned to be with her throughout the day. The CYW was meant to be nearby but not overly involved in her activities. The school’s goal was for the CYW to help increase her classroom time, while we hoped that they would serve as a deterrent and a witness to any concerning treatment she might experience.

On November 1, 2022, within days of the CYW’s involvement, problems began, and I emailed the principal to express my concerns.

That same day, my husband sent the following email to the principal. I know you will have received a version of events from the CYW today. My daughter would like to add the following:

1. She was referred to as very untrustworthy by the CYW.
2. The CYW suggested, contrary to her original opinion, that our daughter has absolutely no potential.
3. Two girls told our daughter they saw the CYW take a photo of her. She has kept the text message.
4. Lastly, the CYW made reference to other EAs having attempted and quit working with her because she is too difficult. The CYW wouldn’t provide names because she wasn’t allowed to.

It is obvious that any relationship that may have existed or had the potential to develop is destroyed.

I hate to send an email in haste, but there has been a trend set; the first to submit the information is the most truthful.

For your information, review and discussion at a later time.

A few days later, the principal informed us that he had investigated the concern and that nothing had been substantiated.

A week or two after this unsubstantiated incident, another incident occurred. The CYW was recorded verbally abusing our daughter.

The audio recording made it impossible for the principal to deny that the incident occurred. We are unaware of any investigation being conducted. However, we know that the CYW remained at the school but was no longer working with our daughter. Many of her colleagues approached our daughter, making statements that the CYW was a good person who didn’t mean what she said and had simply made a mistake. The principal expressed sympathy for the CYW, suggesting he viewed her as the victim in this situation.

Another incident occurred on November 19, 2022, while my husband and I were out with friends. I was engaged in a conversation when one of them turned to me and said she had been with a couple of her friends the night before; both are teachers, and one works at the same high school our children attend. She shared that she had heard “all about my daughter”.

This is a clear violation of confidentiality, and I reported it to the school board. I am unaware of any actions or investigations.

During this time, I started to question whether these violations were part of a series of incidents rather than isolated events. This line of inquiry prompted me to speak with both the superintendent and the principal in December 2022. In that meeting, I discovered that the board had hired a human rights specialist. The superintendent encouraged me to write a detailed report outlining all of our concerns and to submit it to the human rights commissioner for review.

On January 6, 2023, we submitted a more than 70-page document and a formal complaint to the school board’s Human Rights, Equity & Accessibility Commissioner.

On January 23, 2023, another incident occurred. Our daughter had left the classroom with permission. The principal was unhappy to find her in the wrong bathroom. Only wrong because that is not where he wanted her to be. Not wrong because she was doing anything wrong. He and approximately six other educators positioned themselves outside the bathroom. Surprisingly, this did not help the situation. Nor did his comment about how a forty-year-old man should not have to babysit a sixteen-year-old. The teacher who had given our daughter permission to leave the
classroom came to the scene and spoke to the principal. Our daughter returned to class with the teacher’s reassurance that she was not suspended.

Coincidentally, that same day, I picked up the next freedom-of-information report from the school board.

Upon arriving home from picking up the FOI, the principal called me. He told me his version of events and said he was considering suspending her for the next day. He did not care for my response and told me, “If it is so harmful for her to be at this school, why do I continue to send her there?” He then stated, “If something was hurting my daughter, I would not continue to send her, I would do whatever it took”. Our conversation continued longer than necessary and ended with him declaring that she would be suspended.

This is a reprisal.

I then informed him that we would not be sending her back to school and that learning would take place at home.

On January 24, 2023, we received formal written notice of our daughter’s suspension. That same day, we initiated the appeal, and on January 26th, the suspension was rescinded.

They also hired a teacher to support her learning from home. 

It’s time for all parties to recognize that they are part of the problem, so we can focus on the important work of fixing it.

We need to acknowledge that more funding is essential, as well as more skills, knowledge, human decency, and compassion.

We must increase accountability and stop rationalizing abuse or discrimination. Professionals who cannot own their mistakes and believe they have nothing more to learn should not be granted access to people or power. School boards should not operate like fortresses.

It’s crucial for us to listen to all voices, including those of students, parents, caregivers, and educators who are struggling and seeking more support in the classroom. We need to understand that most of these individuals recognize how unmet needs affect not only their child’s learning but also the overall learning environment. The solutions are complex and cannot be found solely within the confines of the home or the classroom.

Your ADHD advocate,

Lynn

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

November 10, 2025

The education system fails to acknowledge the environment they have allowed to develop.

Mom Is Very Involved: A lesson on
youth resiliency.

Teachers are essential.

They are as important as emergency services and healthcare professionals.

No other professional has the same access to and influence over our children during their most crucial developmental years.

Given their significant impact, both positive and negative, they must be regulated to the same extent as other essential services.

They should be held to the highest standards.

Governments, school boards, educational institutions, regulatory colleges, and many educators themselves have forgotten that without healthy youth, we cannot achieve healthy communities.

Our youth should not have to survive our public schools.

A Canadian expert on youth resilience.

Dr. Michael Ungar is a therapist, researcher, and professor at Dalhousie University.

I first discovered his work while pursuing my Master of Social Work (MSW) degree.

I have had the privilege of attending two talks on resilience given by Dr. Ungar. Both presentations took place in my local community: one was organized by the school board, while the other was facilitated through local partnerships aimed at improving youth mental health.

I wish more members of the school board had attended the conferences they helped to organize.

Key insights from Dr. Ungar’s research.

“In the context of exposure to significant adversity, resilience is both the capacity of individuals to navigate their way to the psychological, social, cultural, and physical resources that sustain their well-being and their capacity individually and collectively to negotiate for these resources to be provided and experienced in culturally meaningful ways.” (Ungar, 2008, p.225)

“While positive thinking and ‘grit’ might predict better psychological outcomes for the general population, we can help more children with complex needs faster when we change their environments first.” (Ungar, 2015, p.16)

“Despite a popular belief to the contrary, children’s level of motivation to achieve positive developmental milestones like high school graduation or to resist substance abuse is actually less important than the resources children are provided by their caregivers, educators, and policymakers.” (Ungar, 2011)

“Sometimes young people cope in ways that others perceive as harmful but that clients themselves argue are protective. Children adapt to their environments in ways that make sense to them, given the psychological and social resources available.” (Ungar, 2004)

“Problem behaviours in poorly resourced environments can simply be an individual’s best ‘choice’ (though there really is very little choice!) to make do with what little she has.” (Ungar, 2015, p.41)

“An interesting example is the tendency of youth who perform poorly at school to leave before graduation. The strategy may appear to disadvantage them except that by their own account leaving a situation where they feel their self-esteem is threatened, and where opportunities for a good job in the future are perceived as few and far between even if they have a high school certificate, may be a protective strategy relevant in a particular socio-historical context (Dei et al., 1997).” (Ungar, 2015, p. 41)

“The map we are using to chart young people’s problems and their solutions is wrong. We’ve started with a map that is for individual change processes even though children who face significant risks need their environments changed before individual changes will be sustained.” (Ungar, 2015, p. 162)

Real examples of how our educational environments are harming our youth.

Remember the grade 9 English teacher? Well, here she is again, in grade 10, trying to undermine my daughter’s success. If this issue had been addressed in grade 9, perhaps she wouldn’t feel so emboldened to attempt it again in grade 10.

Before the quadmester began, the English teacher wrote the principal, “I have noticed that she is in my 2D English class next quad. I have some reservations with this one. One – she barely passed 1D with me and should be in an applied class, and 2, I had a great deal of issues with her in the class. My experience with her is that she is very disruptive and refuses to do work. Is there a plan moving forward with her? Can she work in the PLC or student success? I am extremely not comfortable with her in my class, given our experience last year.”

After not receiving a response from the principal, she reached out again, “I am messaging again about this issue as it is really bothering me and creating a lot of anxiety. I have taught her before, and I know exactly what to expect. I know that last time I taught her, there was going to be a plan in place moving forward for how to deal with her behaviour in class and constant phone use. I could send her to the office daily, but there has to be a better way. Can she work in the PLC with student success? I don’t want her to disrupt a grade 10 academic English Class. Please let me know what you think.”

Here is another example from a different teacher, “Good morning, I have spoken to (the principal) twice about what’s been going on…(you were busy or not in office). She has been sent to the office on 3 of the last 4 days. I had that civics class in the first quad, and not a single kid was sent to the office. Can you please read her Edsby observations and hold her accountable for her actions in the classroom?”

Unaware of this email, I had already contacted the principal about this teacher. I was horrified by his actions when I learned that he had pretended to lose my daughter’s phone after she had entrusted it to him. This was part of a new strategy we were trying to implement to help her break her dependence on her phone. Instead of doing everything possible to ensure its success, he did everything to make sure it didn’t. Following this incident, she found it challenging to trust teachers with her phone, granting that privilege only to a select few.

This was a lost opportunity. If successful, it may have been the start of a repair.

Remember, “Problem behaviours in poorly resourced environments can simply be an individual’s best ‘choice’ (though there really is very little choice!) to make do with what little she has.” (Ungar, 2015, p.41)

Young people cannot choose their educational environments or the adults working within them. Therefore, our government, unions, and regulatory bodies must ensure that abusive, discriminatory, stigmatizing, and ignorant individuals do not enter any school.

Children who have suffered harm grow into adults impacted by it.

Let’s establish a system that selects and supports professionals who enhance youth resilience rather than undermine it.

Your ADHD advocate,
Lynn

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