Confusing Differentiation with Adverse Discrimination - False Logic 

George Abbott has picked up on a mistaken theme from a few Victoria parents and a few Victoria Trustees and is now suggesting he might eliminate sections of the School Act related to class composition. The notion is that limiting the number of students with special needs for any particular class is "discriminatory". He, and the Victoria parents and Trustees, fail to understand that differentiating for the purpose of equal opportunity is not adverse discrimination. It is rather a form of targeting funding to ensure students with disabilities receive adequate service.

In response to a letter to Abbott from our Board, I wrote the following:

Dear Trustees:

We are writing to comment on your letter supporting the position of the Victoria Confederacy of Parent Advisory Councils that the School Act be revised to eliminate limits on the number of students with special needs in each class.

The logic of VCPAC is flawed. The entire system of designation and designated funding is “discriminatory” in the sense VCPAC references. Students are identified and funding is allotted in a manner based on the designation. Thus funding is allotted through a discriminatory manner.

However, this is done to ensure equity of opportunity, which is the fundamental principle. Every child should have an equal opportunity to reach their educational potential, regardless of whether this costs more for a particular child.

Creating limits on the number of students with special needs in any one class creates a positive discriminatory effect on funding by ensuring that every student with special needs receives adequate teacher time. If a teacher is responsible for preparing individual student learning plans for more students with special needs, each student gets less time. The purpose of the limit is to ensure a teacher is in fact able to provide the modified or adapted learning plan within the hours of the day available to them. The richness and quality of the plan and the instruction is better the fewer students the teacher is responsible for.

No student is ever guaranteed to be in a particular class with a particular teacher. Constitutional rights of integration apply to a neighbourhood school, not a particular classroom within that school. The fact that a student with special needs is not in the class of their choice is no different than if a student without special needs is not in a class of their choice. A student may not be in a particular class for a whole variety of reasons, many of which relate to particular student characteristics for both students with and without designated special needs. Classes are constructed for gender balance, based on behaviour characteristics of particular students, based on the educational needs of particular students, and so forth. This happens regardless of designation. All students, in this sense, receive “discriminatory” treatment. Classes are always constructed based on an assessment of the individual characteristics of the students.

The rationale for the limit on students with a designation is that the designation itself guarantees a certain level of instructional support beyond what is provided to students without a designation. This is time consuming. An individual teacher simply does not have time to meet the outcomes of an individual education plan if they are responsible for too many plans.

The limits and designations are not wrong because they organize classrooms based on the needs of students. In fact, this is their strength. They allow increased funding, and increased teacher time to go to those students who need it the most, as identified through the designation process. They also ensure that a teacher is not overwhelmed with workload and this impacts every student the teacher enrolls.

Finally, one function of the limits is to identify for government the funding levels required. Without limits, funding shortages simply result in overwhelmed teachers who are unable to provide the same level of service to students. This is the situation we find ourselves in today, with strict limits having been removed from our collective agreement.

We need stricter limits, not fewer limits. We need more funding, not more false “flexibility”. A return of strict limits would enable schools to establish classes in which the teachers could actually meet all the needs of their students.

We ask that you reconsider your decision and rescind your letter.