This is my witness statement for Victoria's Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario hearing. Even after the six years that have passed since we filed the current complaint, I am brought to tears when recounting everything she and our family have gone through.
Victoria Jones v. Former School Board
HRTO File No. 2016-25164-I
September 21, 2022
WITNESS STATEMENT OF JANICE JONES
It is anticipated that Janice Jones will provide the following testimony at the Hearing in this matter scheduled to take place October 5–7 and 12–14, 2022:
Witness Statement to be Adopted
1. I intend to adopt the contents of this Witness Statement under oath during the Hearing of this matter. I reserve the right to provide additional oral evidence and answer any questions my legal counsel asks of me.
Background
2. I am the mother of Victoria Jones (“Victoria”), the applicant in this matter. My husband is Robert Jones (“Bob”).
3. On August 3, 2016, I filed this Application on behalf of Victoria, as her litigation guardian. At that time, Victoria was sixteen years old and had recently completed Grade 10 at her former school board, which is part of her former school board.
Victoria’s Learning Disability
4. From a very young age, Victoria exhibited difficulty with reading, writing, and mathematics. Victoria’s first psychological evaluation took place on February 27, 2007, when she was less than a week away from turning seven years old.
5. Victoria was assessed by Dr. Aileen P. Utley (“Dr. Utley”), who was at the material times a psychologist licensed to practice in the states of Kansas and Missouri. Dr. Utley’s assessment included administration of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV and subtests thereunder. Dr. Utley found that “Victoria’s Standard Scores in reading and spelling are not commensurate with her ability.”
6. On January 28, 2010, Victoria was assessed by Dr. Utley again, and this assessment again included administration of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV and subtests thereunder. Dr. Utley noted that Victoria's achievement in Reading and Arithmetic is below her verbal abilities (a better predictor of her academic achievement than the Full Scale IQ), although she is above grade level in both subjects. As compared with her Verbal Composite Score or her Full Scale IQ, Victoria evidenced a significant discrepancy in her Spelling achievement. This discrepancy is above that required to diagnose a Learning Disability in this area and she will continue to require additional assistance with written language.
7. On December 17, 2017, Victoria was assessed by Dr. Deborah Reitzel-Jaffe (“Dr. Reitzel-Jaffe”), who was at the material times a psychologist licensed to practice in Ontario. This assessment was required because, when we enrolled Victoria at her former elementary school, which is part of the former school board, Bob and I were told that she needed to have a psychoeducational assessment administered in Ontario.
8. Dr. Reitzel-Jaffe’s assessment included administration of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Third Edition (“WIAT-III”). Dr. Reitzel-Jaffe noted Victoria’s difficulties with reading and writing and also identified struggles “with fluency of basic math facts”, which Dr. Reitzel-Jaffe stated was “an area to target for remediation.
9. Dr. Reitzel-Jaffe ultimately concluded that “Victoria's profile is consistent with a diagnosis of a Learning Disability”:
Victoria's cognitive abilities were assessed in early 2010 by Dr. Aileen Utley. The results of that assessment indicated a Full Scale IQ score at the 77th percentile in the high average range with the following Index scores: Verbal Comprehension Index at the 90th percentile, Perceptual Reasoning Index at the 55th percentile, Working Memory Index at the 61st percentile and Processing Speed Index at the 66th percentile. Because of the significant and meaningful difference between the Verbal Comprehension Index and the Perceptual Reasoning Index which occurs in only 9% of the normed sample group, it is most relevant to view Victoria's Verbal Comprehension Index as the score that best reflects her overall cognitive abilities. Although Victoria's academic skills generally fall in the average range, a significant gap exists between her cognitive ability level and her skills particularly in the composite areas of Basic Reading, Written Expression as well as in Math Skills. When these relative deficits are coupled with processing deficits in the area of Executive Function as well as Phonological Memory, it becomes dear that Victoria's profile is consistent with a diagnosis of a Learning Disability. Because of this it is recommended that formal identification of Victoria as a student with a Learning Exceptionality take place at the school level. As well continued review and development of an Individual Education Plan is recommended to offer ongoing support as Victoria moves forward academically.
10. On that basis, Dr. Reitzel-Jaffe made a number of recommendations to “the school team” in order to accommodate Victoria and “support her academic progress.”
11. On October 17, 2014, at my request and in connection with seeking accommodations for Victoria at her former high school, Dr. Reitzel-Jaffe provided a Psychological Assessment Report Addendum. Dr. Reitzel-Jaffe stated that terms dyslexia and dyscalculia as defined in the DSM-5 were both “consistent with Victoria’s presentation when assessed.”
12. Dr. Reitzel-Jaffe also noted that “Victoria presented as a very bright girl who was underachieving in the areas of reading, writing and mathematics due to deficits in phonological memory and executive function.”
Seeking Accommodations for Victoria at her former school board – General Background
13. The school board recognized that Victoria does, in fact, have a Learning Disability, and an Individual Education Plan (“IEP”) was developed for her in accordance with the school board’s Special Education Plan.
14. The Special Education Plan sets out the school board’s role, obligations, and fundamental guiding principles when accommodating students like Victoria. This is a lengthy document, but some of the key parts are as follows:
a. The school board commits to “Keeping the needs of all students at the forefront during the decision-making process” and “Seeking input and communicating effectively with parents in a transparent and timely fashion”.
b. The school board also commits to “Providing access to resources, technology and experiences that meet students' strengths and needs”.
c. The school board’s position regarding the provision of Special Education includes the statement that “Programs shall be designed to assist exceptional students with special needs to develop their maximum potential”.
d. The school board also commits to “Use evidence-informed practice” and “Collect data to evaluate success criteria”, as well as to provide “Timely and individualized interventions” and “Reflect student and parent voice in the intervention process”.
e. The school board espouses Twelve Guiding Principles, with the first being that “All students can succeed” and the third being that it’s “Mission of, ‘We build each student's tomorrow, every day’ should be supported by maximizing student learning.”
f. The school board commits to “Update the IEP as appropriate” and to provide parents with the “a copy of the assessment report” when a WIAT-III is administered to their child.
g. The school board explicitly refers to dyslexia under the broader category of Learning Disabilities.
15. Ultimately, the school board makes the following commitment to its students and their families, including Victoria, Bob, and me: “All students in our schools, regardless of background or ability, will have the opportunity to develop the skills, attitudes and knowledge required to live up to their full potential.”
16. I reasonably expected that the school board and high school would treat Victoria in accordance with these principles and would do everything possible to ensure Victoria maximized and realized her full potential—which her medical professionals had all noted was greater than her academic output.
17. However, the words and actions of administrators and staff at the former school board and former high school made it clear to me that they believed Victoria, Bob, and I should be content with Victoria’s average performance (which, in the case of some school subjects, was barely average).
Seeking Accommodations for Victoria at her former high school – Grade 9 Year
18. For the academic year of 2104–15, which was Victoria’s Grade 9 year, an IEP was developed by her former school and agreed to by Bob and me.
19. The IEP ostensibly took into account the assessments of Drs. Utley and Reitzel-Jaffe, and it provided for a number of accommodations that Victoria was meant to receive. Accommodations included use of assistive technology, longer time and quiet settings for assessments, and the provision of exemplars (examples of what a completed assignment, like an essay, ought to look like).
20. While these accommodations were meant to be made known to and implemented by all of Victoria’s teachers, it soon became apparent that the school board and high school staff were taking a lackadaisical approach to Victoria’s IEP and seemed to lack a proper understanding of her disabilities.
21. For instance, on September 15, 2014—the very start of the school year—I received an email from her former math teacher expressing concerns, based on a quiz she had just taken, that Victoria would not be able to complete Grade 9 Academic math. I responded by directing the teacher to information on dyscalculia and the numerous accommodations Victoria required, as per her IEP and in light of her longstanding difficulty with the mechanics of math.
22. Victoria’s teacher noted that he had offered Victoria the opportunity to write the quiz in the Resource Room (a room where students with IEPs can go to complete tests or assignments and receive assistance) but that she declined.
23. This would become a theme, in that Victoria’s teachers would often let her—a teenage girl—decide whether to follow her IEP when they ought to have discharged their roles as educators by directing Victoria to ensure she was being properly educated in accordance with all requirements of her IEP.
24. The math teacher’s email was a worrying sign of things to come during Victoria’s Grade 9 year, and so I sent an email to a school board superintendent expressing my concerns. I specifically noted that it seemed Victoria’s teacher had not read her IEP and did not understand her disability and related needs.
25. The superintendent responded that the high school vice-principal would contact me to arrange a meeting “in order to ensure there is a full understanding of your daughter’s strengths and needs as well as to plan for next steps.” I was perplexed as to why this had not happened prior to the school year, given that the high school knew about Victoria’s required accommodations.
26. Victoria’s difficulties in her math class continued throughout the school year. On March 25, 2015, the LST sent an email to me in which she suggested moving Victoria from Academic math to Applied math. I replied by, among other things, inquiring as to whether the school psychologist had any diagnostic tests or assessments that could be done in relation to Victoria’s difficulties in math, reading, and language processing; and whether the school board has staff attend “conferences or workshops relating to LD/dyslexia”.
27. I then did some research into the differences between Academic math and Applied math. I learned that the latter is generally suited to students in a college rather than university stream and that most students in Applied math do not go to university.
28. On April 14, 2015, in response to reviewing the minutes of a Program Development Team (“PDT”) meeting regarding Victoria’s accommodations, I wrote to several high school/school board staff. I made clear my concerns about the school board trying to direct Victoria to a class that would limit her potential post-secondary education options rather than providing her with the accommodations she needed to succeed in Academic math.
29. I also outlined numerous concerns I had with the school board’s approach to Victoria’s IEP and required accommodations. For instance, it appears that the board considered provision of exemplars as a new request, even though this was included in Victoria’s 2014–15 IEP, and that it considered providing Victoria with written instructions would be at the teacher’s option when, in fact, this is essential for Victoria’s due to her working memory difficulties.
30. It remained apparent to me that the school board lacked a proper understanding of Victoria’s disabilities and needs, and that it viewed my advocacy for Victoria’s best interests as meddling or confrontational (for example, my inquiry about whether the high school staff have training related to dyslexia was treated as me questioning the staff’s credentials). This was highly stressful for me and my family.
31. Ultimately, Victoria continued to exhibit significant difficulties with math and reading during her Grade 9 year, as reflected in her first-term marks (61 in English, 52 in Principles of Mathematics) and her final marks (54 in Principles of Mathematics, which is “much below the provincial standard).
32. This resulted in Victoria taking math again in the summer and achieving an improved mark. I sincerely believe that Victoria’s improvement was the result of the way the summer course was taught and explained to Victoria by an elementary school teacher.
33. During the summer of 2015, the school board raised the possibility of Victoria transferring to another school. However, we decided against this, based on a number of factors that included a medical opinion.
Victoria’s Grade 10 Year and the former school board’s Failure to Accommodate
34. From the start of the 2015–16 school year, the school board and high school continued to be aware of Victoria’s disability-related difficulties with math and reading, but their approach and lack of understanding did not change.
35. On September 29, 2015, after I had asked the vice-principal in person about Victoria’s progress, they emailed me to advise that Victoria had completed an assessment called Degrees of Reading Power in preparation for the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test. Victoria’s result of 69 was closer to risk of failing the test (63) than to the mean (78). This assessment, which Victoria completed while in Grade 9, was not placed in her Ontario School Record.
36. On October 14, 2015, a school board employee administered a WIAT-III assessment of Victoria.
37. In October 2015, the high school renewed Victoria’s IEP, without changes, for her Grade 10.
38. On November 2, 2015, I sent an email to the LST asking whether the WIAT-III Clinician Report would be available for us to review at an upcoming meeting to review Victoria’s results. They responded that she only had a Parent Report and Academic Assessment Report for the meeting.
39. I have since learned that, as early as October 28, 2015, the school board deliberately chose to withhold the Clinician Report from me and to forswear any changes to Victoria’s IEP, as indicated in emails between the vice-principal and a school board superintendent:
How would you like us to respond to Mrs. Jones about the WIAT results? Below is my first thought:
A PDT meeting with the LST, the parents and myself? The LST can take minutes. In this meeting we would share the four pages of WIAT results (not the Clinician Report) and state that the current accommodations within her IEP support Victoria’s learning according to these WTAT results. Also ,we would state that the PRIME Math Assessment showed a weakness in conceptual understanding of numbers and number operations and that her mathematics teacher can support her by following the IEP accommodations and by providing extra support to help her address these gaps during class time, or outside of class time within the Math Help Room.
40. On November 3, 2015, the LST sent me copies of the Parent Report and Academic Assessment Report. The Parent Report is generally vague and did not provide an adequate description of Victoria’s assessment. What the Parent Report did make clear was that all of the subtests under the WIAT-III had not been administered to Victoria, and I immediately asked the LST why that was the case.
41. On November 4, 2015, I met with the LST and vice-principal to discuss the result of Victoria’s WIAT-III assessment. I again asked why only part of the assessment had been done and was told that the school board divides the WIAT-III into two tiers and only the subtests for the first tier had been completed.
42. To this day, the school board has never provided any policy documentation or satisfactory explanation supporting its supposed decision to divide the WIAT-III and outlining how a decision to move to the second tier is made. It appears the former school board psychologist had sole discretion to make these decisions as she saw fit, without any requirement to explain or justify these decisions.
43. On November 12, 2015, I emailed the LST and vice-principal to again seek further data related to Victoria’s WIAT-III assessment. I specifically asked for “the numerical and descriptor results”. In response, the LST proposed a meeting with me, her, the VP, and former school board psychologist.
44. On this same day, I emailed Victoria’s math teacher to express concern about a low mark she had received on a recent test, and it took him five days to respond. I felt I had to persistently advocate for Victoria’s best interests vis-à-vis her former high school teachers and staff.
45. On November 19, 2015, a meeting took place to discuss Victoria’s WIAT-III results with me, Bob, the VP, LST, and the school board psychologist.
46. During this meeting, I again pushed to receive proper data that I could compare to Victoria’s previous WIAT-III assessments. I also asked why all of the subtests had not been administered to Victoria, given that Dr. Reitzel-Jaffe had administered all subtests. I was again told that the school board divides the WIAT-III into tiers and the school psychologist decides what to do.
47. This was a highly uninformative and unsatisfactory explanation. It appeared to me that the school board was set on doing less than the bare minimum for Victoria and could not even explain why.
48. I specifically noted that Victoria is more capable than her academic output would suggest; I asked what could be done to ensure Victoria reached her highest capability and full potential (which is the stated goal of the school board’s Special Education Plan).
49. The response was underwhelming. The school board psychologist said we should look at Victoria’s output from her teachers’ perspectives, and the meeting concluded with a refusal to do the complete WIAT-III assessment because that “will only tell us what we already know”.
50. I have since learned that, on or around November 6, 2015, the school board internally conferred about providing a “script” to the vice-principal for this meeting. This script reflects the school board’s preordained conclusion that they would not be exploring any further assessment of Victoria to potentially inform changes to her IEPs:
The school board psychologist writes:
Could you kindly give feedback about this script to give to the VP:?
From: school board psychologist 1 Friday, November 06, 2015 2:35:50 PM
Subject: Re: script
To: school board psychologist 2
Hi school board psychologist 2: Here are some additional thoughts!
The purpose of reviewing the WIAT-III scores (and determining if any further assessment might be considered - e.g., tier 2 subtests) is based on determining if we still have remaining questions that are unanswered about the student’s learning and progress.
You could then add in your part …
Since V’s scores on the WIAT III are all in the Average range, and her grades and work output match these results, no further assessment is needed to understand how to program for V. At this point, we have a rich understanding of V’s strengths and needs, from incorporating results from her Psycho-educational assessment, feedback from discussions at PDT meetings, analysis of work samples, and feedback from teachers and LST’s in our development of V’s IEP. Regarding math, close examination of her average math scores on the WIAT III show us that Victoria has good procedural knowledge and that she experiences more difficulty with conceptual applications as the questions become more difficult. We will continue to encourage V. to get math help when needed.
At this point in programming for V, we recommend that emphasis be placed on V using her technology in order to access class material and to optimize her learning and output.
Thanks! Former school board psychologist 1
51. On November 26, 2015, the school board (through counsel) confirmed what had already been communicated at the earlier meeting, in accordance with the script: “the Tier I WIAT results from Victoria's 2015 testing indicated that no further testing need be completed and that a Tier II WIAT would not be conducted. … further testing would most likely not inform the writing of future revisions of Victoria's IEP.”
52. This was highly upsetting and inexplicable to me. Victoria continued to struggle with reading, writing, and math—yet the school board’s position was that Victoria’s IEPs were sufficient (despite her continued struggles with an IEP in place) and they would not even consider collecting further data to inform potential changes to her IEP.
53. As a result, I arranged for Victoria to be assessed by a psychologist in private practice, Dr. Debra Klein (“Dr. Klein”), which was ultimately done on March 3, 2016.
54. Throughout this time, I continued to advocate for Victoria to ensure that the terms of her extant IEP were actually being followed. For instance, on December 9, 2015, I emailed the LST to let her know Victoria was given a science quiz that was not in electronic format, which they acknowledged and the teacher called an “oversight”.
55. Also in December 2015, I exchanged emails with one of Victoria’s teachers, at which time I learned that there was “big meeting with the superintendent, principal, vice principal and all teachers” scheduled to discuss Victoria. The teacher presumed I would be there, but I did not even know this was happening until this email exchange.
56. In February 2016, the school board again confirmed it would not make any changes to Victoria’s IEP, despite her continued struggles under her existing IEP, as reflected by her grades as of February 17, 2016.
57. On April 6, 2016, I emailed Victoria’s science teacher to ensure Victoria’s accommodations were in place for a test. the next day, this teacher emailed and let me know that he had failed to ensure Victoria was following the requirements of her own IEP (in that she did not write her test in the Learning Support Room).50
58. I was disappointed, although not surprised, that The high school teachers and staff were still letting Victoria decide whether to follow her IEP rather than discharging their obligations as educators to direct Victoria and ensure she was receiving her required accommodations.
59. In April 2016, I received Dr. Klein’s report, which confirmed Victoria’s continued struggles with math, science, and English. Dr, Klein concluded “it seems likely that a diagnosis of a Specific Learning Disorder, with impairments in reading (i.e., dyslexia), written expression, and math (i.e., dyscalculia) continues to apply.” Dr. Klein highlighted the need for Victoria to receive continued academic accommodations and, to this end, she provided a lengthy list of recommendations.
60. This was not surprising to me. I was, however, taken aback by the apparent drop in Victoria’s cognitive ability. I subsequently spoke to a number of people and did extensive research related to this issue. Based on this, I reasonably believed that Victoria was experiencing the “Matthew Effect”.
61. The Matthew Effect holds that the difficulties children with dyslexia have with reading and the knowledge gained by reading are caused by not being able to read at the same level and with the reading comprehension abilities of their peers; without interventions to improve their reading skills, the gap between them and their peers widens with time because children with strong reading skills read more and improve their skills, while children with dyslexia become averse to reading due to their difficulties—with the result that they read less and do not improve their skills. The issue is not with the latter’s intellect or intellectual ability but with their ability to demonstrate their intellectual abilities due to the effects of their disabilities.
62. By May 26, 2016, I still had not received numerical results and other data from Victoria’s WIAT-III administered by the high school, and I emailed the vice-principal.
63. I also emailed Victoria’s English teacher and LST regarding difficulties in that class and was disappointed (but not surprised) to learn that Victoria had not been given an exemplar for her current outstanding assignment, despite this being required under her IEP. It was dispiriting that there continued to be a need for me to advocate and ensure Victoria’s IEP was being followed by her high school.
64. On June 7, 2016, I finally received a copy of the Clinician Report from Victoria’s WIAT-III assessment by the school board. I was absolutely shocked to see that Victoria—who was about to finish Grade 10—had been assessed as having Reading Comprehension at a Grade 5.2 level and Pseudoword Decoding at a Grade 7.6 level.
65. This had not been communicated by the school board during the November 2015 meetings, and I was confounded that they seemed content with Victoria’s performance in light of the Clinician Report’s findings (which they would have had back in October 2015 but which they deliberately did not share with me at that time).
66. I immediately requested that the school board review Dr. Klein’s report with an eye to updating Victoria’s accommodations, and I also sent an email to the VP expressing my dismay and inquiring about what they would be doing to remediate Victoria’s significant difficulties.
67. The VP’s response was unsurprising but heartbreaking all the same:
Within the high school setting, Victoria's Individual Education Plan continues to provide the necessary supports and accommodations to meet her learning needs. A number of accommodations (e.g. use of assistive technology, extra time for processing) may directly support Victoria's reading skills as needed, while other accommodations may be used in ways to support her needs related to math and executive functioning skills (including access to the Learning Support Teacher for support as required).
68. It was astonishing to be told that Victoria’s IEP was providing “the necessary supports and accommodations” when she continued to struggle academically, was apparently reading at a Grade 5 level, and was about to fail her Grade 10 math course.
69. At this time, it became abundantly clear to me that the school board had no interest in ensuring Victoria reached her full potential, or that they erroneously believed that this was Victoria’s full potential—notwithstanding that her that medical reports consistently identified a gap between her capability and academic output (which the school board’s own special education documents also recognize typically exists for students with dyslexia).61
70. Whatever trust relationship had existed between our family and the former school board had been irreparably destroyed by the revelation that the board had known since October 2015 that Victoria was reading at a Grade 5 level but deliberately withheld this information from us for eight months.
71. This case is different from previous cases. It is not only about a failure to provide Victoria with the accommodations she required—although it most certainly is about that. But is also about a school board that would not work with us in an honest manner, thereby removing any realistic potential for a collaborative accommodation process.
72. The fact is we no longer had faith that the school board would even try to work with us, because we now knew they had been working against us by keeping us in the dark about the true state of Victoria’s situation. No parent in this situation would think it reasonable to continue trying to work with a school board that had shown such a lack of good faith.
73. I remained adamant that Victoria was, in fact, capable of much more and that she could realize her full potential if she received suitable academic accommodations.
74. However, since the school board had already explicitly stated that it would not explore or consider further or different accommodations, despite Victoria’s ongoing struggles (including a mark of 44 in Grade 10 math),62 our family was left with only one realistic option to secure Victoria’s future.
Victoria is Accepted to The Gow School
75. Given the results of Dr. Klein’s assessment and the former school board’s unwillingness to further accommodate Victoria in her Grade 10 year, we urgently began exploring other options to secure the necessary accommodations for Victoria’s Grade 11 year.
76. This was no easy task. I had previously encountered difficulties in even finding private tutoring for Victoria. I spoke with my contacts from the International Dyslexia Association Ontario Branch (the “IDA”) and Decoding Dyslexia Ontario (the “DDON”), and Bob and I explored the following institutions, which were unsuitable or unrealistic for various reasons:
a. Tutors recommended by the IDA were primarily located in the Greater Toronto Area and further away from our home in London, making them impractical at a time when Zoom learning was not the ubiquity it is today.
b. The Reading Clinic in Kingston, Ontario offers tutoring in reading and writing, but it did not offer virtual tutoring at the time.
c. The Claremont School in Toronto is a day school for children up to Grade 8. Even if it was suitable for high-school students like Victoria, it did not offer boarding, which would have meant either commuting four-to-six hours per day or moving our whole family to Toronto (an option that was not within our financial means).
d. Maplewood Alternative High School is a non-boarding school in Vancouver, British Columbia. Moving to Vancouver was not within our family’s financial means.
e. Landmark East is located in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. While it does offer boarding, it is a drive of over 2,000 kilometres from our home in London, which is simply not practical for our family to have done multiple times per year.
77. Our initial hope was to find an option close to our home in London that would not require Victoria to board away from her family and support systems. However, it quickly became clear this was not a realistic possibility.
78. Ultimately, we explored The Gow School (“Gow”) in South Wales, New York. Gow is a private boarding school that specializes in education for students with dyslexia and similar language-based learning differences.
79. Gow was not our first choice, as attending Gow would require Victoria to move away from her friends and family in the middle of high school—which had the potential to be highly disruptive, on top of all the difficulties she was already facing.
80. Paying the Gow tuition also would not have been within our financial means, but we were fortunate to be approved for financial assistance, without which Gow would not have been a realistic possibility.
81. By June 2016, the school board had left no doubt that it would not provide Victoria with the accommodations she obviously needed to maximize her potential and have a chance of being accepted to university. Victoria had just failed Grade 10 math for reasons directly connected to her disability, yet the they insisted that Victoria’s IEP was providing the accommodations she required and that nothing needed to be changed on its end.
82. Accordingly, after much discussion within our family and with Victoria’s current and future best interests in mind, Victoria accepted her offer of admission to Gow. This was not an easy decision, but it was the only realistic decision in the very difficult circumstances—not least of which was that we only had a couple of months to find and enroll Victoria in a new school in time for her to start her Grade 11 year in Fall 2016.
83. Bob and I were thrilled with the immediate difference that Gow made for Victoria, both academically and for her confidence and self-esteem. I was ecstatic when I saw that Victoria earned an ‘A’ in both English and Reconstructive Language during her first term at Gow, and I was beyond pleased to know that Victoria “had excelled academically” after so much difficulty at the start of her high-school career.68
84. Gow paid particular attention to the nature of Victoria’s disability and the accommodations she required in order to thrive academically and personally, as reflected in her September 2017 Plan of Instruction.
85. The change in Victoria was noticeable to us and others. For example, in November 2016, Victoria was part of a Student Panel that spoke at a DDON conference. Afterwards, several DDON members spoke to me about how impressed they were with her speaking and how confident she appeared. I was brought to tears by this feedback.
86. Victoria’s strong performance continued throughout the 2017–18 academic year, which was her Grade 12 year.70 (For ease of reference, I have prepared a chart comparing Victoria’s grades throughout her entire high-school career.)
87. In a November 2017 letter of support, Gow’s Director of College Counselling Charles K. Brown noted:
"In her time here, Victoria's writing, analytical skills and linguistic facility have all improved markedly. One has only to look at her GPA growth since coming to Gow to see this. … In all her classes, teachers note that Victoria is not shy about discussing and developing ideas. Victoria is clearly capable of challenging work and critical thinking in college.
In the end, it is clear that Victoria Jones is a singularly talented young woman with many shining qualities and enormous promise. She has already shown this here at Gow, and I am confident that she will continue to do so beyond graduation."
88. In April–May 2018, as part of preparing to apply for university, Victoria was administered a psychoeducational assessment by Dr. Mari Jo Renick, who made comprehensive recommendations about accommodations that Victoria should receive.
89. In May 2018, Victoria graduated from Gow with Honours. Perhaps more importantly, Victoria was accepted to a number of universities—an outcome I truly do not believe would have been possible had she remained at her former school.
90. Victoria chose to study at Mount Allison University and is achieving success beyond what I could have imaged back in June 2016, when her former school board told us Victoria was getting everything she needed despite persistent struggles that were only getting worse.
91. Victoria has now been accepted to a Bachelor of Education program at Mount Saint Vincent University. There is no doubt in my mind that Victoria will continue to thrive and succeed, with the proper academic supports in place.
Impact of the former school board’s Failure to Accommodate
92. It was frustrating and upsetting to have the school board spend more time attempting to manage (and dilute) our expectations rather than work on providing the accommodations that Victoria needed in order to succeed and realize her full potential. I despaired at what the impact on Victoria’s future would be if this continued unchanged.
93. It was mentally and emotionally exhausting to do the amount of research that was required to knowledgeably advocate for Victoria’s rights and best interests while she was at this board. That research has become habit and is something I continue to do in the hope that the system can be changed and students like Victoria will not have to go through ordeals like the one she went through at her former high school.
94. It was also emotionally excruciating to know that there were (and continue to be) evidence-based accommodations available for students like Victoria, but that the school board would not even explore these and was instead content on making scripted statements about how Victoria had everything she needed—when she obviously did not.
95. It was especially upsetting that the board would not even acknowledge how severe Victoria’s reading and math difficulties were in Grades 9–10. By the end of Victoria’s ordeal at this board, I had completely lost trust in the staff.
96. When Victoria’s science teacher asked me (in January 2016) whether my husband was able to get a job or if he was employable in light of his own Dyslexia, I realized that the teachers and staff dealing with Victoria’s IEPs and education lacked any fundamental understanding of Victoria’s Learning Disabilities and accommodation needs. That was simply shocking to me.
97. When the Ontario Human Rights Commission released its Right to Read inquiry report (the “Report”), I was immediately struck by how so many findings in the Report resonated with me.
98. When reading much of the Report, I felt as if I was reading specifically about our ordeal while Victoria was at her former high school. This was very impactful, as we had also attended the Right to Read public hearing on January 29, 2019, where we heard devastating stories of what other children and parents had to endure in trying to get their children the accommodations they needed.
99. The experiences that other parents described in the Report was heartbreaking: so many children in Ontario were denied the basic right of learning to read. I was astonished at how so many parents were being lied to, talked down to, and given excuses for their children’s difficulties, and I was also struck by the financial burdens placed on parents who try to provide their children with tutoring, private assessments, and the like.
100. Reading about the many children who developed mental health challenges like anxiety, depression, and poor self-esteem was devastating, as it immediately brought to mind the impacts on Victoria.
Damages
101. We are seeking compensatory damages for the significant injury to Victoria’s dignity, feelings, and self-worth caused by the school board’s discrimination in the amount of (redacted).
102. We are seeking compensatory and/or restitutionary damages for the expenses we have incurred as a result of the school board’s failure to accommodate Victoria, which are itemized in our documents and are summarized as follows:
Nature of Expenses
Amount (CAD or USD indicated)
Private assessment by Dr. Klein, which we pursued after the former school board refused to perform any further assessment of Victoria despite her struggles - $2,150.00 CAD
Full tuition charge for Victoria’s Grade 11 year at Gow - $61,800.00 USD
less financial aid of $29,000.00 USD, for a total of $32,800.00 USD
Full tuition charge for Victoria’s Grade 12 year at Gow - $64,000.00 USD
less financial aid of $30,200.00 USD, for a total of $33,800.00 USD
Textbooks and school supplies for Victoria’s Grade 11–12 years - $846.97 USD
Quotidian expenses associated with Victoria’s Grade 11–12 years at Gow (e.g., music lessons, vaccines) - $1,483.50 Gow uniform expenses - $300.00–$400.00 USD *Revised amount higher
Medication cases and out-of-province health insurance for Victoria’s Grade 11–12 years at Gow - $332.10 CAD
Travel expenses associated with family visiting Victoria at Gow or Victoria visiting family in London during her Grade 11–12 years at Gow - $8,369.46 CAD, $1,422.01 USD
All of which is respectfully submitted.