Follow us
Learning to Learn - Differently
  • Home
  • What's the Difference?
  • 21st Century Governance
  • L2D2 Open Forum
  • Teaching and Learning
  • Resource Bank

What's the difference?

Thoughts on making a real difference in the lives of learners...

View all Blog Entries

The Legacy of Jeffrey Moore

11/21/2012

2 Comments

 
Picture
I had lots of email traffic from across the country last week wondering why I hadn’t commented on the Jeffrey Moore decision. The truth is, for me, the issues were complex enough that I not only wanted to study the Supreme Court decision in detail but also to spend some time speaking with key people about how they viewed it. Over the past ten days I have had the chance to spend time sharing viewpoints with our local MLA and former Chair of the North Vancouver School District (although not at the time in question); two local lawyers (and former KGS parents) who knew the case and understood its implications well; and, the Chair of the Human Rights Tribunal, Heather MacNaughton, whose ruling was, in most part, upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.

So, what do I think? To begin with, I am thrilled that the original decision that there was an obligation to provide appropriate intensive support to Jeffrey Moore was upheld. There is no question but that the NVDSB made an error in judgment at the time in terms of determining their funding and programme priorities. If I was a parent of a child with learning challenges, who was enrolled in the District at the time, I would feel validated in my beliefs that more could and should have been done.

The question in 2012 however, is what ramification this decision really has for us today. It would be nice to think that the Moore decision was going to open up floodgates of individual and school district funding. That is not going to happen. It would be equally nice to think that, having been slapped on the collective wrists, all school districts were going to ramp up their level of service. That is also, highly unlikely. The reality is that most school districts and probably the Ministry will take a “that was then, this is now” approach and assert that the quality of programmes and services have improved significantly in the last fifteen years. Two key issues that will frame this response will be the fact that the Supreme Court did not find “systemic” discrimination – in other words, funding cuts by the province were not deemed to be automatically responsible for what was perceived to be uneven and discriminatory service reductions at the school district level; and, the ruling really zeroed in on “quantitative” issues not qualitative ones. The range or “intensity” of service was the core issue, not its quality or effectiveness. If the benchmark was set on how well the programme met the needs of each child then we could expect class action suits on behalf of every student in the mainstream who ever failed a course or dropped out without graduating. This decision was about inputs, not outcomes.

So what does that mean for students, parents and schools today? To begin with, the decision should create a higher sensitivity to the responsibility to provide programmes that address (but not necessarily meet) the needs of all learners. It might also lead to school districts looking for creative approaches to providing services that are currently needed but under-delivered. It should be understood, that no school district is going to willingly admit that it is not doing enough for all of the learners in its care. An aggressive or confrontational approach is not likely to open many doors in that regard. On the other hand, there may be some political will to look at contracting out services to schools such as ours or considering a voucher system that would allow parents to “spend” additional provincial funding on the approved programme or service of their choice. In an election year, it is difficult to know whether either of these two options would be palatable to any political party.

There is not much to be gained at this point in trumpeting the “problem” from the rooftops. Our goal should be to position ourselves, as members of the KGMS school community, to be part of the solution.


2 Comments
sue hodgkinson
11/21/2012 05:59:00 am

Very well put.

Reply
Carol Madsen
11/21/2012 05:49:03 pm

Another great entry Jim

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Picture

    Author

    Dr. Jim Christopher is the Head of Kenneth Gordon Maplewood School and Maplewood Alternative High School in North Vancouver. A parent, author and long-time teacher, and educational administrator across Canada, he has been actively involved in the drive to differentiate learning experiences to meet the needs of all learners.

    View my profile on LinkedIn

    Archives

    August 2022
    July 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    November 2021
    October 2021
    November 2020
    October 2020
    August 2020
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    September 2019
    April 2019
    November 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012

    Categories

    All
    Education
    Homework
    Independent Schools
    Learning Disabilities

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.