Read on Twitter
Bill 82 
Today on some Ontario disability advocacy sm feeds you might see some kind of "celebration" on the 40th anniversary of Bill 82, which was passed on Dec 12th 1980.
Broadly speaking, Bill 82 compelled every school board to provide spec ed services for students. /1
Today on some Ontario disability advocacy sm feeds you might see some kind of "celebration" on the 40th anniversary of Bill 82, which was passed on Dec 12th 1980.
Broadly speaking, Bill 82 compelled every school board to provide spec ed services for students. /1
Prior to Bill 82, education for disabled students was a patchwork. Some boards provided some services to some students.
There was also a hierarchy of disability. Some deaf and blind students were able to attend separate schools which were publicly funded, while /2
There was also a hierarchy of disability. Some deaf and blind students were able to attend separate schools which were publicly funded, while /2
Students with physical disabilities often relied on charities and community groups and autistic students were often just neglected entirely.
Bill 82 is often seen as a "win" for many in this province's disability community because boards now had to provide services for /3
Bill 82 is often seen as a "win" for many in this province's disability community because boards now had to provide services for /3
"Exceptional" children, and that broadly speaking is true and still true today.
But "providing services" could be anything. In it's first iteration, Bill 82 provided almost no recourse to an appeals process and almost all the power was in the IPRC. If a parent didn't /4
But "providing services" could be anything. In it's first iteration, Bill 82 provided almost no recourse to an appeals process and almost all the power was in the IPRC. If a parent didn't /4
agree with an IPRC decision they had to go through a long and complicated appeals process.
And while Bill 82 was supposed to secure "services", it did nothing for access and the Bill gave the IPRC the power to decide who did and who did not receive those services. /5
And while Bill 82 was supposed to secure "services", it did nothing for access and the Bill gave the IPRC the power to decide who did and who did not receive those services. /5
Ive def told this before but, seven years after the passage of the bill I was in 3rd grade. That winter I had a surgery on my leg to try to "correct" some of the affects of my cerebral palsy.
Surprise, it didn't work. But it did leave me unable to walk for months. 6
Surprise, it didn't work. But it did leave me unable to walk for months. 6
The way my mom tells it, they wouldn't either a) move me into another grade 3 class inside or b) switch the classes so our whole class could be inside.
So she carried me up the steps in the morning and down in the afternoon, and came at lunch so I could use the bathroom. /7
So she carried me up the steps in the morning and down in the afternoon, and came at lunch so I could use the bathroom. /7
Nor could she get me identified as "exceptional". My cp wasn't bad enough- ie I could walk.
Meanwhile, the carceral applocarions of Bill 82 were flourishing. Throughout the 80's "Behaviour" classes were set up in every school and some schools specialized in it and /8
Meanwhile, the carceral applocarions of Bill 82 were flourishing. Throughout the 80's "Behaviour" classes were set up in every school and some schools specialized in it and /8
It wasn't typically well-recourced white children who were ending up in "Behaviour" classes.
The fact that Bill 82 was and still is needlessly complex with its categorization and jingoistic and pathological language, shows that it was always meant to serve the institution's/9
The fact that Bill 82 was and still is needlessly complex with its categorization and jingoistic and pathological language, shows that it was always meant to serve the institution's/9
desire to sift and sort students. It was fertile ableist ground where white supremacist and capitalist ideas could flourish in schools.
In 1982, barely a year after it's passage, the Ottawa Law Review published a critique of the Bill which even at that time questioned /10
In 1982, barely a year after it's passage, the Ottawa Law Review published a critique of the Bill which even at that time questioned /10
the bill from an equity perspective, and was worried about it's "negative implications of labeling children as having behavioral and learning problems".
In the years since the original legislation has been updated to give students and families more say, but, 11
In the years since the original legislation has been updated to give students and families more say, but, 11
much of current the law, accompanying PPMs, and practices are often violent and carceral in nature.
So much so IPRCs become performances of pycho-edu-babble that has such little to do with the child and the access and programming they may need.
In fact, such discussions /12
So much so IPRCs become performances of pycho-edu-babble that has such little to do with the child and the access and programming they may need.
In fact, such discussions /12
about access and specific accommodations are often *discouraged* in IPRC meetings. The brevity and swiftness of those meetings are a hold over from the early 80s when schools had complete control over who was "identified" and "placed" and what that looked like. /13
So what do we do? Short of overhauling Bill 82 and abolishing IPRCs and replacing them with more student and family-focused IEP meetings (which we should definitely do), we need to start thinking about DisCrit as it relates to spec ed.
I'm already 15 tweets in, so not going to explain why we need to blend Disabilty Studies and Critical Race Theory in education, but I can't think of a better way to "celebrate" the 40th anniversary of Bill 82 than reading this book and thinking about we're going to replace it.
