24 mai 2012
Gillian Tuck Kutarna

The Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics recently published the results of a study which examined the prospects of young adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder (A.S.D.) in the years following their graduation from secondary school. Based on 2007/2008 data, this study found that two years after leaving high school more than 50% of students with A.S.D. had had no participation in the workplace, nor had they gone on to higher education. Those from lower-income families, or with greater functional impairments, were at even greater risk of a poor post-secondary outcome.

The findings identified in this study are particularly disconcerting in light of financial constraints now facing so many boards of education across the country, and public health and education organizations generally. As much as they might like to continue to expand their programming, particularly in areas which enhance each student’s ability to maximize their own potential, rising costs and greater competition for declining tax dollars have left many boards wondering how they are going to continue to meet even their minimum statutory obligations to their special needs students.

Typically, these obligations are designed to guarantee access to services, rather than outcomes. The Ontario Human Rights Code, for example, requires boards to accommodate the needs of all students with disabilities in the provision of educational services, to the point of undue hardship. The Education Act ensures that “all exceptional students” will have available “appropriate special education programs and special education services without payment of fees”. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act imposes further and increasing obligations for boards to ensure that all goods, services and facilities in education to be universally accessible.

The education system is faced with a growing number of students identified as having special needs, including A.S.D. This is in part due to the fact that educators, health care professionals and parents are increasingly aware of the need to identify these needs early, and have greater access to diagnostic tools which continue to improve in sophistication.

However, the current funding model does not compensate boards for all of the costs associated with meeting their statutory obligations to accommodate these needs, and the funding gap only grows as the number of students presenting with disabilities and requiring accommodation increases.

We may therefore wonder how the results of a study pointing to poor outcomes which only become apparent once students have left the educational system will be received, and whether the problems it describes can be remedied in the current environment. Notwithstanding the fact that many educators would agree that the ultimate measure of the value of education is how their students fare beyond the classroom, they may be increasingly distracted by a legal and fiscal framework which renders the full realization of each individual student’s potential too lofty a goal.

Where expectations exceed capacity, there is a risk that conflict can absorb valuable time and resources. Boards will therefore want to ensure that legal requirements have been satisfied in all respects, in anticipation that this will be the starting point of any challenge to whether or not they have met their statutory obligations. Further, it will be worth watching for any sign that a court or tribunal is prepared to acknowledge that a board has a duty of care to a student which extends beyond the years spent in the school system.