BOSTES behaving badly

BOSTES make it very difficult for students with hidden disabilities to obtain  disability  adjustments for the HSC, even if the student has been using disability adjustments since the beginning of High School that were medically recommended.

In the case of a student, BOSTES withdrew his disability adjustments of computer and extra time, replacing these with a reader and writer believing this was more suitable to the student and “fair”.  The disability adjustments that the student was using had been medically recommended since 2011, adjustments he used at school for all schoolwork and exams and had even used for his trial exams.

Below is the further documentation BOSTES advised a family they required to obtain disability adjustments for the student, copy of the 10th declined appeal decision – take  note of the reason BOSTES gave for declining requested provisions –  snipets taken from medical evidence provided to BOSTES,  a copy of BOSTES guidelines obtained under the GIPA 2013 Act, because BOSTES would not advise parents this information, copies of students work, copy of students handwriting and other bits and pieces.  This is only part of the story there has been a lot more.  All because BOSTES thinks a student is trying to rort the system, they place unreasonable conditions upon students before they can have access to their disability adjustments, even those they have been using for many years and work for them.

BOSTES do not seem to take into consideration a students well being in requesting continual testing to prove disability, nor do they take into consideration the cost of these tests to the family or why a parent prefer to have testing done externally rather than within the school system. It appeared that everytime supporting evidence was supplied to BOSTES the reason for declining always changed and the goalpost moved, even though BOSTES guidelines stated differently.

Also see the lengths BOSTES will go through to intimidate a parent of a student with a disability for questioning their declined reasons, lawfully being able to complain to NSW Ombudsman, Australian Human Rights and NSW Anti Discrimination Board.

BOSTES appear to take no notice upon parents requests, medical evidence provided and disability discrimination laws both Commonwealth and State laws believing only their policies, guidelines and procedures are correct. See below if you believe this is a Government Department doing the right thing by a student, considering the Education Act 1990 and BOSTES Act 2013, not to mention Disability Laws, State and Commonwealth.

BOSTES appear to make a game of not approving disability adjustments for students, no thought is given to the student and it is a win at all costs for BOSTES to enforce their rules, policies and procedures, not interpret medical documentation or disability laws and to have a win over a parent for rightfully asking questions on behalf of their child and wanting to know the reasons why the disability adjustments were not approved with a full explanation provided.

BOSTES Guidelines obtained under GIPA Act

BOSTES HSC Guidelines Extra time to write
BOSTES HSC Guidelines Extra time to write
BOSTES HSC Guidelines Extra time to work and Writer
BOSTES HSC Guidelines Extra time to work and Writer
BOSTES HSC Guidelines reader or extra time to write, computer, exam supervision and small group supervisions
BOSTES HSC Guidelines reader or extra time to write, computer, exam supervision and small group supervisions
BOSTES Advising Australian Human Rights, Disability Advocacy NSW and parent what they required for their child to have disability adjustments for 2016 HSC
BOSTES Advising Australian Human Rights, Disability Advocacy NSW and parent what they required for their child to have disability adjustments for 2016 HSC
290416 First Disability Provision approved but not without a complaint that had been lodged to NSW Ombudsman
290416 First Disability Provision approved but not without a complaint that had been lodged to NSW Ombudsman

BACKGROUND TO HSC DISABILITY APPLICATION

This student had a handwriting speed in the 9th percentile, hand pain upon writing, Dyspraxia and Hypotonicity, reading comprenhsion disability 4th percentile and working memory 5th percentile, Specific Learning Disorder, Specific Disability in Reading Comprehension and written expression as advised by Clinical Psychologist, Occupational Therapist, Speech Therapist and Paedatrician. These disabilities did not suddenly appear, they had been ongoing for many years, with information of old medical evidence being given to BOSTES.

The student has a Specific Learning Disorder diagnosed under DSM5 by a Clinical Psychologist and has previously been diagnosed with ADHD by a paedatrician,  Paedatrician also advised because school could not or would not provide further information, the paediatrician could not confirm diagnosis of ADHD, but advised the working memory issues were in keeping with ADHD.

BOSTES appear to nit pick through medical professionals reports, and do not seem to take an overall full picture of evidence provided by medical professionals over the years, nor do they listen to what parents have to say, as they appear to “know nothing” about their childs disabilities.

The first application that was lodged to BOSTES in July 2015,  was declined with BOSTES reason given no evidence of disability.  No HSC disability adjustment was granted until the merry go round of lodging complaints with NSW Ombudsman, Australian Human Rights and NSW Anti Discrimination Board.

BOSTES refuse to conciliate at Australian Human Rights and do not respond to questions asked, not allowing us time to obtain evidence they required and so caused Australian Human Rights to terminate the complaint. Even when evidence was obtained, you can clearly see not all evidence has been taken into consideration with their decisions, much less follow their own advice, polices and NSW State laws and Commonwealth laws. But that is of course just my opinion. Interestingly of all “evidence” provided to BOSTES, they only contacted one medical professional, not all and made their decisions based upon one call, their internal medical providers advices (who have not physically seen or assessed my son)…………………..

Next a complaint was lodged with NSW Ombudsman and interestingly enough, following this complaint and some further evidence produced, BOSTES finally approved the first disability adjustment 29/4/16  of small group supervision.  But if you look at what BOSTES told Australian Human Rights, approval of small groups was the result of any of the other disability provisions being approved.

060516 BOSTES Advising NSW Ombudsman they would not place a condition upon the student, but see the 10th declined decision there is a condition prior to offering computer
060516 BOSTES Advising NSW Ombudsman they would not place a condition upon the student, but see the 10th declined decision there is a condition prior to offering computer
NSW Ombudsman Review letter, notice they state BOSTES following policies and guidelines, they did not address Disability Discrimination Laws. Also see BOSTES decision following this, another 2 disability adjustments approved, just not the ones that were asked for and medical evidence advised was needed. Just what BOSTES believed worked for the student even though their guidelines obtained under GIPA advise different things (although this evidence was not available to the family when this review was done and NSW Ombudsman would not provide it either)
NSW Ombudsman Review letter, notice they state BOSTES following policies and guidelines, they did not address Disability Discrimination Laws. Also see BOSTES decision following this, another 2 disability adjustments approved, just not the ones that were asked for and medical evidence advised was needed. Just what BOSTES believed worked for the student even though their guidelines obtained under GIPA advise different things (although this evidence was not available to the family when this review was done and NSW Ombudsman would not provide it either)
NSW Ombudsman letter page 2. Notice the date of the letter and notice what provisions BOSTES approved finally acknowledging disability. Also notice the NSW Ombudsman only addressed policy and guidelines not Disability Discrimination laws.
NSW Ombudsman letter page 2. Notice the date of the letter and notice what provisions BOSTES approved finally acknowledging disability. Also notice the NSW Ombudsman only addressed policy and guidelines not Disability Discrimination laws.
BOSTES reviewed decision following discussions with NSW Ombudsman - note the extra provisions offered, but not the requested adjustments only BOSTES adjustments
BOSTES reviewed decision following discussions with NSW Ombudsman – note the extra provisions offered, but not the requested adjustments only BOSTES adjustments
BOSTES Approved disability adjustment. BOSTES unfairly dishing out disability provisions, rather than acknowledging what works for the student and what the student previously had. Disability Standards in Education 2005???
BOSTES Approved disability adjustment. BOSTES unfairly dishing out disability provisions, rather than acknowledging what works for the student and what the student previously had. Disability Standards in Education 2005???

nsw-ombudsman-response 

BOSTES seem to think the parents and the student are trying to obtain an unfair advantage, even though many medical professionals have made recommendations about the disability adjustments over many years.  BOSTES seem to believe that parents can go to medical professionals and medical professionals will put their careers on the line to write up fictitious reports about their child.  How can a parent do that to so many medical professionals???  How can BOSTES medical professional be correct when they haven’t physically seen or assessed the student??

BOSTES Advised in their 10th declined appeal, the reasons for declining this students disability application was:-

BOSTES 10th Declined Decision of Computer and Extra Time that was medically recommended for the student, the student had been using at school since 2011 and had for schoolwork/exams and HSC trials. Fair and reasonable to be removed for HSC??
BOSTES 10th Declined Decision of Computer and Extra Time that was medically recommended for the student, the student had been using at school since 2011 and had for schoolwork/exams and HSC trials. Fair and reasonable to be removed for HSC?? Where in BOSTES guidelines does it say a student needs a clinical diagnosis of anxiety disorder to access a computer?? These were received on the day my son sat his HSC!

 

DISABILITY APPLICATIONS NOT HELPED BY THE SCHOOLS

May 2016 School and Public Director advising BOSTES requires no further information bit different to appeals information guide

Documentation of BOSTES website Disability  pge 4 states as shown below:- https://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/disability-provisions/pdf_doc/schools-guide-disability-provisions.pdf

2016 BOSTES Guidelines for Schools re appeals procedures
2016 BOSTES Guidelines for Schools re appeals procedures

Neither BOSTES or my schools school discussed details with me.  I emailed requests and they just forwarded on, even when pointed out appeals process I was ignored.

STUDENTS HANDWRITING EXAMPLES

Students writing when copying from the board. No pressure from exams. See the difficulty this student was having in the classroom and why medical recommendations were made. What right do BOSTES have to remove disability adjustments for students that legitimately have handwriting difficulties and these have been documented for many years
Students writing when copying from the board. No pressure from exams. See the difficulty this student was having in the classroom and why medical recommendations were made. What right do BOSTES have to remove disability adjustments for students that legitimately have handwriting difficulties and these have been documented for many years
Even the teacher notes the neatness and completeness of work produced. This was prior to using the computer. You can clearly see why medical professional made recommendations of computer. So the students learning would not be impaired and so they could keep up with the work in the classroom
Even the teacher notes the neatness and completeness of work produced. This was prior to using the computer. You can clearly see why medical professional made recommendations of computer. So the students learning would not be impaired and so they could keep up with the work in the classroom
HSC Trial using the computer from student with Specific Learning Disorder and difficulty with written expression. BOSTES withdrew disability provisions
HSC Trial using the computer from student with Specific Learning Disorder and difficulty with written expression. BOSTES withdrew disability provisions as they believe this student is receving an unfair advantage
Use of computer for HSC, unfair advantage for Student with Specific Learning Disorder??? Fair and reaonsable for provisions to be removed for HSC?
Use of computer for HSC, unfair advantage for Student with Specific Learning Disorder??? Fair and reaonsable for provisions to be removed for HSC? A student trying to cheat a broken system??

TEACHER COMMENTS ON STUDENTS WORK OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS

Clearly these teacher comments below shows the students disabilities and this was with the student using current disability adjustments of computer, extra time and small groups.

More teacher comments clearly showing this student has Specific Learning Disabilities, in written expression
More teacher comments clearly showing this student has Specific Learning Disabilities, in written expression
More teacher comments, clearly shows students Specific Learning Disability and disability in written expression.
More teacher comments, clearly shows students Specific Learning Disability and disability in written expression.
Year 12 teacher comments, now why weren't some of these explained and written onto the students HSC Disability application appeals?
Year 12 teacher comments, now why weren’t some of these explained and written onto the students HSC Disability application appeals? And why would BOSTES not accept this as further evidence of the students disablities?  And why would this student attend tutoring outside school hours,  if he did not want to learn – he had difficulty discussing his difficulties with his teachers, who clearly knew he was struggling by the above comments, but he received no help even when parents advocated on his behalf, stating he had to ask for the help himself!  Consulting with parents of students with disabilities??

 

Year adviser comments, clearly show no understanding of the students disabilities, no knowledge that this student has attended tutoring outside of school hours to assist him with his disabilities. What has been written “is he applies himself” is clear lack of understanding of GLD students, lack of understanding about Specific Learning Disorders and makes you wonder if the Year adviser ever read any medical documentation provided to them (that most likely was withheld from teachers, given the comments made by the relieving principal as all communication had to go through the principal i.e parent labelled trouble maker)

STUDENTS SCHOOL WITHHOLDING INFORMATION FROM FAMILY – WHAT WAS WITHHELD FROM BOSTES APPLICATION ALSO????

The family had advocated for their son with a disability advocate  since starting at HIgh School, requesting help for the student.  The student never received the  assistance they needed at school, because the school refused to acknowledge his struggles.  Interesting what was written in the relieving principals Educational Impact Statement, a school finally admitting the students disabilities  which impacted upon learning and I believe impacted on his Disability Adjustment Application for the HSC.

Why were the family not to see this?  Transparency in our school systems?  BOSTES are aware of this, do they want their schools doing this??

Principals Education Impact Statement - the one The school principal did not want the parents to see. What is the principal hiding.... probably the fact that the school never acknowledged handwriting difficulties and impact on students learning in HSC Disability application forms to BOSTES or to parents. Only medical evidence was ever provided to BOSTES. Should schools be allowed to hide these documents from families??? Considering all the medical evidence provided to the school advising the student had handwriting speed 9th percentile, working memory issues 5th percentile, reading comprehension in 4th percentile, advised Specific Learning Disabilities in written expression and reading comprehension, specific Learning Disorder, you would think the school could and should have written more to assist the student.
Principals Education Impact Statement – the one The school principal did not want the parents to see. What is the principal hiding…. probably the fact that the school never acknowledged handwriting difficulties and impact on students learning in HSC Disability application forms to BOSTES or to parents. Only medical evidence was ever provided to BOSTES. Should schools be allowed to hide these documents from families??? Considering all the medical evidence provided to the school advising the student had handwriting speed 9th percentile, working memory issues 5th percentile, reading comprehension in 4th percentile, advised Specific Learning Disabilities in written expression and reading comprehension, specific Learning Disorder, you would think the school could and should have written more to assist the student.
EAS Application School requesting documentation not to be shared with parents. Might have something to do with the 9 appeals lodged to BOSTES in regards to the students difficulty with handwriting and requesting the use a computer, that medical professionals have recommended since 2011
EAS Application School requesting documentation not to be shared with parents. Might have something to do with the 9 appeals lodged to BOSTES in regards to the students difficulty with handwriting and requesting the use a computer, that medical professionals have recommended since 2011

EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE FAMILY

There is a lot more evidence, but these are the pieces that seem to be not taken into consideration

2011 Paedatrician evidence advising school support in advocating for computer for schoolwork/examinations and extra time, with BOSTES not taking any notice of this
2011 Paedatrician evidence advising school support in advocating for computer for schoolwork/examinations and extra time, with BOSTES not taking any notice of this

Family had other older reports and these too were provided to BOSTES and they would not accept those, and the family had no alternative but to provide up to date current evidence, even though prior medical reports advised that at this late stage it would be more appropriate and beneficial for (student name) to use a computer. Fair and reasonable for the student and family???

Below are snipets taken from Medical Documentation that BOSTES chose to overlook:-

2016 Occupational Therapist advising Handwriting 9th percentile, recommend computer, extra time and why scribe not suited
2016 March Occupational Therapist advising Handwriting 9th percentile, recommend computer, extra time and why scribe not suited

 

2016 Speech Therapist Statement of Language disability advising reading comprehension 11.yrs or 4th percentile
2016 March Speech Therapist Statement of Language disability advising reading comprehension 11.yrs or 4th percentile
2016 Speech Pathologist CELFIV showing working memory at 5th percentile
2016 Speech Pathologist CELFIV showing working memory at 5th percentile
2016 YARC Assessment, required by BOSTES, Learning Disability noted in 4th percentile by Speech Pathologist
2016 YARC Assessment, required by BOSTES, Learning Disability noted in 4th percentile by Speech Pathologist
Speech Therapist advising Working Memory Issues for the student. This alone should advise BOSTES the difficulties a student would have with a writer. BOSTES ask students to interpret and read between the lines in HSC exams, why can't BOSTES do the same thing??
Speech Therapist advising Working Memory Issues for the student. This alone should advise BOSTES the difficulties a student would have with a writer. BOSTES ask students to interpret and read between the lines in HSC exams, why can’t BOSTES do the same thing??
Speech Therapist advising why writer not suitable and advising students difficulties
Speech Therapist advising why writer not suitable and advising students difficulties

reading-disability

Speech Therapists recommendations and advising why a scribe is not suitable. BOSTES advised no reading disability student with reading comprehension in 4th percentile not a disability???
Speech Therapists recommendations and advising why a scribe is not suitable. BOSTES advised no reading comprehension outside their guidelines???  A student with reading comprehension in 4th percentile does not  qualify for extra time to read???
2016 April Paedatrician completing BOSTES form
2016 April Paedatrician completing BOSTES form
Paedatrician verifying Occupational Therapist and Speech Therapist 2016 assessments and making same recommendations, being surprised provisions had been withdrawn. Note BOSTES guidelines, reading comprehension disability, which my son has, handwriting pain and writing speed 9th percentile, written expression difficulties, approved reader/writer from BOSTES. That being the case cannot understand why BOSTES have refused computer and extra time given their guidelines and email sent to Australian Human Rights, parent and Disability Advocate
Paedatrician verifying Occupational Therapist and Speech Therapist 2016 assessments and making same recommendations, being surprised provisions had been withdrawn. Note BOSTES guidelines, reading comprehension disability, which my son has, handwriting pain and writing speed 9th percentile, written expression difficulties, approved reader/writer from BOSTES. That being the case cannot understand why BOSTES have refused computer and extra time given their guidelines and email sent to Australian Human Rights, parent and Disability Advocate
2016 Clinical Psychologist advising Diagnosis and advising why writer (scribe) not suitable
2016 Clinical Psychologist advising Diagnosis and advising why writer (scribe) not suitable
8/10/16 Occupational Therapist 3rd letter of support again explaining use of scribe and reasons for computer
8/10/16 Occupational Therapist 3rd letter of support again explaining use of scribe and reasons for computer

BOSTES MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS NIT PICKING THROUGH MEDICAL EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE STUDENT (obtained under GIPA Act)

BOSTES medical professionals assessing old medical evidence - notice what was stated about the reason why we went to an Occupational Therapist and Notice the medical professional mentions it was unfortunate that a computer was recommended.
BOSTES medical professionals assessing old medical evidence – notice what was stated about the reason why we went to an Occupational Therapist it was because of our sons difficulties with handwriting.  Also comment about recommendation of PC being unfortunate as this apparent lack of consistence between their recommendations and BOSTES guidelines has further aggravated mothers confusion and frustration.  Who are BOSTES to tell medical professionals what to recommend for a student to use to assist them with their disability???

How do you know what medical reports BOSTES actually gave each of these medical professionals in making these assumptions???

Again more medical assessments from BOSTES professionals that have not physically seen the student. Again what medical documentation was handed over when these comments were made?
Again more medical assessments from BOSTES professionals that have not physically seen the student. Again what medical documentation was handed over when these comments were made?
Parents Reason for taking their child to Occupational Therapist - not that it is any of BOSTES business why we did it.
Parents Reason for taking their child to Occupational Therapist – not that it is any of BOSTES business why we did it.

SHOULD BOSTES BE TRYING TO INTIMIDATE PARENTS FOR TRYING TO OBTAIN ANSWERS FOR THE CHILD’S DECLINED DISABILITY PROVISIONS?

BOSTES Intimidation email sent to parent at 6:11pm, who was attending NCAT hearing following being referred by NSW ADA. First time BOSTES advised having lawyers and hearing was 2pm following day. Should BOSTES be allowed to send documentation into families homes at 6:11pm? BOSTES/Schools do not get parents emails until the next day when they return to work. Parents should not even receive these intimidating emails for wanting answers why their child's disability adjustments have been refused and BOSTES will not explain reasons why.
BOSTES Intimidation email sent to parent at 6:11pm, who was attending NCAT hearing following being referred by NSW ADA. First time BOSTES advised having lawyers and hearing was 2pm following day. Should BOSTES be allowed to send documentation into families homes at 6:11pm? BOSTES/Schools do not get parents emails until the next day when they return to work. Parents should not even receive these intimidating emails for wanting answers why their child’s disability adjustments have been refused and BOSTES will not explain reasons why.  NCAT did not advise why BOSTES could have lawyers when we did not have lawyers.  I was told in the hearing that it was a legal right.
111016 NSW ADA not forwarding copies of medical and other Documentation to NCAT
111016 NSW ADA not forwarding copies of medical and other Documentation to NCAT

BOSTES Refusing to answer questions of declined disability adjustments

BOSTES Refusing to respond to questions in regards to 10th declined decision
BOSTES Refusing to respond to questions in regards to 10th declined decision

BOSTES-refusing-to-respond-questions – click on red for correspondence

NSW Premier Department contacting NSW Education Minister Mr Adrian Piccoli
NSW Premier Department contacting NSW Education Minister Mr Adrian Piccoli

HAVE BOSTES AND THIS STUDENTS SCHOOL, BEEN FAIR AND REASONABLE IN NOT PROVIDING DISABILITY ADJUSTMENTS GIVEN THE ABOVE MEDICAL REPORTS, TEACHER COMMENTS, WORK SAMPLES ???  

HOW CAN BOSTES MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS ASSESS A STUDENT, ADVISE WHAT THE STUDENT NEEDS WHEN THEY HAVE NEVER PHYSICALLY SEEN THE STUDENT??

IS THAT CONSIDERED FAIR AND REASONABLE?  IS IT FAIR AND REASONABLE A SCHOOL WITH HOLDS INFORMATION ALSO??

YOU HAVE TO ASK WHY DO BOSTES INSIST UPON FORCING DISABILITY ADJUSTMENTS UPON STUDENTS AND WHY CAN’T A STUDENT USE WHAT WORKS BEST FOR THEM AND WHAT MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS RECOMMEND.  WHY IS A GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT TELLING STUDENTS THEY CAN ONLY ACCESS WHAT THEY CHOOSE TO GIVE THE STUDENT?  IS THIS FOLLOWING DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION LAWS???

IN THE WORKPLACE, PEOPLE ARE NOT FORCED TO LEARN A NEW DISABILITY ADJUSTMENT TO ASSIST THEM TO DO THEIR JOB, IF THEY HAVE ONE THAT WORKS FOR THEM EMPLOYERS ARE HAPPY WITH THAT – WHY NOT SCHOOLS AND HOW IS THIS REMOVING STUDENTS DISABILITY ADJUSTMENTS FOLLOWING DISABILITY STANDARDS IN EDUCATION?

WHY IS OUR EDUCATION DEPARTMENT WASTING TIME AND MONEY AND CAUSING FRUSTRATION FOR BOTH STUDENTS AND TEACHER TO FORCE THEM TO LEARN A DISABILITY ADJUSTMENT THAT THEY ARE NEVER GOING TO USE IN THE WORKPLACE.  WHAT IS THE POINT IN  THAT??  PUT THAT MONEY SET ASIDE TO ASSIST WITH SCRIBES/WRITERS AND TEACH STUDENTS TO USE TECHNOLOGY THEY WILL USE IN THE WORKPLACE.

IS THIS A SCHOOL SYSTEM WE WANT, NOT HELPING STUDENTS WHO NEED IT, NO WONDER STUDENTS DROP OUT OF SCHOOL, REMAIN UNEMPLOYED AND GET INTO TROUBLE WITH THE LAW, OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM IS NOT HELPING.

ALSO, WHY DOES GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY ADVISE ON THEIR WEBSITE THAT Reaonsable adjustments the students usual work methods need to be taken into account – point 3 pg 3 and BOSTES/NSW Ombudsman do not acknowledge or take this into considerations, why is it so different for Universities to give disability adjustments and BOSTES not to.  BOSTES and the HSC are in fact holding students back and this needs to change – 

http://policies.griffith.edu.au/pdf/Assessment%20Reasonable%20Adjustments.pdf

AND MONASH UNIVERSITY ADVISES  Indirect – where there is a condition or requirement imposed which may be the same for everyone, but which unfairly excludes or disadvantages people with disability in a manner that is unreasonable. (For example, a person with a learning disability is not provided the appropriate adjustments    such as lecture recordings, a notetaker or adaptive technologies and is therefore denied the same opportunity to learn as other students.) – 

http://mon.clients.squiz.net/disability/for-staff/legislation

Is this a school system following even Education Acts, BOSTES Acts, Disability Discrimination Acts???  You have to wonder

THIS STUDENT CLEARLY HAS BEEN LET DOWN BY THE SYSTEM. NO STUDENT, PARENT, CARER OR FAMILY NEED TO GO TO THESE EXTREMES, BUT IF IT IS NOT DOCUMENTED SOMEWHERE FOR THE POWERS TO BE TO SEE WHAT DOES HAPPEN OUR SYSTEM WILL NEVER CHANGE AND THAT IS NOT FAIR TO STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES. WHY SHOULD GETTING THE HELP A STUDENT NEEDS BE THIS DIFFICULT??  (Not that this student received the help he needed)  Every student Every School????

OUR SYSTEM NEEDS CHANGE NOW TO PROTECT OUR STUDENTS AND COMMUNITIES WELL-BEING!

Teaching is like doctoring - fair is not always equal - You pick which response your child has had from BOSTES when applying for Disability Provisions
Teaching is like doctoring – fair is not always equal – You pick which response your child has had from BOSTES when applying for Disability Provisions

Fair and Equal ???

Do we need to explain this???
Do we need to explain this???

disability

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save