Summary: In the OHRC’s second podcast episode, Reema Khawja, Senior Counsel at the OHRC, Patricia DeGuire, Chief Commissioner at the OHRC and Alicia Smith, Executive Director of Dyslexia Canada, engage in a meaningful discussion about the right to read for all students. The Right to Read inquiry advocates for evidence-based, inclusive approaches to the development of reading skills in Ontario’s public education system.
Introduction
[Purple title screen: Human Rights in Ontario: Let’s talk about it with a logo that says Celebrating 65 and the Ontario Human Rights Commission logo.]
VOICEOVER: Welcome and thank you for joining us. This podcast is brought to you by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, dedicated to advancing and protecting human rights across Ontario.
[Reema Khawja, Patricia DeGuire and Alicia Smith sitting next to each other in a recording room]
Reema (host): Hello everyone. I'm Reema, Senior Counsel at the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and I'll be your host for today's episode. I had the privilege of leading the commission's Right to Read public inquiry, and I'm thrilled to guide you through this important conversation. We've got a powerful episode for you today featuring Patricia DeGuire, Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and Alicia Smith, Executive Director of Dyslexia Canada.
Learning to read isn't a privilege, it's a fundamental human right. In this episode, we explore what that right means. We revisit the Ontario Human Rights Commission's landmark Right to Read inquiry, examine how Ontario's education system has evolved since the inquiry report was released, and take stock of the progress made. And we look ahead at the work that still needs to be done, so that every student has the opportunity and support they need to learn to read.
Thank you, Patricia and Alicia for joining us, today we're talking about Right to Read. But before we get into the landmark inquiry and everything that followed, I want to take us back in time to set the stage. What was the impetus for the right to read inquiry?
Patricia: That's such an excellent question. Every time I get to talk about education, I get so passionate about it. It's one of the things that I've spent the last, maybe, 40 years volunteering in, and it is even become a stronger piece since I have met Alicia Smith, and we have, you know, who has collaborated with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on the right to read.
There were many things that inspired the OHRC to focus on the education file, but I want to eclipse that with telling you about what happened in the last 20 years. The OHRC was challenging systemic discrimination in any which way it could by using an authority under the Code, which includes setting policies on accessible education, recommendations to government and to school boards, and strategic litigation. It was also going into communities and talking about education. Yet the Commission continued to hear deeply concerning stories from families, educators and other professionals about students being left behind, especially those with learning disabilities and most commonly, reading disabilities and dyslexia. But before I go any further, Alicia, do you want to tell the audience a little bit about reading disabilities? What are reading disabilities?
Alicia: Thanks, Patricia. Reading disabilities are a subtype of learning disability, which makes it much more difficult for an individual to learn to read. It doesn't mean that the person can't learn to read, but their best opportunity for success is going to be through really excellent classroom instruction and early screening to identify their needs, along with targeted interventions starting in kindergarten. So, when those things are in place, individuals with reading disabilities, and dyslexia is the most common type of reading disabilities, can successfully learn how to read.
Patricia: But in addition to those reading disabilities, there was strong evidence of systemic discrimination and the belief that some children simply cannot learn as well as others. And it's even more disturbing because those beliefs were held by educators. So included in that, in the students who had barriers because of systemic discrimination were students from low-income families, Blacks and other racialized students, Indigenous students. And again, as I said, that deepened structural inequality that already existed. And so, these failures disproportionately harmed students with disabilities. The structural discrimination led to lowered expectation, missed opportunities and a lack of timely support. And you know why that was so important? Because the Education Quality and Accountability Office, we call EQAO, they put out records and their results showed that far too many students were not meeting provincial readiness standard. And about half of the students with special education needs were not reading at their level.
On top of that, we had families and pediatric professionals reporting that the emotional toll of unaddressed reading disabilities, school avoidance, anxiety, depression and even suicide among children who felt they were failing at something as fundamental as reading. Very sad. So, all of this meant that students with reading disabilities and those negatively impacted by systemic barriers, were not receiving meaningful access to education. And let me emphasize this. That is a right, not only under the Human Rights Code, but under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Reema: Alicia, from your perspective, what was happening in the education system 7 or 8 years ago before we launched the Right to Read inquiry?
Alicia: Well, I think that the experience of my own family was really typical of the sorts of stories that you heard during the inquiry. And what happened in our case with my son was that, you know, we were aware of reading disabilities and dyslexia because I have dyslexia myself. I have a nephew that also has dyslexia. And we, you know, brought our son into the education system and were greeted by really wonderful educators who really cared about him and were working very, very hard. But when we had those discussions about our concerns about his delay in picking up the alphabet or different challenges that we noticed in kindergarten, in grade one, we were continually told, you know, not to worry about it. You know, he's a boy, boys take longer. All children develop at different rates. You know, someday reading will just click for him.
And so, he was just sort of continually pushed along through the system from year to year, despite all of our efforts at home, despite educators doing more of what they knew to do with him. Things just got worse and worse. And by the time he was in grade three, he was a shadow of the child that he was when we dropped him off at the beginning of junior kindergarten, he used to be outgoing and chatty and loved going to school. And by the time he was in grade three, he did not want to be there anymore, he was refusing to go to school. He had really horrendously negative self-talk. He was coming home saying that he felt like he was stupid, that he wished he was never born, that he wished he could just die so he could stop going to school.
And we had been asking throughout those early years about the possibility of having him assessed for a learning disability or dyslexia, knowing that there's a strong family history. But we were repeatedly told that they don't do that kind of assessment until grade three. So, we again delayed that piece until grade three. And then once we were in grade three, were told, well yes, he needs to have an assessment, but the waitlist to get that assessment for him is years long. And so he's probably not going to be able to get one funded by the public education system. Without that assessment, we were told there would be no additional support for him. So that was the first real eye opener for me about these significant equity issues, because we were advised to go and pay privately for that assessment. It cost us $4,000 and we were able to do that. But immediately I started thinking about all of the families in our community that couldn't afford that sort of assessment. So, it was through that process of having the formal assessment and learning that he had a learning disability, that we discovered these other systemic issues.
So, we came back with the assessment and here he has a learning disability. And immediately the conversation shifted from, oh he's so smart, he's going to learn to read eventually to, oh he has a learning disability, that's why he can't read. Not all children are going to be readers. And the best thing that we can do is to just accommodate him. So, we were offered a laptop and accommodations, but nothing meaningful in terms of reading intervention and support. And so that was when, you know, I went and started to connect with other parents across Ontario who had already been very much starting to organize online and sharing really similar stories about the devastating impact on their children and the lack of support within the public education system. And that group of parents approached the commission, and of course, that's what led to me meeting you.
Reema: You’ve both just described the emotional toll on families, on students, and the growing evidence at the time that students with reading difficulties were not getting the support they needed. As you know, on October 3rd, 2019, the OHRC began a public inquiry into whether students with reading disabilities had meaningful access to education. This is required under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The inquiry unfolded over three years and culminated in a landmark report with 157 recommendations. Can you walk us through what the inquiry examined and ultimately what it found?
Patricia: Wow. I'm going to see if I can give you a precis of what the inquiry found, what was involved. But let me give you another piece of this. Before this inquiry was even launched, and again as you heard from us earlier on. It’s not that we were looking for any support to find out whether this was a constitution or human right, but the Supreme Court of Canada had issued a decision in 2012, I believe, Moore v. British Columbia. And the court really drove that point home that learning to read is not a privilege. It's a Charter right. And it is a human right. And so that gave us impetus when we started. And I know Reema you said over three years, but no, it was two, because this started in 2019. And by February 2022 the report was launched. But and I want to emphasize to the listeners, the strategic methodology that the OHRC engaged in to arrive at what I will call uncontested evidence about the challenges that you heard Alicia ably spoke about.
So, the Commission, again, one of the big things the Commission focused on was data. And so, the Commission analyzed that data from eight school boards to understand the reading instructions and the accommodation and student outcome. And it worked closely with the Ministry of Education, reviewing its policies, its curriculum, its expectations and its oversight. It received thousands of surveys from students and families and educators, showing widespread reading struggles and delays in support. It conducted public hearings across Ontario, where students, parents, educators and I would say, pediatric professionals who were looking at students' performance were also involved. It spoke to First Nation people, Inuit communities to understand the impact on Indigenous students. And all that data that it gathered was analyzed not by the Commission, but two leading experts, who's doing a lot of research in reading disabilities.
And so, to set it and to give it very strong legitimacy of its findings, it focused on five essential areas that is so integral to the learning pathways of children, whether with or without disabilities. And so, we tackled curriculum and early reading instructions, early screening, evidence-based reading intervention and accommodation, and access to psycho-educational assessment. And there was there's another component, a sixth component. But that component is basically a tool to assess systemic issues. And so, we may not refer to that much, but those were, that was the benchmarks on which the OHRC were guided by. And what it found was deeply concerning that Ontario's approach to early reading was not aligned with scientific evidence, especially in teaching foundational word reading skills.
Early screening was inconsistent or not there at all, meaning that many at risk children were not identified until too late, and even when they were identified, the intervention was often not helpful. As you heard, Alicia mentioned about her own son, how that must have hurt for a parent. As well, the interventions were not even evidence-based, and access varied significantly depending on the school or the school board in which you happened to live. So, at one point, I must say that it's almost like, you know, everybody was going hither and yon using their own different ways without any sort of assessment of the outcome and the impact of those who were in their care. And so, there was also patterns, as I mentioned earlier, of systemic discrimination and lowered expectations leading to students being streamed. And we’re all familiar with those that streaming in school, which was we recently disbanded, yeah. Or they were denied opportunities because the system failed to teach them to learn to read. The overall conclusion was clear, Ontario was not meeting its human rights obligations, and a preventable reading failure was being allowed to occur on a systemic scale.
Reema: Alicia, what stood out for you in terms of the Inquiry ? What the inquiry examined and what it found?
Alicia: I think the biggest eye opener for me was just as Patricia said, the big disconnect between what was happening in terms of practices in Ontario and the wide body of scientific research that really, we should be drawing on to ensure that we are giving the best possible start in school and in life to all of these kids. So as a parent, you know, being told by educators that you trust that, you know, the best thing we can do is give him time, wait and see. And then you start to, you know, once your child is diagnosed, you start to learn about things like early screening. You feel this tremendous amount of guilt and that you missed this window of opportunity for your child, and you could have made their suffering. You could have avoided it entirely or at least reduced the amount of struggling that they had.
So that was a big part. But the other part, like from the you know, I originally came at this from the perspective of a parent having gone through this, but through the process of the inquiry and through the volunteering that I was doing at the time, I was connecting with so many educators who were also really struggling because they hadn't been prepared with that information, like they had not been exposed to the vast body of research around reading development and what they could do to support children better. You know, and these are people who, you know, dedicated their lives to teaching children. They want to be successful. They want to do everything that they can. So, seeing the amount of struggling that was happening for our educators as well.
You know, so I really think, now, my bigger takeaway is that the issues that were uncovered was, it was a failure of the province to support our kids, yes, but also a failure of the system to support the educators that work in the system.
Reema: Yeah, you've just described the major gaps that the inquiry uncovered in terms of how reading is taught in Ontario. But we know that those gaps didn't affect all students in the same way. From your perspective, what, who has been most impacted by these systemic issues and why?
Patricia: I've got to be careful while I answer this question, because I don't want anyone to think that there's a stratification, but the Right to Read demonstrated that reading equalities are not only pedagogical but systemic and is tied to racism, socio-economic disparities, and even access to early screening, high-quality intervention and culturally responsive support. And again, it's really important for the audience to understand that the achievement data from the Right to Read inquiry showed that students who have learning disabilities are risk of development, developing such disabilities, as well as Indigenous and Black, racialized, low-income and other marginalized students have significantly lower reading scores than their peers, reflecting inequalities access to effectively literacy instructions.
So, it's. You can hear who were like, you know, the impact it had on and all these different children who were really depending on a system to prepare them or empower them for their future. Right. and, and let me add this piece, because of the size of the school board who provided this information, the Toronto District School Board specifically identified Black students as a group experiencing disproportionately or reading accounts. And that tool was, you know, manifested in the research and the data on which we relied on. And it was most upsetting to hear that even so, that their reference to dyslexia was still absent in the education process.
Reema: Dyslexia Canada has described the Right to Read report as a turning point. Alicia, what made this report so transformative for families, educators, students, and advocates? Did something shift because of its findings and recommendations?
Alicia: Yes, it really was a turning point. I mean, I think I said that it was a turning point on the day that the report launched, and I was really being optimistic and saying that I believed it was going to be a turning point. But in retrospect, it absolutely has been. So much has shifted in education in Ontario since that report was released, starting with the new curriculum. So, the approach that was being used 7 or 8 years ago when my child was in kindergarten in grade one, was really based on the whole language method of teaching, which is very old and outdated and not supported by strong evidence.
And Ontario has completely revamped the curriculum to align with the structured literacy approach, which is that approach that the Commission recommended as being backed by solid evidence. That was a few years ago now, and since then, I would say there's a huge uptake in appetite from educators to learn more about that, which is amazing. The other major shift is universal early screening. So, we do now have in Ontario, every child in kindergarten, grade one and grade two is screened at the beginning of the year. You know, the Commission recommended that they be screened at least twice a year. And I would love to see that happen still. But even with that, it is such a difference. And if had those things been in place when my son was in grade one, I believe that his experiences would be very different.
And working with educators and parents now, it's not to say that everything is perfect. There certainly are, there's still a lot of work to do to implement the recommendations in the report, but the types of questions and the types of problems that we're getting and the types of things parents are hearing have shifted hugely. I'm not hearing a lot anymore about parents being explicitly told to lower their expectations for their children. The way that I was told to do for my son. So, to me, that's a that's a huge shift.
Patricia: we are excited and passionate about education on the Right to Read, because education is one of the most impactful ways of preparing children for their future. It's a strong source of empowerment, and it also can prevent generational challenges that we have been facing over time. And I would say that not making education an investment, an important investment strategy, would be a mistake. It also is one of the key factors of addressing colonization. I mean, let's face it, we've gone for 500 years using the colonial examples. How could we unearth that, so we have to take education now and give our own form and our own voice and our constructions to it, and that will assist us in changing.
Reema: Thank you Patricia. Alicia, Dyslexia Canada is a national organization. I'd be really interested to hear how you have been able to use the Right to Read report, both to advocate across Canada, but also to advocate for the use of the word dyslexia in the education system.
Alicia: Well, it's been a really useful report in terms of advocating nationally. And I would say at this point, almost every single province and territory in Canada is either has updated their curriculum to align with the sorts of things that were in the Right to Read report or are in the process of doing that.
There are a couple of provinces right now that are working on it, and the same is true of early screening. Almost all of the provinces have committed to starting it. They're not, they all haven't implemented yet. But we're, you know, talking to most of them. And I think the piece about using the word dyslexia is when we started this work, when I originally went into kindergarten and said, I have dyslexia, you know, people looked at me like I had three heads, like nobody knew what that was. And that term wasn't really used. But that was what I was told when I was a kid, and that's what I thought it was. But that word really wasn't welcome in education space. When we asked for awareness activities at school and that sort of thing, we were generally sidelined.
It has really changed in that regard and that we have, you know, across Canada, schools are participating in Dyslexia Awareness Month, now, we have Mark it Read, you know, activities happening. We have Premiers coming out and wearing the t-shirt, that sort of thing. We had David Eby in British Columbia this year come to our event. So that awareness of the legitimacy of that term has really changed, which is nice.
What hasn't changed, though, is that it's still isn't officially recognized in Ontario. That was one of the recommendations of the report, was to update the Policy and procedure memorandum number eight that defines learning disabilities to have a more up to date definition, that would be more equitable. So, there are some certain, some big problems with the way that it is defined in Ontario. So that's a piece that hasn't yet been actioned by the province, which I always thought was going to be one of the easiest lifts.
So, I've been really surprised that that one hasn't been actioned yet. But I'd say nationally the momentum is fantastic and there's been there's just huge movement. And it's not just the kids with dyslexia and reading disabilities that benefit from this. When I started to really dig in and look at these things and talk to people like the experts that you had, [Dr.] Jamie Metsala and [Dr.] Linda Siegal that were the experts in the commission looking at the report.
You know, they impressed upon me over and over again that these practices are universal practices that support the literacy growth of all children. The students who are at risk, it's absolutely necessary for them. But for your average student as well, it's hugely beneficial. It helps them to become better writers, better spellers, and be more advanced in their literacy growth sooner. So, you know, it's very positive, what's come out of this report in terms of the literacy growth of kids across Canada.
Patricia: That's such a refreshing thing.
Reema: That’s nice to hear. We've touched on the recommendations from the report, but let's look at them a little bit more closely. The right to read report put forward clear, evidence-based recommendations in a number of areas to ensure that all students learn to read using approaches grounded in science. Can you walk us through some of the key recommendations and share what progress has been made so far?
Patricia: The key recommendations was to adopt a new kindergarten program and grade 1 to 9 language curriculum built on direct, systemic instructions in foundational reading skills, fully aligned with the science of reading. And I'm not going to, I'm not going to say why that is critical. I'll just say that I was taught on that basis, and I still find it very good. It's to ensure that teacher training, both for teacher candidate and current educators, include comprehensive preparation in evidence-based approach to teaching reading.
Screen all students at least twice a year from kindergarten to grade two, using standardized, evidence-based tools to identify early reading difficulties, provide a stable, standardized funding, and ensure equitable access to evidence-based reading intervention across all Ontario schools. Standardized, evidence-based reading interventions and develop eligibility criteria while ensuring accommodation supplement, not replace effective instruction and intervention.
Access must be improved to professional assessment and ensure greater consistency, transparency and fairness in assessment processes so that students are not left waiting for support for years and address systemic wide barriers by setting clear, consistent standards for boards. Strengthening data collection and reporting, improving communication with families, and working closely with experts in the science of reading to guide implementations.
And since the publication of the inquiry report, there have been notable changes to the education system. As I mentioned before that Alicia has so ably mentioned, and I'll just tap on a few. Ontario revised grade 1 to 9 language curriculum and instructional guides to reflect recommendation in the report, in both English and French. Again, I'm going to stress in both English and French. The new language curriculum was designed to improve early reading instructions and reduce the need of intervention.
An Ontario issued a Policy Program memorandum that mandates early reading screening every year for all students in kindergarten to grade two, beginning in September 2024. I know there had been some shifts, but there is still if we listen to the latest news release of the minister on March the 4th, he intends to make education number one priority in the whole of Ontario. You know, I say that with much glee. And more recently, the government announced a new kindergarten curriculum that aligns with the recommendations in the Right to Read, the focus on structured reading instructions.
Many school boards embraced the inquiry report immediately taking steps to under, you know, to update the literary policies in line with the structured literacy and evidence-based instruction. Some schools updated the literacy instruction. Actually, before the inquiry report was launched. The minute they heard about it, they decided, you know, this is the path that we must travel. And so, educators as well, across the province have shown significant commitment and creativity, deepening their own learning, supporting colleagues, helping to lead the transition of evidence-based reading instruction and screening.
Reema: Alicia, there are 157 recommendations in the report, as you know, and Patricia has covered them in great detail. But from your perspective, are there, any that stood out to you as being particularly important? And what do you see as being the most significant progress that's happened so far?
Alicia: Well, I think they're all important, but I think the ones that are related to data, I think are really, really important. So, there's the recommendations around screening, of course. And then there's the whole section on systemic recommendations around collecting disaggregated data so that we can really understand what's going on in the education system. And I think that's been one of the biggest weaknesses in the system up until this point, is a lack of clear data, so that we can really understand what is going on with students, which is something that the inquiry really uncovered.
Just the, you know, the complete lack of understanding of even, you know, how students are doing, but even how the programs and interventions that are in place in schools are working. So, some of those have been actioned around, you know, bringing in early screening. I would love to see more action on all of those systemic recommendations around data collection, specifically around the interventions as well.
So, at this point, you, school boards don't even have the ability to answer questions like, how many students are participating in this intervention program? What were their pre-interview scores? Is the intervention working for them? What was their outcome score? Was this intervention fully provided, like there's no log or record of the intervention being provided in many cases. Those are all covered in the intervention section, but also in that systemic issues, because without having that data, we can't make good, informed decisions about moving the system forward. So, to me, I think that's one of the biggest pieces that is still in need of action.
Reema: Well, this has been such a rich conversation, and we could fill several more episodes just on the right to read. I'd like to end on a hopeful note, and I'd like to start with you, Alicia. What is the one change that you believe would make the greatest difference for students who have been historically underserved by the education system? And what do you think it will take to make that a reality?
Alicia: Oh, there's so many changes that need to happen. But I think it all really goes back to teacher preparation, right? So much of what we experienced was that the educators who had devoted their lives to wanting to teach children and support children hadn't been provided with all of the information and skills that they needed to be able to do that job effectively.
And I think if we could make a real change into teacher preparation and teacher training to ensure that that teachers do have up to date knowledge, and they know that, you know, the idea that some kids are just not going to be readers, that that's not a valid way of going about things. Right? That, in fact, really everyone can learn to read if they get the right instruction and support. So, I think making those changes to teacher preparation would make a huge, huge difference.
In terms of the barriers to that. I think it's political will, to be honest. The universities obviously received your recommendations. They have not really done a lot to action them on their own. But at the end of the day, it's the province of Ontario that is employing all of these teachers. I would say that they have a role to play in ensuring that that teacher preparation is better than it is now.
Reema: Chief Commissioner, I’d like to end with you. Tell us what you think would be the greatest difference for students at this point in time, and what would you like to see to make that happen?
Patricia: I think many things, and like Alicia, I see many things that can be done. But I want to focus on the educators. I see them as children, as the potter, and they are the clay. And so, they have been very creative and continue to work tirelessly to further their learning, but they cannot do it alone. And as Alicia mentioned, there are institution put in place in this province, tasked with the responsibility to help educators learn how to teach our children to learn. And we celebrate this progress and recognize, though, that there is still a lot of work to be done in with educators, with the structure itself.
But for me, the strongest transformation would be the creation of a consistent, province wide standard for how early reading is taught and supported. And because we know from the inquiry and from my own personal experience and observation, volunteering in schools for four decades, too many students, particularly disabled, Black, Indigenous, other racialized students, low-income families, have been denied equal access to education because the school or school board they happen to attend.
So let me be clear. A standardized, evidence-based approach across all 72 or 73 school boards will finally give every child in every community the same strong foundation in literacy. If you cannot read, you cannot do math. Nor could you excel in STEM. Universal early screening means we will catch challenges early before they turn into crisis, and clear accountability will. Transparent reporting will ensure that boards are not just committing to equality but providing it through results.
The responsibility of ensuring children realize the right to read is a shared one. Duty holders include the province, school boards, educators along with teachers’ unions, the Ontario College of Teachers, the Faculty of Education, and many more. And while the Echo is not a direct duty holder, its role to assess student achievement in reading, writing and math to ensure accountability and improve equality in K-12 in education is a significant one, and it touches on the functional if we do D holder.
Again, student achievement must be the top priority in Ontario's education system. It's for their own benefit, but the key result is that it keeps Ontario's economy growing. It also keeps Canada's economy going. And so, the Commission will continue to call and partners in the education system to work together, not separately, to ensure that every child realize they write, to read.
And society will know that this change has taken place. When a child's ability to read is no longer determined by luck circumstances but protected as a fundamental human right and a fundamental constitutional right. That is the difference in the right to that we must take into consideration. And I am physically, and I am add so that no child is left behind.
We have to leave it there. Thank you to our guests and everyone listening today. The right to read, which began as an inquiry in 2019, has grown into a nationwide movement, one that is reshaping classrooms, communities and the futures of children across Canada. To learn more about the Right to Read, visit www.ohrc.on.ca/en/right-read. Thank you for joining us and we'll see you next time. Thank you, thank you.
Outro
[Purple slide: Thank you for listening with the words “Celebrating 65” with the OHRC logo]
VOICEOVER: Thank you for listening. To learn more about how you can help advance human rights in Ontario, visit ohrc.on.ca and follow us on social media for updates and resources. Subscribe to this podcast and share it with your network to keep the conversation going. Together, we can build a province where human rights are realized for everyone. Until next time.