Here is a definition of the terminology used on this site.

• counselling: Counselling refers to therapeutic support provided by a trained professional to help a student process emotions, develop coping strategies, and navigate stress or mental health challenges. Counselling can be helpful when children need a safe space to talk, build emotional skills, or recover from difficult experiences. However, counselling is not a substitute for appropriate educational supports or a safe learning environment. In school contexts, families are sometimes asked whether their child is in counselling when the real issue is that the child’s needs are not being met at school. When a student is experiencing anxiety, distress, or behavioural challenges because of unmet accommodations, sensory overload, bullying, or exclusion, the primary solution should be to address those conditions. Relying on counselling alone can shift responsibility onto the child to “cope” with an environment that is not accessible or supportive. For example, students with disabilities may be experiencing distress because their learning needs are ignored, their accommodations are inconsistently implemented, or staff misunderstand disability-related behaviour. Treating this distress only as an emotional issue can obscure the underlying barriers. Counselling can play an important supportive role, but it should complement—not replace—changes that ensure the student’s school environment is safe, accessible, and responsive to their needs. Learn more
• course correction: Course correction refers to the need for a meaningful shift in how education systems respond to disabled students and their families when current practices are failing to deliver on legal and ethical commitments. While policies often promise inclusive education and human rights protections, families frequently encounter barriers such as delayed accommodations, exclusionary discipline, inaccessible environments, and processes that place heavy advocacy burdens on parents. A course correction recognises that these outcomes are not simply the result of isolated mistakes but reflect systemic patterns. When the gap between policy and lived experience becomes persistent, incremental adjustments may not be sufficient. In this context, course correction means re-examining assumptions, structures, and resource allocation to ensure that the right to education is realised in practice. It involves shifting from reactive responses and procedural compliance toward proactive systems that make learning environments accessible, safe, and supportive for all students. Learn more
• crisis intervention: Crisis intervention refers to the immediate actions taken by school staff when a student is experiencing intense distress or dysregulation that may pose a risk to themselves or others. The goal of crisis intervention is to stabilise the situation, reduce harm, and help the student return to a regulated state as safely as possible. Effective crisis intervention prioritises de-escalation. This may include reducing sensory demands, providing space, using calm communication, and allowing time for the student to regain control. Physical interventions such as restraint or seclusion are intended to be used only as a last resort when there is an immediate safety risk and when other strategies have failed. However, crisis intervention should not become a routine way of managing unmet needs. When students repeatedly reach a crisis point, it often indicates that underlying barriers—such as unmet accommodations, overwhelming environments, communication difficulties, or unresolved conflict—have not been addressed. In these cases, responding only to the crisis treats the symptom rather than the cause. Effective school responses focus on prevention by identifying triggers, adjusting the environment, and ensuring the supports a student needs are consistently in place. Learn more
• crisis plans: Learn more
• Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI): Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI) is a training programme used in many schools to teach staff how to recognise early signs of distress and respond to student behaviour in ways that prevent escalation. The approach emphasises de-escalation strategies such as calm communication, reducing environmental stressors, offering space, and supporting a student to regain regulation. The core goal of CPI is prevention. Staff are trained to intervene early—before a situation becomes dangerous—and to use supportive strategies that prioritise safety and dignity. Physical interventions such as restraint are described within the model as a last resort, intended only when there is an immediate risk of harm and other strategies have not worked. In practice, the effectiveness of CPI depends on how it is implemented. When the underlying causes of distress—such as sensory overload, unmet accommodations, bullying, or academic frustration—are not addressed, crisis responses can become repetitive and reactive. In these situations, staff may focus on managing behaviour in the moment rather than preventing the conditions that lead to crisis. CPI training can support safer responses to distress, but it does not replace the need for accessible environments, consistent accommodations, and proactive supports that reduce the likelihood of crisis in the first place. Learn more
• deadlines: Deadlines are time limits that affect whether a concern can be escalated, remedied, reviewed, or heard by a complaint body. They matter because delay can weaken practical remedies, especially when a child is out of school, on reduced hours, or continuing to experience harm. Learn more
• deaf: Learn more
• debility: Long-term harm caused by sustained educational stress or exclusion. Debility operates through accumulated exposure to hostile environments, chronic accommodation denial, repeated exclusion, and ongoing invalidation of distress. Students experience deteriorating mental health, school refusal, trauma responses, and diminished capacity. Families experience burnout, financial strain, relationship breakdown, and occupational disruption. Debility represents the embodied cost of educational violence, often dismissed as pre-existing fragility rather than iatrogenic harm. Learn more
• delay: Strategic slowing of responses or decisions to avoid accountability or exhaust families. Schools delay assessments, postpone meetings, extend timelines for action plans, request additional documentation, or promise future resolution whilst harm continues. Delay serves institutional interests by allowing crises to escalate until families withdraw or accept lesser interventions, by moving problems past budget cycles or administrative transitions, and by positioning eventual minimal compliance as reasonable rather than tardy. Learn more
• delay tactics: Delay tactics refer to actions or processes that slow down decision-making or the implementation of supports, often without improving the outcome for the student. In education disputes or advocacy, delay tactics can occur when schools repeatedly postpone decisions, request additional meetings, ask for unnecessary documentation, or defer action to future reviews instead of addressing an immediate need. Sometimes delays occur because schools are trying to gather information or follow internal procedures. However, delays can also function as a form of gatekeeping. When accommodations, safety measures, or educational supports are postponed, the student continues to experience the barrier or harm the support was meant to address. For families, delay tactics can be especially burdensome. Parents may be asked to attend numerous meetings, provide repeated explanations, or wait for assessments and approvals before any meaningful change occurs. This can consume significant time and emotional energy while the child’s situation remains unresolved. In situations where a student’s access to education or safety is affected, schools have a responsibility to act promptly and proportionately. Gathering information should not prevent reasonable interim supports from being implemented while longer-term decisions are being made. Also see bandwidth taxation or capacity theft. Learn more
• denial: Refusal to acknowledge harm, need, or responsibility. Schools deny that exclusion occurred, that accommodations were requested, that distress was communicated, or that current practices violate policy or law. Denial operates through claims that parents misunderstood, that documentation was never received, that incidents were isolated rather than patterned, or that observable harm reflects student deficits rather than environmental failure. Denial forces families to prove what institutions already know. Learn more
• denial of accommodation: Denial of accommodation refers to a situation where a school or other service provider refuses, ignores, delays, or undermines changes needed to remove disability-related barriers. In education, this can include refusing supports, failing to implement an IEP, insisting a student “earn” accommodations, or limiting access because a school says it lacks staff, training, or resources. Denial does not always look like an outright no; it can also appear as endless meetings, partial measures, or conditions that make support impossible to use. In British Columbia, schools have a duty to accommodate students with disabilities up to the point of undue hardship. When that duty is not met, the result may be exclusion, educational harm, and a potential human rights issue. This tag covers both formal refusals and more indirect forms of non-accommodation. Learn more
• designated student: Learn more
• designation: Learn more
• designed for despair: Designed for despair describes systems or processes that are structured in ways that make meaningful resolution extremely difficult, often leaving families feeling exhausted, powerless, or hopeless. The term is used to highlight situations where barriers are not simply accidental but emerge from procedures that are complex, slow, opaque, or heavily weighted toward institutional convenience. In education advocacy, a process may feel designed for despair when families must navigate repeated meetings, unclear decision-making pathways, extensive documentation requests, or long waiting periods before a child receives support. Each step may appear reasonable on its own, but together they can create a cumulative burden that drains time, energy, and emotional capacity. When systems operate this way, persistence becomes the primary requirement for access to rights. Families with fewer resources, less time, or less familiarity with bureaucratic processes may struggle to sustain advocacy long enough to see change. Recognising when processes are effectively designed for despair helps shift attention from individual misunderstandings to structural barriers. It highlights the need for systems that are transparent, timely, and focused on resolving problems rather than prolonging them. Learn more
• designed for division: Designed for division describes situations where school processes or narratives frame systemic problems as interpersonal conflicts between individuals. Instead of addressing structural issues—such as inadequate resources, unclear policies, or inconsistent implementation—concerns may be presented as disagreements between a parent and a teacher, tensions between families, or competition between students for limited support. When systems operate this way, families may be encouraged to see advocacy as a personal complaint about a staff member rather than a request for the school to meet its obligations. Parents may also be led to believe that their child’s needs can only be met if another child loses support, creating a sense of competition rather than a shared interest in adequate resources and inclusive environments. These dynamics can fragment communities and discourage collective problem-solving. Families may feel isolated or reluctant to raise concerns if they believe doing so harms relationships with staff or other parents. Recognising when systems are effectively designed for division helps shift the focus back to the underlying issue: ensuring that schools have the structures, resources, and accountability needed to support all students appropriately. OK. Learn more
• designed to exhaust: Designed to exhaust describes systems or processes that place such heavy and sustained demands on families that many eventually stop pursuing solutions. These demands may include repeated meetings, extensive documentation, complex procedures, long delays, or constantly shifting requirements. While each step may appear reasonable on its own, the cumulative effect can be overwhelming. In education advocacy, this often means that families must invest significant time, emotional energy, and organisational effort simply to maintain a conversation about their child’s needs. When meaningful decisions are repeatedly postponed or progress depends on persistent follow-up, the process can gradually wear people down. This dynamic can produce attrition: families disengage not because their concerns were resolved, but because continuing to advocate becomes unsustainable alongside work, caregiving, and other responsibilities. Recognising when systems are effectively designed to exhaust helps shift attention away from judging individual persistence and toward examining structural barriers. Equitable systems minimise unnecessary procedural burden and ensure that access to supports does not depend on a family’s ability to endure prolonged advocacy. Learn more
• diabetes care: Diabetes care at school includes planning for insulin, glucose monitoring, food, activity, emergencies, privacy, and staff responsibility. When diabetes support is uncertain or unavailable, the issue can become both a health risk and an access-to-education barrier. Learn more
• diapering: Diapering is a personal care support some students need in order to attend school with dignity, hygiene, and safety. A school’s discomfort with diapering does not remove the obligation to address the barrier and plan appropriate support. Learn more
• difficult parent label: Branding parents as unreasonable to dismiss concerns. Parents who document harm, request accommodations, cite policy, or escalate concerns are characterised as adversarial, anxious, overprotective, or difficult. The label functions to discredit parent knowledge, justify institutional resistance, and position advocacy as the problem rather than the harm that necessitated it. Once applied, the label contaminates all future interactions, with reasonable requests reframed as evidence of unreasonableness. Learn more