Embedded Files
Ethic of Justice
Ethic of Justice
This perspective considers individual rights, fairness, and equality; an example is J. S. Mills's 'harm principle' which suggests that leaders have an obligation to consider actions and inactions (including the use of authority and discipline) that result in the least harm to others (1895).
However, sometimes, in the context of Inclusion, these considerations are superseded by the need to prioritize relationships and empathy (Ethic of Care), or the need to redistribute power (Ethic of Critique).
The Sullivan Commission on Education emphasized the value of inclusive classrooms, the integration of students with diverse abilities, and set the groundwork for differentiation in the classroom (Government of BC, 1988).
Disability is a protected class under Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982); people with disabilities are also protected from discrimination under the Canada Human Rights Act (1985)
Each child in BC is guaranteed the right to a publicly funded education in the School Act (1996).
Disability_and_Inclusion_in_Education (1).pdfTowle, H. (2015). Disability and Inclusion in Canadian Education: Policies, Procedures, and Practices. Canadian Centre For Policy Alternatives. https://canadacommons.ca/artifacts/1195037/disability-and-inclusion-in-canadian-education/1748163/
Disability and Inclusion in Canadian Education
Disability and Inclusion in Canadian Education
This policy analysis offers additional context on the historical role of the Ethic of Justice in Canadian public education:
International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966) established that equitable access to education as a fundamental human right.
Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education (1995) determined that, while inclusion is generally preferred, the placement of students must always prioritize the child's best interests and educational needs
Auton et al. v. British Columbia (2000) initially, it was determined that it was a constitutional violation not to fund early intervention supports for autistic children. The initial decision was overoverturned on appeal by the Supreme Court of Canada (2004). Nevertheless, direct funded intervention services continued through 2026. The nature of Autism Funding Unit is presently in transition to a Child Disability Benefit model.
Moore v. British Columbia (2012) the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that BC had discriminated against a child for removing supports for equitable access.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse