A Broken Promise - Unmasking the Limits of Ontario’s Policy on Accessible Education for Students with Disabilities

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by moss~

Examines how Ontario’s Policy on Accessible Education for Students with Disabilities (2018) fails to deliver on its stated purpose. The analysis contrasts policy implications with actual harmful impacts by reviewing policy statements and related literature in educational policy and disability studies. It contextualizes negative effects through interviews from a Toronto-area university study, concluding that what the policy promises differs from what it enacts.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages15

Reading Time38 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Background

Literature Review

Educational Planning

Bureaucracy in The Provision of Disability Accommodations

A BROKEN PROMISE: UNMASKING THE LIMITS OF ONTARIO’S POLICY ON ACCESSIBLE EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES GHOFRAN ALYASS George Brown College, Canada ABSTRACT People often fail to notice the harmful effects ofpolicy and are often trained to focus on the implications of a policy with a mindset that policy exists to serve citizens and ensure the rights of all citizens are protected. When people fail to notice the harmful effects ofpolicy and instead believe policy has positive intentions, the result is a “broken promise. This article will provide an overview of policy statements within the Policy on Accessible Education for Students with disabilities (2018) and an analysis of the harmful effects ofpolicy. Such analysis will be made using literature by authors in the field of Educational Policy and Disability Studies. This article will begin with a background of the issues that students with disabilities face, a review of literature to illustrate what policy is doing instead of what it implies it is doing, finally, illustrating the negative effects ofpolicy using interviews from a study that took place at a university located in Toronto. Using the 2018 policy, this article will conclude that what policy implies it is doing and what it is doing are two different things, making policy a broken promise. BACKGROUND Policies are illustrated as working in favor of all citizens. One example of a policy that is illustrated as such is the Policy on Accessible Education for students with Disabilities (2018) . This policy implies it exists to advocate for the right to education for students with disabilities in Ontario Canada. While making this claim, this policy places barriers in front of students with disabilities. It implies it exists to advocate for the right to education for students with disabilities, and within that claim it outlines the point of undue hardship. The parameters of undue hardship will be outlined to illustrate how policy is a broken promise. Moreover, the policy proves to be inadequate when it defines disability through the medical model, an instance in which derogatory words are used to describe disability and the disabled individual. The third and most important way that the Policy on Accessible Education for Students with Disabilities (2018) is a broken promise is it claims that it will ensure that academic institutions provide meaningful access to education for students with disabilities while not outlining a definition of meaningful access for institutions to abide by. When institutions do not have a definition of meaningful access to abide by, policy becomes a broken promise. This paper will contextualize the harmful practices brought on by policy through Dolmage (2017), Titchkosky (2022) and Titchkosky (2011) as key authors who talk about disability and education policy. Moreover, this paper will contextualize the harmful practices elicited from policy by drawing on the lived experiences of student participants from a master’s study. LITERATURE REVIEW As stated earlier, policy is portrayed as working in favor of citizens. This section will review the literature in the fields of education policy and disability studies to illustrate how policy is inadequate when claiming to work in favor of people with disabilities. Educational Planning | Fall 2025 20 Vol. 32, No. 4 According to Walker (2012), the purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act includes the principle that all individuals should have opportunities equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and have their needs accommodated…without being hindered or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices (p. 2) . Furthermore, Slee (2018) writes,“inclusive education isn’t dead; it just smells funny.”(p. 1) This statement is indicative of the harsh reality that what policy claims it is doing and what policy does are two different things making policy inadequate. Bureaucracy i

FAQs

What is the central argument about Ontario’s 2018 accessible education policy?

The article argues that the policy functions as a “broken promise” by making assurances that do not match its real-world practices and outcomes for students with disabilities.

Which policy concept is used to explain how barriers are created?

The article highlights “undue hardship” as a key element the policy outlines, using it to show how policy constraints can undermine meaningful access.

How does the paper support its critique beyond policy text?

It combines literature from educational policy and disability studies with interviews drawn from a study at a Toronto-based university to illustrate harmful effects.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by moss~