← Back to Shining a Legal Light on Advocacy Conversations

Parents are partners

If they say: We’re concerned about the tone of your emails.

Say: My tone reflects urgency because the situation is urgent. I’m naming harm directly so that we can work together to repair it. Collaboration includes truth-telling, especially when it’s difficult.

Legal grounding: Human rights law protects advocates from retaliation or exclusion for asserting their child’s rights; tone policing can become a barrier to advocacy.

This entry is grounded in Kim Block’s series on the duty to accommodate, and in the broader jurisprudence that recognises the role of parents as central collaborators in securing educational access. When school teams focus on a parent’s tone or persistence instead of the substance of their concerns, they may create new barriers that interfere with the accommodation process.

Key takeaways

Urgency is not aggression
Parents raising serious concerns may sound assertive, direct, or distressed—especially when their child is struggling. That tone reflects emotional proximity, not hostility. Human rights advocacy often requires courage and clarity.
Tone policing undermines equity
When educators focus on the parent’s manner instead of the message, they risk dismissing legitimate concerns and delaying necessary support. This can become its own barrier to access and collaboration.
The law protects the right to advocate
Human rights law affirms that people can assert their rights without retaliation. Parents advocating for their children’s equitable education—firmly, consistently, even emotionally—are participating in the process, not obstructing it.