Representatives of the private Lyceum “Da Vinci” said the recent accusations concerning alleged discrimination in access to education are aimed at obtaining particular sums of money. The reaction comes after Neli Novitski, the mother of a child with special needs, said that her son was discriminated by the administration of the lyceum. According to them, the parent refused to honor her contractual obligations and, even if circumstances for terminating the contract appeared, the lyceum continued to provide services until the end of the year of study, abiding by the interests of the child, IPN reports.
“We would like to familiarize these interested with important aspects that Missis Novitski avoided to communicate intentionally, as we consider. Therefore, we note that the Council on Preventing and Eliminating Discrimination and Ensuring Equality examined the complaint of citizen Novitski about this case and on November 6, 2020 issued decision No. 137/20 by which the Council decided that the stated facts do not represent discrimination on grounds of disability as regards access to the educational institution and to the education process,” the institution noted in a press release. According to the lyceum’s administration, after the Council passed its decision, this was upheld by courts.
“As regards the exclusion from the educational process, we note that citizen Novitskli refused to honor her contractual obligations. Even if circumstances for terminating the contract appeared, the Lyceum “Da Vinci” continued to provide services until the end of the year of study, abiding by the interests of the child and fully fulfilling its obligations. This way the student finished the second grade at the Private Lyceum “Da Vinci”, runs the press release.
The institution noted Neli Novitski didn’t file an application to continue the contractual relations and didn’t ask to allow her child to continue his studies.
In a news conference at IPN, Neli Novitski said her son remained hearing-impaired at the age of a year. They made considerable effort to restore the child’s hearing. He ultimately got a cochlear implant by a surgery performed abroad. To help him integrate and have a good standing, they enrolled him at a private lyceum that promised multilateral support. They paid large sums of money, but the child was expelled after two years of teaching negligence because the child is ‘special’. The rights of the child were violated as the school is managed to suit the administration’s needs.
