Donna Gracey

The parent of a 14-year-old child with Down syndrome appealed an IPRC decision identifying the child with a Developmental Disability and placing the child in a Special Education Class (Home School Comprehensive).

The parent sought an identification of Exceptional with no category named (or Multiple Exceptionality) and a full-time regular class placement with a dedicated educational assistant.

The Tribunal ordered the child identified as Exceptional Intellectual pending further psychological assessment, finding previous assessments outdated or unreliable.

The Tribunal ordered a mixed placement: a regular Grade 8 class for at least 50% of the time with special needs assistant support, combined with resource withdrawal assistance for mathematics and language in the Home School program, concluding that full-time regular class placement without specific skill instruction was not in the child's best interests.

The parties jointly requested clarification of a previous Tribunal decision regarding the appropriate special education placement for a student with Autism.

The parents questioned whether the Tribunal had ordered placement in a mixed exceptionalities class of sixteen or an Autism class of six.

The Tribunal clarified that it ordered a small, separate class focusing on communication and social interaction, which was not strictly limited to six students but was not to be as large as sixteen, and was based on student learning needs rather than specific exceptionality categories.

The parent appealed the school board's special education placement decision to the Special Education Tribunal.

The school board brought a preliminary motion arguing the appeal was moot because it had already agreed to provide the specific placement requested by the parent (Special Class with Partial Integration) and had attempted to convene an IPRC meeting to implement it, which the parent refused to attend.

The Tribunal agreed with the school board, finding that since the requested placement had been offered, there was no live issue to decide.

The Tribunal declined jurisdiction to hear the appeal on the basis of mootness.

The parents of a child with multiple exceptionalities appealed a school board's placement decision of 'Regular Class with Resource Assistance'.

The parents argued the placement lacked sufficient detail regarding programs and services to determine if it met the child's needs, and requested an intensive academic program.

The school board challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the appeal concerned programming rather than placement.

The Tribunal affirmed its jurisdiction, holding that programming is an integral part of a placement.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the regular class placement insufficient for the child's intensive language arts and mathematics needs, and ordered a change in placement to 'Regular Class with Resource Withdrawal' for 50% of the day with a special education teacher.

The parents of a 14-year-old student identified with autism appealed the school board's decision to place the student in a Developmental Education Program (DEP).

The parents argued the DEP was inappropriate and requested placement in an Autism Class, which did not exist in the board's Special Education Plan.

The board challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction to order a placement not in its plan.

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction under the Education Act to order an appropriate placement regardless of the board's plan.

The Tribunal found the DEP was inappropriate for the student, who is highly verbal and does not have a developmental disability.

The Tribunal ordered the board to place the student in a small, separate 'Communication' class focused on language development and social interaction.