Grant R. MacDonald

The parents of a profoundly deaf 11-year-old student appealed the school board's placement decision, requesting that the student continue to receive a resource withdrawal teacher fluent in cued speech.

The school board raised a preliminary objection that teacher qualifications were beyond the scope of a placement appeal, which the Tribunal dismissed, finding that placement includes considering the nature of programs and services.

On the merits, after hearing extensive expert and educator testimony regarding the student's dependency on cued speech and need to develop oral, lip-reading, and social skills, the Tribunal declined to order a cueing resource teacher.

Instead, the Tribunal ordered that the student spend 50% of the day in a regular class with a cueing interpreter, and 50% of the day with a qualified teacher of the deaf to develop comprehensive communication and independent work skills.

The parents of a child with Down syndrome appealed an Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) decision recommending the child be placed in a primary self-contained class for slow learners.

The parents sought placement in an age-appropriate regular class at their neighbourhood school with resource/withdrawal assistance, arguing for the benefits of integration and peer modelling.

The Special Education Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the child's academic and social needs required direct teaching in a small pupil/adult ratio.

The Tribunal concluded that the self-contained class would provide the most effective placement, offering a specialized program while still allowing for integration in non-direct teaching activities.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Identification, Placement and Review Committee and the Special Education Appeal Board, which found that her child was not an 'exceptional pupil' requiring special education placement for a learning disability.

The appellant presented various medical and psychological reports suggesting the child suffered from conditions such as minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and temporal lobe epilepsy.

The respondent school board presented evidence from the child's teachers and a senior psychologist indicating the child was progressing normally and did not require special education.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's expert evidence confusing, contradictory, and unsubstantiated by clinical observation, and concluded there was no valid evidence to define the child as an exceptional pupil.

The parents of a student with specific learning disabilities appealed the school board's proposed placement of the student in a full-time special education program at Northview Secondary School.

The parents sought a fully segregated small-group placement, arguing the proposed placement did not meet the student's needs.

The Ontario Special Education Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed placement, which included a small pupil-teacher ratio and opportunities for appropriate integration, was appropriate and in the student's best interest.