Tom H. Houghton

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 appellants appealed the decision of the Identification, Placement and Review Committee to place their child, who has severe cerebral palsy and developmental delays, in a segregated school for trainable retarded pupils.

The appellants sought placement in a regular Grade 8 class with a teacher's aide to maximize integration.

The Board argued that the child's severe needs required the intensive one-to-one support available only in a specialized setting.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the child's functional level precluded regular class placement, and directed that the child be placed in a class for trainable retarded pupils located within a regular public school.

The parents of a student identified with a learning disability appealed the placement recommended by the school board's Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC).

The parents had unilaterally enrolled the student in a private school in the United States and sought reimbursement for tuition and related expenses, arguing the board could not provide an adequate program.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the board had made an honest attempt to provide a suitable placement and had the qualified staff to do so.

The Tribunal also rejected the claim for reimbursement, noting there was no statutory authority under the Education Act for a school board to purchase education from a private school unless the student was determined to be 'hard to serve', which had not occurred.

The applicants sought leave to appeal the special education placement of their child, who was identified as a multihandicapped pupil.

The parents argued the placement in a class for trainable retarded pupils was inappropriate and requested a total communication program with a teacher fluent in sign language.

The Board agreed to provide a total communication program but maintained the current placement was appropriate for the balance of the school year.

The Tribunal denied leave to appeal, finding that the parents' requests regarding teaching methodology and teacher qualifications were outside its scope, and that the Board had made a public commitment to provide an appropriate placement by the next school year.

The applicants sought leave to appeal to a regional tribunal regarding the identification and placement of their child as an exceptional pupil.

The parents and the school board disagreed on whether the child should be identified as 'educably retarded', 'multi-handicapped', or having a severe learning disability, and whether the current special education placement was appropriate.

The Tribunal found significant controversy between the parties and noted the Appeal Board's failure to hear relevant evidence.

Leave to appeal to a regional tribunal was granted.

The applicants sought leave to appeal to a regional tribunal regarding the special education placement of their child.

The respondent school board challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the student was no longer enrolled in a board school, having moved to a private school.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction because the student was enrolled in a board school at the time the application was made and the parents had exhausted all rights of appeal under the regulations.

The Tribunal granted leave to appeal, finding a significant controversy concerning the appropriateness of the proposed placement that warranted further adjudication.