OSET 2003

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.

The parents of an eight-year-old student with Autism Spectrum Disorder appealed a school board's decision regarding their child's special education placement.

The parents sought an integrated placement that would provide Intensive Behaviour Intervention (IBI) therapy in a regular class setting.

The school board argued that IBI is a therapeutic service, not an educational service, and therefore falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction over identification and placement.

The Tribunal agreed with the school board, finding that IBI is a specific therapy delivered by trained therapists under psychological supervision, rather than an educational program developed by teachers.

The Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal based on a requested learning style or therapy, and dismissed the appeal while offering recommendations for the child's educational programming.

The appellant parent appealed a school board's decision to place her child, who has severe autism, in a Special Education Class for students with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The parent argued that the placement was inappropriate because it did not provide Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI) therapy, which she believed was necessary to manage her child's aggressive behaviours and facilitate learning.

The school board maintained that IBI is a medical therapy, not an educational program, and that the current placement, which utilized behavioural management principles including a restraint protocol, was appropriate.

The Tribunal found that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal but ultimately dismissed it, concluding that the school board's placement was appropriate and that the board is not required to provide medical therapy such as IBI in lieu of an educational program.

The parents of a 15-year-old gifted student appealed the school board's placement decision, which placed the student in a regular class with 'enrichment opportunities' and 'reach ahead'.

The parents sought a congregated gifted program where the student would interact with gifted peers for at least 50% of academic courses.

The Tribunal found that the regular class placement was not appropriate to meet the student's needs, as it relied too heavily on self-taught independent work and placed an undue burden on the 14-year-old to make programming decisions.

The Tribunal ordered the school board to place the student in a congregated gifted program, either within the board or in a neighbouring board at no cost to the parents.

The parents of an eleven-year-old student with multiple exceptionalities appealed a school board decision placing the student in a segregated special needs school.

The parents sought full-time placement in a regular class with a total communication package and a one-to-one educational assistant.

The Tribunal found that the student's needs were not being met in the fully integrated primary grade placements due to academic frustration and escalating behaviours, but also found that a fully segregated placement was not required.

The Tribunal ordered a semi-integrated placement, directing that the student be placed in a Grade 7 regular class for non-academic subjects and a Dual Diagnosis class for academic instruction, supported by a comprehensive behaviour management plan.