AT v. Thames Valley District School Board, 2024 ONSET 3

ONTARIO SPECIAL EDUCATION (ENGLISH) TRIBUNAL

B E T W E E N:

AT

Appellant

-and-

Thames Valley District School Board

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley

Date: September 6, 2024

Citation: 2024 ONSET 3

Indexed as: AT v. Thames Valley District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

AT, Appellant

Self-represented

Thames Valley District School Board, Respondent

Jeff Bruce, Representative

Introduction

1This is an Appeal to the Ontario Special Education Tribunal (English) (“the OSET”) pursuant to Section 57 of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.2.

2The Appellant characterizes the Respondent’s decision to promote her child, DMT, one grade (rather than the requested two grades) as a placement decision appealable to the Special Education Appeal Board (“the SEAB”) and then to the OSET. The Respondent disagrees and seeks the dismissal of the Appeal as outside the OSET’s jurisdiction.

3Following a June 13, 2024 Pre-Hearing Videoconference, the OSET directed the parties to file written submissions on the preliminary issue of whether the OSET had jurisdiction to hear the Appeal. I have considered those submissions as well an additional August 26, 2024 submission from the Appellant although that latter submission was not directed by the OSET.

ISSUE

4Does a decision about whether or not to promote a student a particular number of grades amount to a “placement decision” appealable to the OSET?

RESULT

5The decision whether or not to promote a student a particular number of grades does not amount to a “placement decision” appealable to the OSET and the Appeal must be dismissed.

background

6The Appellant’s child, DMT, has been in his current school since June 2023.

7A February 13, 2024 Identification, Placement and Review Committee (“IPRC”), identified DMT’s exceptionality as Intellectual: Giftedness and his placement as Regular Class with Indirect Support. The IPRC recommended that DMT’s needs be met “through alternative goals than (sic) focus on enrichment and extension of classroom activities.”

8The documentation provided by the Appellant demonstrates that DMT’s academic progress, particularly in math, is far ahead of most students his age. For example, DMT has ranked very highly in national and international math competitions.

9For most of the 2023/2024 school year DMT was in Grade 5 in a split Grade 5/6 class in a virtual program. According to the Appellant, DMT struggled in that class because “he is constantly waiting for Grade 6 students to catch up with assignments and in-class tasks.” The Appellant asked the Respondent to promote DMT two grades, to Grade 7, which would have resulted in him then moving into Grade 8 in the 2024/2025 school year.

10On May 15, 2024, Superintendent Jeff Bruce advised the Appellant that he was willing to promote DMT to Grade 6, effective May 16, 2024. Superintendent Bruce also offered the option of DMT attending a full-time gifted class where DMT would be learning with other gifted students. The Appellant declined the offer of the gifted class because DMT prefers virtual learning and the gifted class would be in person.

11The Appellant states that on May 15, 2024, Superintendent Bruce also “refused us a SEAB process as he believes [DMT’s] acceleration to Grade 6 (instead of Grade 7) to be unappealable.”

12The Appeal was filed on May 16, 2024.

analysis

13The issue to be decided is whether the Respondent’s refusal to promote DMT two grades as requested by the Appellant is a placement decision and thus appealable to the SEAB and then to the OSET. For the following reasons, I find that the decision under appeal is not within the OSET’s jurisdiction.

14Neither the Act or Regulation 181/98: Identification and Placement of Exceptional Pupils (“Regulation 181/98”) contain a definition of “placement.” The Applicant relies on a document from a different school board which defines promotion as “one form of placement.” A brief excerpt from another school board’s document, without context, is not persuasive. I find persuasive the Respondent’s submission that the term “placement” is found in the Act and Regulation 181/98 in the specific context of determining which special education placement is appropriate for a student. In this case, the special education placement determined appropriate for DMT, and agreed to by the Appellant, is Regular Class with Indirect Support.

15The Appellant also refers to S and S v. Halton Catholic District School Board, 2005 ONSET 5 in which the OSET expressed concerns about the process followed by that school board. Those concerns included persistent errors in documentation and are not relevant to the facts of this case.

16In response to the Respondent’s argument that “acceleration decisions are in the power of the principal, and not the IPRC” as such decisions are covered by section 265(1)(g) of the Act rather than Regulation 181/98, the Appellant points out that people other than the principal were involved in the discussions and decisions around DMT’s promotion. In my view, whether or not promotion decisions are the exclusive domain of a principal is not determinative of the issue before me.

17I note that the Appellant does not explain why the offered full-time gifted program would not meet DMT’s educational needs. Instead, her singular focus remains on DMT accessing the Reach Ahead program (which is available to Grade 8 but not Grade 7 students), during the 2024/2025 school year. She confirms this in her August 26, 2024 submissions, stating that the Reach Ahead program “is the only program that can meet my son’s educational needs by allowing him to develop at his own pace, among intellectual peers, and at an academically appropriate level.”

18The OSET has consistently held that its jurisdiction is limited to deciding disputes about the identification and placement of exceptional students. There is no disagreement between the parties in this case about DMT’s identification by the IPRC as Intellectual: Giftedness and his placement as Regular Class with Indirect Support. The dispute here is whether DMT should be promoted at an accelerated rate to a grade two grades beyond other students of his age.

19In the absence of a disagreement about identification or placement it is not the role of the OSET to provide direction on the nuances of special education programming and services, including grade level.

20For these reasons, I find that the Respondent’s decision to promote DMT one grade (rather than the requested two grades) is not within the OSET’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Appeal must be dismissed.

ORDER

21The Appeal is dismissed.