Challenging an identification or placement decision One family’s story: The Saga Continues... Since that original piece was written, in July of 2001, many things have transpired. The Special Education Tribunal ruled in Cameron's favour and provided a full written decision on September 24, 2001. Our entire family was relieved and happy to know that, not only would Cameron be designated as gifted (finally matching a reality that we had been aware of for a dozen years) but, even more importantly, for the first time in many years, the Upper Canada District School Board would have a gifted secondary program wherein other gifted students would be identified and grouped together with Cameron for instruction. We were also optimistic that this would lead to trickle-down good effects for gifted children in lower and higher grades as well, since surely the school board wouldn't offer a program for Cam and a few others while ignoring the other gifted students in their jurisdiction- or would they? Our optimism was shattered by what happened next- the UCDSB decided to place Cameron in a high school in which he was the only identified gifted student in all of Grade 9. There were no identified gifted Grade 10 or 11 students either, one in Grade 12 and 3 in OAC. We couldn't understand how the UCDSB was going to provide a placement "within a group of gifted peers" as recommended in the Tribunal's written decision when they only had one such student. An IPRC meeting was called for October 25th (the delay was never explained to us) and the placement for our now-identified son was as follows: "regular class with enrichment opportunities and reach ahead". The 'reach-ahead' consisted of being allowed to take Grade 10 history with 8 others because the Grade 9 geography class was full, and being allowed to PLAR Grade 10 math (the PLAR process is available to any student who is willing to do the work necessary to be successful) His placement prior to the Tribunal hearing had been "regular class with enrichment opportunities". It was crystal clear to us that his placement had NOT been changed. We decided to appeal the placement, and make a contempt of court motion against the school board for failing to comply with the order of the Tribunal, which was that Cameron's placement be changed to "gifted secondary program". The contempt motion was heard first, in May of 2002, and Justice Metivier ruled that the UCDSB could not be proven to be in contempt of the order because the wording of the order was "too imprecise". In other words, because the Tribunal order did not specifically say "Cameron must be in a special education class- gifted with other identified gifted students", the UCDSB was free to interpret the order as they saw fit. As a direct result of my inability to "prove" contempt, the judge ordered that I be made to cover a substantial portion of the school board's costs in defending themselves, namely a little over $15,000. The appeal hearing was heard at the end of August 2002 when I protested to the District Office that an appeal requested October 26th, 2001 had not yet been heard even though the entire school year had gone by. The district officer told me that she "was told that the appeal was no longer necessary by the superintendent". Neither my husband nor myself ever withdrew our request for an appeal, and we never indicated in writing that we consented to a postponement (these are the only two circumstances in the regulation that would allow an appeal hearing to be placed on "hold"). For all intents and purposes we had been denied our right of appeal (an appeal that takes place after the fact is a perversion of the intent of the process) on the say-so of the UCDSB superintendent. Nevertheless, the appeal WAS held in August and the majority opinion of the appeal board was that the UCDSB had followed their Special Education Plan (which does not contain a range of placement options for gifted students, just the one option- regular class) and that was sufficient. The minority report recognized that since "interaction with gifted peers" was one of the needs listed in the IPRC document, the UCDSB had an obligation to create or purchase a placement that would make such interaction possible- they did not. Days after the appeal hearing, Cameron started the 2002/2003 school year in the congregated gifted program at Gloucester High in Ottawa. He (and his younger brother, also identified as gifted) was taxied daily from Cornwall to Ottawa at the UCDSB's expense so that this placement could happen. In spite of the fact that the UCDSB was and is expending a significant amount of money on transportation for students that aren't even currently registered with them, they refused to hold a new IPRC confirming that the most appropriate placement for Cameron was indeed a congregated gifted one. So, back to Tribunal we went. I don't believe that the Special Education Tribunal has ever before heard the case of the same student twice. After many delays and some preliminary teleconferences, the "live" portion of the Tribunal hearing took place on May 28th, 29th and 30, 2003. There is still one more teleconference to be held and then written closing arguments/rebuttal are to be made, and finally the Tribunal will deliberate and render their decision on the placement of Cameron Bharath. In the meantime, the UCDSB decided that my offer to repay the order of costs via 30 monthly payments of approximately $500 each, was not acceptable to them. I was warned that if I did not pay to them the entire $15K in one lump-sum by March 15th, 2003, they would seize my pay from the Ministry of Health (I'm a family physician). They made good on this threat on May 21, 2003 (although I wasn't notified until June 10th) and are currently seizing all of my income from the Ministry of Health until the entire amount is repaid. You may be wondering, given the things that have transpired in the last 2 years, do I now want to change the advice that I gave in my original primer on the identification and placement appeal process? Actually, no. My son has been through a lot, my family has been through a lot, but my original advice was sound. If you feel that the identification or placement of your child is wrong, don't be afraid to challenge it. Even though there have been a lot of negatives for us personally, in all of this, I haven't forgotten the positives: 1) Cameron is identified as gifted- this has helped him in terms of self-confidence and willingness to take on greater challenges, it has also made his acceptance into Gloucester's gifted program a possibility. 2) The practice of the UCDSB of using an IQ score and nothing else to determine whether or not a child is gifted has been rejected as unsound; this opens the door to other children elsewhere in Ontario to be identified even when their scores are borderline or conflicting, I'm very proud of that achievement and there have already been 2 children (that I know of) who have benefited from it. 3) The principle of providing the placement or purchasing it has been upheld (even though the UCDSB doesn't want to say so directly, it is obvious that the transportation of my sons to Gloucester IS a "purchase of service" arrangement) 4) The Special Education Tribunal has become aware of the fact that the wording of their orders has to be precise for any enforcement to take place- this stands to benefit children and their parents that go to Tribunal in the future for any reason, 5) Now that a physician has had her entire pay garnished for a 15,000 dollar debt to a public institution with a budget in the millions, perhaps the absence of legal protection for physician's earnings will be examined, and finally 6)I've discovered that fighting for what you believe is right is difficult, time-consuming, frustrating, but still THE most satisfying battle one can ever wage.