Tag: #IEP

Individual Education Plan (IEP) – They aren’t just Words on a Page

IEP’s can play an important role in providing your child an equitable education. They are important.

We have law, policy and teachers’ standards on our side.

As written in the human rights decision P (by KD) v. Board of Education of School District No. 61 (Greater Victoria) and another, 2025 BCHRT 62 the Ministry of Education made it clear:

[70] …..The Ministry says IEPs do have a legal effect and function, as there is a valid legislative and policy framework that provides both authority and guidance for IEPs.

For more information about how the Ministry views IEPs in terms of a written contract or requiring a parent signature, please read paragraphs 66 – 71 in the above human rights decision.

So what do they mean by valid legislative and policy framework?

Authority School Act, Section 182 (2) (a)

On the Ministry of Education’s Inclusive Education website they say this:

“School Districts/Independent School Authorities have the autonomy to develop their own IEP template or choose the SMART Goal Template, or Competency Based IEP Template found on MyEducation BC. Specific templates are not mandated as long as the goals used have measurable outcomes.”

The Ministry of Education has an Inclusive Education Manual (2024), and section C is all about developing an IEP

Here is the Ministry’s Guidelines on IEPs for independent schools

Here is the Inclusive Educaiton list of policies and orders

If you are interested, here is a list of all of the School Act Ministerial Orders.

Here is a list of their policies for public schools.

On your own school district’s website, they will also have information about IEP’s and the consultation process.

Here are two excellent resources on information about IEPs and IEP meetings.

The BCCPAC has a guide for parents specifically for IEPs

Inclusion BC has a guide for Inclusive Education. Chapter 5 is all about IEPS.

Two notable human rights cases:

  1. The duty to consult
  2. Student (by Parent) v. School District 2023, BCHRT 237 – Your child doesn’t need to have an IEP in order for them to be protected by the Human Rights Code

Something else very important to keep in mind is that the Human Rights Code Supersedes classroom teacher autonomy. Your child’s teacher has to follow the Human Rights Code.

IEP’s are working documents.

The final decision is up to the school on what is written on your child’s IEP but they must consult with you. And it needs to be meaningful consultation. If they tell you they are only giving you 30 minutes for an IEP meeting and you didn’t have enough time to discuss everything and you feel in the IEP isn’t appropriate for your child, you can advocate that 30 min isn’t enough time for meaningful consultation. Some parents get letters being sent home that IEP meetings aren’t even happening. They get a paper copy and they are asked to provide feedback by email. umm. NO!!! If you want a meeting to discuss your child’s IEP at ANYTIME In the year, you can advocate for that.

If the school doesn’t allow this, then you can escalate it through the district and just keep going higher and higher.

The IEP is a working document.

For this human rights case X by Y v. School Distrct Z 2024 BCHRT 24, the expectation for them to defend that they offered reasonable accommodations is this:

120] Ultimately, on a balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the District discharged its duty to accommodate X in his grade 2 year by reviewing the Diagnosis Report, developing an IEP, making various support people and strategies available that were incorporated into the classroom and outside, reviewing progress and changes, and adapting its approach in response……

If they aren’t reviewing progress and changes and adapting their response to your child’s needs, you have internal and external complaint options.

There is already legislation, policy and human rights law that will enforce consultation. You can use these in your advocacy.

It is very important to keep documentation of all of your emails with the school and letters being sent home. If you are getting any communication that parents are not allowed to attend their child’s IEP meeting, you may also want to alert the Inclusive Education department in the Ministry.

inclusive.education@gov.bc.ca

IEPs have meaning. They are important. They are a tool.

If you have a teacher who is refusing to follow any of the legislative framework and policies you can always file a TRB complaint.

This teacher was disciplined for the following regarding IEPs:

During the 2021-2022 school year, the following events occurred while Schwarz was employed as a teacher in a learning support program at School A, working with a small group of upper elementary school students (“Class A”):
a. Schwarz failed to properly follow procedures for students’ individual education plans
(“IEPs”):
i. IEPs must be reviewed annually to reflect individualized goals, adaptations,
modifications, services and measures for tracking progress. Teachers must
offer parents an opportunity to consult about their child’s IEP.
ii. Schwarz failed to plan appropriately for the fall 2021 IEP deadlines and
only updated the students’ pictures and changed the name of the responsible
teacher to her own name, before submitting the IEPs to the School principal.
Schwarz did not make changes to the substance of her students’ IEPs and
did not appropriately consult with parents regarding the IEPs.

You don’t need to accept teachers not consulting with you or not updating your child’s IEP.

You have advocacy options:

Internal – keep advocating all the way up the next levels. You will have an inclusive education department in your child’s school district. Inclusive BC in their manual, Chapter 7 is all about how to advocate in the education system effectively.

External – TRB, Ombudsperson, Human Rights Tribunal

Some schools automatically reach out in the spring for a review of the IEP. If your child’s school does not, and you would like this to happen, feel free to send them an email.

You also don’t need to wait for the spring. If at any point in the year, you feel there needs to be some changes, you can request a meeting.

Your child has a human right for an equitable education. The IEP is a very important tool that can help them have those accommodations in place. OH, and one final thing. Accommodations are not earned with good behaviour. Children with disabilities have a right to their accommodations because they are breathing.

New HRT Decision – EA taken away, IEP – VERY Informative!

We have another recent decision from the HRT and there is a LOAD of interesting stuff in here!

This is a dismissal application.

P (by KD) v. Board of Education of School District No. 61 (Greater Victoria) and another, 2025 BCHRT 62

Many thanks to the parent(s)/guardians who stuck it through and brought this decision into fruition.

There are so many good bits in here, I am creating a list before you even dive into the blog. I want you to keep reading all the way to the end and get all good stuff.

  • IEP – what’s required to defend in a dismissal
  • The role of an EA – defence by the SD, 1;1 criteria
  • IEP written contract/legal perspective from the Ministry
  • Educational program required while kids are not physically in school
  • Ministry again dismissed in case, and why.

This is what the complaint is about

[2] P alleges that during the 2019/2020 school year, the respondents did not provide her an appropriate education by refusing her at-home instruction, one-to-one Educational Assistant [ EA ] support, and not following her Individual Education Plan [ IEP ]. P also alleges that the Ministry changed the requirements for IEPs which rendered them ineffective. Finally, P alleges that the School District caused her harm by failing to properly address abuse by another student and took her on an inappropriately long walk despite her scoliosis, which caused her pain and swelling.

[8] P has disabilities including Down Syndrome, scoliosis, and other chronic medical conditions, including heart and lung issues.

[9] For context, P says her time at secondary school from grades eight to twelve included the following negative experiences:

a. Her one-to-one EA assistance was taken away by the school causing her significant trauma.

b. Her parents did not receive a book list or course outlines.

c. She did not receive homework as she was not being taught.

d. She was physically abused by other children while staff left her unattended.

e. She was forced to sit by herself without any form of intellectual stimulation.

Here is also what I find VERY interesting. The parents were alleging that the school didn’t follow the IEP. BUT because they didn’t specify what aspects of the IEP weren’t being followed, this portion of the complaint was dismissed.

SO! What do we learn from this? BE SPECIFIC. If you are going to be alleging your kids IEP wasn’t followed you are going to need to identify exactly what on the IEP wasn’t followed.

a. Failure to follow IEP

[24] I am not persuaded that P has taken the allegation that the School District did not follow her IEP out of the realm of conjecture. She has not specified what elements of her IEP were not followed during the 2019/2020 school year.

Got it!

So this was part of the complaint.

“a. Her one-to-one EA assistance was taken away by the school causing her significant trauma.“

I wonder how many other parents could be filing over this reason!

There are so many interesting things about this case. Something else that has come up a lot with students who are experiencing exclusion. School districts are still required to provide an education program even if kids aren’t physically at school.

b. Denial of at-home schooling

[30] School districts in this province are required to make educational programs available to all school-age children registered in the district. In certain circumstances, this includes at-home or “homebound” instruction. The School District has provided an excerpt from the Minister of Education’s Special Education Services Manual of Policies, Procedures, and Guidelines [ Special Education Manual ] which explains homebound programming in BC. It states:

School districts are required to make available an educational program to all persons of school age who are resident in its district and who are enrolled in a school in the district. School districts must maintain appropriate educational programs for students who are anticipated to be absent from school for extended periods of time. Instruction should be initiated as soon as possible. Authorization from the physician or public health nurse should be received prior to services being provide to students with health problems.

Students eligible for homebound services include:

· Students who are absent from school for medical reasons such as injury, disease, surgery, pregnancy, psychological reasons, etc. […]

[32] P says she required at-home instruction because she could not regularly attend school due to her disabilities. The evidence from both parties demonstrates that P was frequently absent from school for extended periods of time due to disability-related illness. A document prepared by P’s school from October 2019 states that P’s “attendance record throughout high school has been a concern – typical attendance is 10-20 days per year.” For the 2019/2020 school year, the parties agree that the plan was for P to only attend in person one day per week. Based on this information, the Tribunal could reasonably find at a hearing that P did not receive the instruction offered to other students in the district because she could not attend school in person for disability related reasons, and she was not provided instruction in her home. I am satisfied that this information takes out of the realm of conjecture that P’s disability was a factor in the adverse impact she experienced as a result of the School District’s decision to deny at-home instruction.

For parents whose children who have experienced a physical incident at school. If you want to tie it to rights-based advocacy (the Human Rights Code), you need to tie the behaviour to their protected ground (disability).

[55] While I acknowledge the seriousness of this allegation, P has not explained how her disabilities were a factor in the alleged adverse impacts of either the attack or the school’s response. Accordingly, although there is a contradiction in the evidence regarding whether this incident occurred, even if I accept P’s account as true for the purposes of this application, I am not persuaded that she has taken out of conjecture that there is a nexus between any adverse impact and her disabilities. For this reason, this allegation cannot proceed.

We already have a decision from the BC HRT, supported by the BC Supreme Court, that schools are responsible for providing students with a discriminating harrassment free school environment. See the successful case on bullying. “School Board has the duty to provide students with an educational environment that does not expose them to discriminatory harassment.”

Bullying or a one time physical attack needs to be connected to a protected ground.

Also in the case…

As usual, when parents try and link in the Ministry of Education, they always get dismissed.

[75] I agree with the Ministry that the complaint against it should be dismissed in its entirety.

Here is why

[73] …. The Ministry denies this allegation and reiterates that it is not involved in making decisions regarding individual students.

And the overall conclusion was that part of the complaint was dismissed, other parts continued.

Another part I thought this part was VERY interesting….

[48] The School District says one-to-one EAs are limited only to students who are medically dependent and require assistance with toileting. Generally, this is most often at elementary school and only occasionally at middle school. At secondary school, the School District typically shares EAs, to allow for independence and growth.

[49] The School District says that P did not require a one-to-one EA, because she was not medically dependent and because she did not require assistance with toileting. The School District says each class included a teacher and at least one EA to provide support. P always had an adult near her. The purpose was to build P’s independence, which was the most important aspect of her Grade 13 education programming. Due to P’s progress in achieving independence, the School District says she could do many tasks independently and safely under the supervision of staff. According to the School District, one-to-one EA support would not have been conducive to P’s independence goals.

Always know that the school district is going to argue anything they want. They can make up any reason/excuse that they want. That DOESN’T mean that the tribunal is going to believe them or accept what they are saying.

The school district’s lawyers will ALWAYS have a response for everything. It doesn’t mean their argument is a strong argument or that they have evidence to back it up.

You can argue back. The decision maker is the tribunal. NOT the respondent’s lawyers, no matter how convincing or confident they want to appear.

When we look at the recent case for exclusion (not this case, another one), the tribunal was asking…

Student Y by Grandparent S v. Board of Education of School District No. X, 2024 BCHRT 353

[52] From the materials before me, I am satisfied that the School District was actively and intensively involved in attempting to accommodate Student Y’s disabilities from the time that Student Y was in grade one up until the time that she was excluded from school in grade three. However, the question before me on this application is whether the School District is reasonably certain to prove that it “could not have done anything else reasonable or practical to avoid the negative impact on the individual”: Moore at para. 49 [Emphasis mine]. In my view, there is a lack of information in the materials before me that would allow me to conclude that the School District is reasonably certain to do so

They bolded the anything else, not me.

If there is a negative impact on your child not having an EA, you need to document the harm.

Always remember that the district is responsible for removing barriers.

Not providing the appropriate support for them to access their education can be explained to the tribunal as a barrier. The lack of an EA could mean they aren’t providing your child a ramp. Just because the school district says only kids with medical needs&/toiliting support needs get a 1:1, doesn’t mean the tribunal will support that decision-making. The tribunal may feel the criteria for accessing an EA is discriminatory for other kids with other disabilities.

This is why bringing our cases forward for the analysis of the tribunal is so important and a strong form of advocacy. By creating these cases and decisions they are creating a path with street lamps for other parents to walk down when they advocate for their own kids.

Another part that is so fascinating is what they said

[68] The Ministry says that IEPs are not written contracts, as set out in the document “Individual Education Planning for Students with Special Needs: A Resource Guide for Teachers” (Province of British Columbia, November 2009) [ Resource Guide ]:

Q: Should the IEP be signed by the parent and a member of the school-based team?

A: There is no provincial requirement for signatures on an IEP. It should be clear to parents that IEPs are not written contracts, but rather working documents into which they have input along with the staff who work directly with the student. Some schools include signatures on a separate page to document who was present and who received a copy of the IEP.

[70] However, the Ministry disagrees that just because IEPs do not require a parent’s signature the School District is not required to adhere to them. The Ministry says IEPs do have a legal effect and function, as there is a valid legislative and policy framework that provides both authority and guidance for IEPs.

For parents self-representing, you will probably want to keep this case handy to use in your arguments to the tribunal.

A BIG THANK YOU to KD who is self-representing P. This decision is LOADED with helpful information.

I have created a new RESPONDING TO DISMISSAL page and here is a page with all of the dismissal and timeliness applications in education involving students in the last 10 years.

Self-represented Parent of Child’s Education Discrimination Case – Partial Win – Human Rights Tribunal

This is the only completed case that I have seen by a self-represented parent in BC, in an education case. And they succeeded in a partial win.

Student (by Parent) v. School District, 2023 BCHRT 237

Some important gems in this decision that I see are:

Meaningful inquiry

[99]           Next, in B v. School District, 2019 BCHRT 170, the evidence supported that the school district provided the child with the recommended supports and accommodations. The Tribunal found that it was “only with hindsight” that it was possible to say that the child could have benefited from more support: para. 81. It dismissed the complaint in part because there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the school district reasonably ought to have known that the child required more: para. 98. In contrast here, I have found that the District had sufficient information to trigger some kind of inquiry or response beyond asking the Student how she was doing and, assuming the counsellor did this, advising of available supports.

[100]      In short, I agree with the District that the Parent and Student were obliged to bring forward information relating to accommodation. The Parent did that, when she communicated that the Student had anxiety and trichotillomania and that school was taking a significant toll on her physical and mental health. That information should have been enough to prompt a meaningful inquiry by the school to identify what was triggering the Student’s symptoms and what supports or accommodations may be appropriate to ensure she was able to meaningfully and equitably access her education. The failure to take that step was, in my view, not reasonable. As a result, the disability-related impacts on the Student, arising from conditions in her Language 10 class between April 24 and June 27, 2019, have not been justified and violate s. 8 of the Human Rights Code.

[104]      In sum, I have found that the conditions in the Student’s grade 8 Language 10 class exacerbated the Student’s anxiety and trichotillomania, and that the District failed to take reasonable steps to investigate and address those conditions during the period between April 24, 2019, and June 27, 2019 (the last day of school). I find this is a violation of s. 8 of the Human Rights Code, and warrants a remedy, which I address below.

Around self-advocacy for children with invisible disabilities:

[90]           Generally, it is the obligation of the person seeking accommodation to bring forward the relevant facts: Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud, 1992 CanLII 81 (SCC), [1992] 2 SCR 970. This can be challenging for children, and especially challenging for children with invisible disabilities. I agree with the Parent that children who require accommodation in their school are in a different situation than adults seeking accommodation. Though they have a role to play in the process, that role will be age and ability-specific, and the burden cannot be on a child to identify and bring forward the facts necessary for their accommodation.

IEP – For a Child with Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Trichotillomania

[59]           This ends the period of this complaint.  However, it is important to note that, in the Student’s grade 11 year, the school developed an individual education plan, or IEP, for her. This IEP set out the Student’s strengths, learning preferences, and goals. It identified specific supports for the Student, including flexible due dates, ensuring the Student was not put on the spot in class, reducing workload whenever possible, providing a quiet learning environment, and frequent teacher check ins. It also established that the Student would meet bi-monthly with the school counsellor to work on her goals. The Student’s grade 11 counsellor explains that she saw the IEP as a way to reduce the burden on the Parent and to support the Student to advocate for herself. From the Parent’s perspective, this was a welcome development that should have been done much sooner.

[7]               In this case, there is no dispute that the Student has disabilities, namely generalized anxiety disorder accompanied by trichotillomania (hair pulling). She is protected under s. 8 of the Human Rights Code from discrimination in her education. This complaint is about the Parent’s allegation that the symptoms of the Student’s disabilities were exacerbated in grades 8 and 9 because of her experience in Language 10 and Language 11, and that the District failed to accommodate her disability-related needs in those classes.

** Even without a designation at the time, she is still protected under the Human Rights Code.

Mental Health Stigma – Failure to Identify Diagnosis

[34]           The Parent did not see this email at the time. From her perspective, the email was not adequate to appropriately communicate the scope of the Student’s school-related needs. It did not fully communicate what the Parent had told the counsellor, and what she had expected would be passed along to the teachers. She felt it was also not realistic to think that the Student would approach a teacher and ask to be excused; in fact, this was not an option that it seems the Student ever exercised. In the Parent’s view, the failure to identify the Student’s diagnoses perpetuated the silence and stigma of mental health and undermined the Student. The message contrasts, for example, with the communication that the Parent sent to the Student’s teachers at the start of her grade 9 year, which said:

Communicating and providing evidence of a diagnosis

[13]           In light of the Student’s barriers in advocating for herself, the adults in her life have had to take on a more proactive role. The Parent’s open and active communication has been critical to ensuring that the Student’s needs are recognized and met in school. Throughout the Student’s education, the Parent has let her schools know about her disabilities, and that she may require monitoring because she is unlikely to proactively seek the support she needs.

[14]           There is no dispute that, due to the Parent’s advocacy, various individuals within the School District were aware of the Student’s diagnoses before and during the period of this complaint. For example, in the spring of grade 7, the Parent provided the elementary school with a note from the Student’s psychiatrist confirming that the Student had a “long-standing diagnosis of General Anxiety Disorder”. At the Parent’s request, this note was placed in the Student’s school file.

** This is a very important aspect as this ensures that a district has a duty to accommodate.

From the Human Rights Clinic Blog, Stress, Anxiety and the Duty to Accommodate, they explain…

“However, she did not provide any medical information that said she had a mental disability.

The Tribunal dismissed Ms. Matheson’s complaint, stating that “an essential element of a complaint of discrimination in employment on the basis of mental disability is proof that the complainant either had a mental disability… or was perceived to be mentally disabled by the employer.”

Here is Ms. Matheson’s case.

Teacher Suspended – Not Following IEP and Safety Plan

We have an important consent resolution that has rightfully been making the news.

The Professional Conduct Unit (formerly Teachers Regulation Branch) doesn’t have a great track record.

In fact, most of the complaints parents file lead to “no action”. It has been confusing, disheartening, and a punch in the gut for many that leads us to question the legitimacy of this department in the Ministry of Education and Child Care that should be protecting the most vulnerable.

As shown by the annual reports by the Professional Conduct Unit, you can see for yourself.

2021-2022
2020-2021
2019-2020

You get the idea…puzzling isn’t the word…

In the year 2021-2202 out of 242 complaints/reports only 28 led to a consent resolution. If you read through them all, you will get a clear sense of which ones make it through. Most of them are sexual offences or related to physical safety.

There is a lot more going on in schools, unfortunately, that require action in order to keep kids safe from harm beyond just their physical bodies. Based on self-reporting of parents, especially for kids who are disabled, they just aren’t making it through, even when the human rights tribunal is accepting the same complaints from the same parents. Here is the discipline database.

Thankfully, most teachers will never experience this process because, well, they are just absolutely fabulous who have a genuine care for children. All of us parents and society will forever been in their debt. Forever and ever.

Other people….chose the wrong career.

Even though the TRB rarely, and I mean rarely, releases a consent resolution connected to a student with a disability, this recent case highlights that the teacher wasn’t aware of the students IEP and Safety plan, when they should have been, and states the incident has caused the student anxiety.

I was hoping this story would make the news.

And it did.

Many parents feel that IEP’s don’t get the respect they deserve. Some teachers follow them to a tee fully embracing them, and others completely ignore them. Ignore an IEP and safety plan and we could end up seeing you in the news one day.

Here is the full consent resolution that is posted on the Ministry of Education and Child Care’s website. Parents, you may want to keep this one on your computer. An advocacy tool.

Bellow are news articles on this important consent resolution. I will update them as they are posted in the media.

Vancouver Sun
Surrey-Now Leader
Vernon Now
Info News
BC CTV
Global News