Here are some Ombudsperson decisions connected to K-12 public education. To search for more decisions, visit their decision search page. The decisions on their decision search page have post-secondary decisions as well.
K-12 Ombudsperson Decisions
Topic: Section 177 – Appeals Process
“The complaint: The Jones family received a letter from School District 57 (Prince George) stating that the parents could not go to their child’s school. The school district said the parents were behaving aggressively and refused to leave the grounds when asked.”
**********
Topic: Section 11 Appeal Denials
“We investigated whether SD61 followed a fair process in making its decision to close the Late French Immersion Program and in denying both Sherry’s and Roland’s appeals.”
**********
Topic: Medical Exclusion & Appeal Process
“Marisol contacted us with concerns about the process School District 61 followed in medically excluding her child, Jordan. Marisol disagreed with the decision but was unaware she could appeal the decision and said the District did not explain this to her. Marisol also said that the District undertook a Violence Threat Risk Assessment (VTRA) process about Jordan but the District did not provide her with any information about what the VTRA process was beyond letting her know that it would occur.”
***********
Topic: Communication during suspension & Medical Exclusion
“When Noreen’s daughter Johnna was suspended, the school did not provide information about the suspension or the return-to-school plan until she spoke to the principal in person several days later. Noreen was also concerned because the school did not provide schoolwork for Johnna to complete during the suspension and she wasn’t provided with information about the School District’s (the District) appeal process.”
**********
Topic: Appeal Process and Advocates Involved
“Kim disagreed with School District 68’s decision to restrict her son, Ben, to part-time attendance at school as part of the District’s plan to better integrate Ben into the school environment. Kim scheduled an appeal hearing with the Board of Trustees but complained that the District was unfairly limiting the number of advocates that she could have attend and speak on Ben’s behalf. Kim had asked for three advocates to attend the hearing but the District told her they would only permit two. She also wanted two of the advocates to speak on Ben’s behalf but was told that only she and her husband or an advocate would be allowed to speak.”
**********
Topic: International Student Fees
“This unfair decision led to the discovery of missed information and a decision was overturned.
Isabella was helping friends who had recently immigrated to Canada and had attempted to register their three children in school. The family was told by the school district that their children were ineligible for enrollment because they did not fall within the definition of “ordinarily resident” as outlined in the School Act. The family was told that they would have to enroll as international students and pay a fee of $12,000 per child.”
**********
Topic: District Catchment Boundary Policy and Communication
“Ryan’s children went to a school slated for closure at the end of the school year. The school district informed Ryan that the following year his children would attend another local elementary school, which was about four kilometres from their home. Ryan requested a district transfer to a school that was walking distance from home but his request was denied.”