Here 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.
********
An important aspect that came out of this decision is this part here
*******
[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.
If your child is being excluded or refuses to come to school, school districts still need to provide your child with an education.
********
[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. […]
*********
Here is the part on the allegation that she didn’t have an EA.
*******
[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.
[50] In contrast, P says she was unable to multitask or complete her schoolwork without an EA sitting next to her to help her break the work down into small manageable steps. She says she required an EA to move her from “question to question” and “task to task.” She says every time the EA moved away from her, she “froze and suffered”. Without an EA beside her, she would sit at her desk and “do nothing”. She states that not having an EA with her made her feel anxious and stressed, and she became frightened to attend school.
******
I encourage you read the case in full.