A tribunal has rejected a father's claim that his disabled son's school discriminated against the year 5 student by letting him use an iPad rather than engaging him in lessons.
The man claimed he and his son - who suffers from epilepsy, fine motor delays, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder - were also discriminated against because the school limited the number of hours the boy could attend and failed to provide a safe learning environment.
The ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal rejected the claims in a decision published last month.
The applicant argued the school had in 2019 imposed a regime of short hours, failed to provide a teacher's aide and failed to provide a safe learning environment for his son.
The applicant argued providing the applicant's son, referred to as H, with an iPad in class meant he would not join the rest of his class in physical activities, participate in lessons or eat and go to the toilet because of his trauma and anxiety.
However, H's teacher told the tribunal that after denying access to the iPad, H would "revert to physical violence, abusive language and threats of violence".
The tribunal heard H had in a previous incident thrown stationery supplies around a classroom, stabbed an interactive whiteboard with a pair of scissors and turned over tables after being told the class was going outside rather than using computers.
"Giving [H] use of an iPad drew other students to him, apart from his one singular friend, and led to conversations, a greater willingness to negotiate and increased positive interactions with others," the teacher said.
The tribunal noted H's parent's concerns over their son being allowed to spend long periods using an iPad and the iPad's use in managing H's emotional and physical responses, but accepted its use as an educational tool.
The tribunal also heard H had been left out of school activities including assemblies and library lessons, and H's parents had told the school of their concern "about the complete lack of inclusive practice".
Senior tribunal member Mary Brennan said in her decision that the tribunal was not convinced the school had discriminated against H by failing to provide appropriate learning strategies.
"While the applicant and H's mother clearly had a very different view of H's use of technology and specifically the iPad while at school, we do not consider this difference in view leads to the school's conduct being discriminatory," Ms Brennan said.
The applicant had also claimed the school's failure to prevent H from accessing the roof of the school through a fire escape amounted to discrimination by failing to make the learning environment safe.
But the tribunal found the school's response was reasonable as it needed to comply with other regulatory requirements to limit access to the roof while also making sure the building could be evacuated during a fire.
"The tribunal considers the incidents of H climbing the fire escape and particularly, the roof, are very concerning. ... We can also see from the evidence given ... that the respondent was not in a position to simply carry out alterations to the school," Ms Brennan said.
Ms Brennan also rejected the applicant's claim that the school had discriminated against H by imposing a shortened attendance timetable, finding the school had acted to protect the safety of other students and staff and was working to increase H's attendance.
"The tribunal fully appreciates the significant inconvenience to the applicant and his spouse and their fears that H's development academically and socially may have been impacted by H having less time at school than his peers," Ms Brennan said.
The tribunal heard the applicant had regularly attended the school in 2019 to provide support for his son in the classroom and on school grounds.
The tribunal found the school could have acted faster to find more support for H, but it was not unreasonable to reduce the number of hours H spent with a learning support assistant to allow his teacher, who had experience teaching students with disabilities, to become more involved in H's learning.
The tribunal had heard H was removed from the school after his parents noticed bolts on his classroom door, which they said would have a psychological impact on their child who had been locked in his classroom at a previous school.
However, the tribunal accepted the school principal's evidence that the bolts were installed after the Port Arthur massacre and were not for restraining H in his classroom.
