No. 07-00-360/2024-02 date: 8.8 2024.

OPINION

The opinion was issued in proceedings concerning a complaint filed by A.A. against Elementary School … in …, alleging discrimination against her minor son, B.B., based on a personal characteristic—developmental disabilities. The complaint detailed that B.B., a seventh-grade student diagnosed with autism, follows an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) Level 1 for most subjects and IEP Level 2 for Serbian Language and Literature. Since the fifth grade, B.B. has reportedly faced multiple forms of discrimination from the school community. Specific allegations included the homeroom teacher’s failure to inform B.B. about topics covered during class, changes in the class schedule, and class activities. B.B. was also reportedly not invited to participate in the activities organized by the Red Cross, often stood idle during lessons, was “forgotten” outside the German language classroom on June 6, 2023, and did not attend a school excursion. In its response, the school stated that B.B. regularly received educational materials tailored to his needs, based on suggestions provided regularly by his mother. Teachers demonstrated exceptional dedication and maintained open communication with the mother through direct contact, emails, or the Google Classroom platform. B.B. actively participated in classes according to his personalized learning plan, which his mother approved. The school’s pedagogical profile for B.B. was revised annually, in accordance with the specific situation, and observations from students, teachers, and parents. Evaluations of his IEP were conducted at the end of each semester and academic year. The school asserted that B.B. actively engaged in all activities, in agreement with arrangements made between the homeroom teacher and his mother. There is no basis for the allegations of neglecting or “forgetting” the student, but that it was rather an unexpected situation, promptly addressed by the homeroom teacher to ensure the student’s interests and safety. Additionally, the school director, in collaboration with B.B.’s mother, was personally involved in organizing the excursion, ensuring free attendance for the accompanying adult, and seeking subsidies for the child. During the proceedings, it was established that, through the statements in the response and the accompanying evidence, the director proved that the school had undertaken a series of activities aimed at ensuring that student B. B. could go on the excursion. Additionally, upon reviewing the evidence, it was also noted that the complainant had informed the principal that B. B. would not be going on the excursion. Furthermore, it was determined that the mother was informed daily about the class schedule and any potential changes, with copies of the electronic correspondence between the homeroom teacher and the complainant provided as supporting evidence. Through the analysis of the evidence, particularly the minutes from the support team meeting, the inclusive education team, and the Plan for Improving Cooperation between the School’s Teachers and the Mother, and by considering the overall context of the case, i.e., all the activities and measures undertaken by the educational institution to support the student, it can be concluded that the school is taking measures and engaging in activities while cooperating with the student’s mother in the best interest of the child. Given that this particular case concerns a student who, in addition to the additional support provided through the IEP, also requires further engagement to fulfill the child’s need for routine, the Commissioner believes that only through joint efforts by both the institution and the parent can the most appropriate ways be found to achieve this goal and further contribute to creating a stimulating environment for the full development of student B. B.’s potential. For this reason, it is important to continuously improve this cooperation. Following the conducted proceedings and applying the rule on the shifting of the burden of proof under Article 45 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination, the Commissioner issued the opinion stating that, in the proceedings regarding the complaint filed by A. A. for discrimination against her minor son on the grounds of developmental disabilities, the Elementary School … in … did not violate the provisions of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination. 

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY
Brankica Janković