Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10bi Education 13 December 2011 App B Spec Ed Ad Hoc 17 November 2011 Appendix B Report 1, Education Committee 13 December 2011 REPORT NO. 12, SPECIAL EDUCATION POLICY AD HOC COMMITTEE TO: The Education Committee and DATE: 17 November 2011 Special Education Advisory Committee A meeting of the Special Education Policy Ad Hoc Committee was held commencing at 5:36 p.m. in the Tr, 133 Greenbank Road, Ottawa, with Trustee Bronwyn Funiciello in the chair and the following also in attendance: TRUSTEE MEMBERS: Rob Campbell and Pam FitzGerald (electronic communication) OTHER TRUSTEES: Jennifer McKenzie SEAC REPRESENTATIVES: Beth Doubt, Ottawa-Carleton Assembly of School Councils STAFF: Dawn Paxton, Superintendent of Learning Support Services Maureen Strittmatter, Senior Board Coordinator 1. Call to Order Trustee Funiciello called the meeting to order at 5:36 p.m. 2. Approval of Agenda Moved by Trustee FitzGerald, THAT the agenda be approved. - Carried - 3. Report 11, Special Education Policy Ad Hoc Committee Moved by Beth Doubt, THAT Report 11, Special Education Ad Hoc Committee, dated 02 November 2011 be received. - Carried Superintendent Paxton outlined that during the last meeting the location of the upcoming consultation had been discussed and a suggestion was made to have the consultation held at a central location. In this regard, Superintendent Paxton advised that she has been informed that both Adult High School and 440 Albert Street did not have the required space for the consultation, and also Adult High School was not available during the day. The only room available at the Albert Street location was the Library on the second floor, which holds approximately 60 people and does not have the required equipment to hold the consultation meeting. She added that staff was agreeable to holding the consultation both in the day and in the evening; however, there has been requests from the community that the consultation should be held during the day. Special Education Policy - 1 - 17 November 2011 Ad Hoc Committee 4. Definitions Superintendent Paxton noted that she had provided some preliminary information, including the IPRC and IEP Parent Guides, Section J of the ONSIS Report and other definitions, by way of an email to the committee earlier in the week. Discussion ensued regard definitions and the following points were noted: The definitions should be simplified and consistent; The definitions in Standard 8 should be the same used in the Guides; The definition used for an exceptional student included the two definitions provided from the Ministry of Education; The definition for Special Education Support is provided on pages 10 and 11 of the IPRC Parent Guide; Under the definition for an exceptional student it should ; A Glossary of Special Education terms should be developed and possible sources of definitions were noted as: Guide for Teachers - glossary o http://teachspeced.ca/index.php?q=node/8 Council of Ontario Directors of Education (CODE) note the two boxes on the top o of the Individual Education Plan (IEP); and OCDSB Handbooks/Guides. o The five exceptionality categories are defined by the Province and they cannot be revised; It was noted that within the categories there may be many exceptionalities; There are some exceptionalities which are not captured in the categories, i.e., ADHD, but the children have special needs. This should be explained as parents sometimes assume that they will not be provided with the required services; The Ministry of Education sets the categories for exceptional students; If a student is diagnosed with a particular exceptionality, the Psychologist or Physician will complete the assessment and the student must exhibit the criteria; however, when a student comes forward, the District decides the criteria to access the specialized program and also the level of assistance; and through an IPRC but requires special education services through expectations or Discussion ensued regarding the levels of assistance provided to students: IPRC Students; IEP Students; and students who for temporary reasons need special education support. Beth Doubt noted that she recalled that remedial services were not classified as special education services, but would confirm. Chair Funiciello questioned whether the committee wished to review the numbers of students provided with assistance in the different levels. Trustee Campbell suggested that the discussion regarding which students should be classified as should be held at a future committee meeting and possibly only include students with high IEPs. Superintendent Paxton advised that the Ministry requests that the District provide information on indirect service that has been provided to students, i.e., resource assistance, partially integrated students and students who are withdrawn from class to receive assistance. Special Education Policy - 2 - 17 November 2011 Ad Hoc Committee Beth Doubt expressed concern that the special education budget may be used for any student that including students who require temporary assistance. Superintendent Paxton clarified that the Ministry of Education provides SEPPA funding for every student, and noted that these categories would be considered special education by the Ministry of Education and all of these students would have IEPs. Discussion continued regarding whether the policy should only include the students in the top three categories. Trustee McKenzie expressed the view that IPRC, IEP and students who occasionally require assistance should be covered under the policy. The question of special education funding arose and Trustee FitzGerald agreed with Trustee Campbell, that this issue was complex and should be discussed at a later date. Superintendent Paxton cautioned that, if the policy only covers students with IEPs, there is also a lot of work in the regular classroom that teachers and support staff with the student prior to the student being placed on an IEP. This upfront work with the special education staff should also be acknowledged. Staff would and these students would not be included in the policy if they did not have an IEP. In response to a query regarding whether this type of support still falls under this policy, Superintendent Paxton noted that supports are there for all students. Chair Funiciello expressed the view that the policy should clearly state which students it covers and the determination would not result in any student who requires assistance not having it provided. Trustee McKenzie suggested that staff provide definitions to review at the next meeting from the various websites. After further discussion on which students should be covered by the policy, Trustee Campbell expressed the view that the committee seemed to be comfortable with the broadest category; however, before the final decision is made staff should provide the total an IEP, and if possible, students that need other assistance should be provided. Chair Funiciello expressed the view that it would be helpful to develop a glossary of terms, so the language remains consistent throughout documents. This document could be placed on the OCDSB website as a reference. She noted that she would forward to Superintendent Paxton any resources that could be reviewed for the glossary, such as information from the EQAO Guide for Accommodations. Beth Doubt noted that there were other terms that should also have a definition, for example, modifications, accommodations, Special Education Report, Alternative Exceptions, ensuring that the definitions are consistent in the two OCDSB booklets. Trustee Campbell noted that possibly a discussion should be held on socio emotional criteria, and whether this would be appropriate to include in the list of exceptionalities. He added that he had other suggestions which had been forwarded to the committee. Chair Funiciello suggested that committee members review possible definitions to bring back to the committee and provide suggestions to Superintendent Paxton for the upcoming meeting. Special Education Policy - 3 - 17 November 2011 Ad Hoc Committee 5. Continuation of Preliminary Discussion re Input Received Specialized Class Location Consultation Superintendent Paxton reiterated that, due to space constraints at 440 Albert Street, the next round of consultations will be held at Confederation Education Centre and hoped that the turnout is as good as the last consultation sessions. The consultation will be held during the day due to the requests received from the community during the last round of consultation. In response to a query regarding having minutes taken at the next consultation session, Superintendent Paxton advised that normally the consultants are there and take notes. In the past the attendees have been divided into smaller groups and the staff associated with each program is there to speak to the community one-on-one. Regarding accessibility, Superintendent Paxton advised that there will be a blog and a conference calling for this round of consultations, and staff is hoping that there will be a Multicultural Liaison Officer (MLO) in attendance and the information on the consultation will also be provided to the MLO. In response to further queries regarding communications and advertising, Superintendent Paxton noted that the information is forwarded through the Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) to associations, and sent to the Ottawa-Carleton Assembly of School Council, Parent Involvement Committee, and to all principals so the information can be shared through newsletters. The information will also be included on the OCDSB website. Superintendent Paxton added that, the Learning Support Consultants will share the information with students/parents regarding the consultation. Trustee McKenzie suggested that, in the future, when new schools are being designed that possibly adding two smaller classrooms for special programming should be considered. Trustee Campbell suggested that the special education class locations should review bell times, bus/routing times, etc. making special education students a priority in the planning to have stable sites. Chair Funiciello agreed and expressed the view that currently when the space is crowded special education is the first program that is reviewed. Superintendent Paxton suggested that each geographic site should have a suite of programs so the students can remain in the area for six years. Beth Doubt added that, in some areas they are feeling pressure and also some students are being bussed for hours. Superintendent Paxton cautioned that the Ministry will express concern regarding the richness of what our District is able to provide if our programs are empty. Also, in the past, there have been instances where those students Superintendent Paxton noted that what is need is flexibility in mee Superintendent Paxton advised that she has just been informed that ABA Therapy will now be offered up until the th birthday. Discussion ensued regarding integrating students into regular classrooms. Chair Funiciello noted that one of the potential positives of the HUB model is that there can be transitioning to assist when the student leaves the specialized program. 6. Next Steps Trustee McKenzie expressed concern regarding the short timeframe as the recommendations are due in January and noted that a discussion on priorities should be held at the next committee meeting. Special Education Policy - 4 - 17 November 2011 Ad Hoc Committee Trustee Campbell advised that he has provided many suggestions and expressed the view that he would like to have a discussion on the idea of the HUB; defined catchments; a guarantee that if a special education student is enrolled that if required a new class will be opened; and all special education students are subject to the transfer policy/procedure. Discussion ensued regarding the upcoming meeting structure and the following was noted: Possibly schedule meetings once per week; The committee provide recommendations to have staff develop into policy/procedure; s report to separate the useful information and start identifying special education issues and whether they will fall into short-term or long-term recommendations; Some recommendations will be for the Board and some will come forward as best advice for staff; Suggestion was made to conduct a clause-by-clause review of the policy taking into account information provided from the consultation, during a committee meeting; A commitment has been made to report back to the community on what has been heard and how the committee will act on the input; The next meeting should cover the timelines and the meeting schedule for the next few weeks, setting goals and having the committee members taking away some of the work required; and A work plan discussion should be scheduled for the next committee meeting, along with the timelines/goals and the definitions. 7. New Business Superintendent Paxton advised that the Consultant had finished his report and provided copies to committee members. In response to a query regarding whether the Consultant had categorized the consultation by issue, Superintendent Paxton noted that this had not been done; however, some suggested rewording for the policy that had been provided. Superintendent Paxton noted that she would also 8. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:19 p.m. Bronwyn Funiciello Chair Special Education Policy Ad Hoc Committee Special Education Policy - 5 - 17 November 2011 Ad Hoc Committee