HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 Education Report 6 21 May 20026l.
OTTAWA - CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
REPORT NO. 6, EDUCATION COMMITTEE
21 May 2002
A meeting of the Education Committee was held this evening in the Trustees' Committee Room,
133 Greenbank Road, Ottawa, commencing at 7:55 p.m with Trustee Lange in the Chair, and the following
in attendance:
TRUSTEE MEMBERS: Lynn Graham, Margaret Lange, Jim Libbey, Myrna Laurenceson, and Joan
Spice
OTHER TRUSTEES: Sheryl MacDonald, and Lynn Scott
NON - VOTING
REPRESENTATIVES: Jane Thompson, Betty Tait, OCASC; Lisa Falls, OCETF; Nancy Myers, SEAC
STAFF: Dan Mason, Superintendent, Educational Programs and Services; Marjorie
Clegg, Coordinator, Quality Assurance; Margaret Dempsey, Principal, Staff
Development; Ron Gaudreau, Centrally Assigned Position - Mathematics; Pat
Irving, Principal, Rideau High School; Sprague Plato, Principal, Henry Munro
Middle School; Bob Powell, Principal, Program - Elementary; Peter Zion,
Principal, Program - Secondary; and Kim Young, Committee Coordinator.
ALSO PRESENT: Hyacinth Haddad, Communications Coordinator; Trevor Robinson, Student
Trustee.
Note: Trustee Graham assumed the Chair until Trustee Lange's arrival at the meeting after item No. 2.
Trustee Lange assumed the Chair for the remainder of the meeting.
Approval of Agenda
On a motion by Trustee Laurenceson, the agenda was approved as presented.
Public Ouestion Period
Lynne Oreek -Wener referred to the Grade 10 mathematics marks noted in Report No. 02 -132,
Update on Tracking the Double Cohort/Mathematics Marks, and expressed the view that, based on her
perception from speaking with teachers and students, students in the advanced level math courses in 1999-
2000, and students in academic level math courses in 2000 -2001 did not achieve comparable marks. Ms.
Oreek -Wener asked why the Board is discouraging some students from taking Grade 11 U level math
course, if the students are actually achieving similar results in the two courses, and if universities require it
for admission.
Marjorie Clegg noted that the results indicated similar distributions of student scores for the top
percent of students across the two cohorts. More students received the top marks in the new course than in
the old course, even though a smaller percentage of students passed the new course. She explained that the
failure rate for Grade 10 advanced mathematics in 1999 -2000 was 15.3 %, while the failure rate for Grade
10 academic mathematics was 16.9 %. It would appear that that the new course is difficult for students at
the lower end of the distribution, but not for students who are passing comfortably.
With respect to the Grade 11 U (MCR3U) level course, Ron Gaudreau explained that it is
designed for students who intend to study specialist mathematics, such as chemistry, or physics, at the
university level. The MCR3U course is a prerequisite to the 4U Advanced Functions and Introductory
Calculus course (MCB4U) and the 4U Mathematics of Data Management course (MDM4U) and
additionally, it is required for the 4U Geometry and Discrete Mathematics course (MGA4U). He suggested
Education Committee 1 21 May 2002
that parents and students refer to the university course calendars to verify which of the 4U courses are
required for entrance into their programs.
.r. Gaudreau explained that the : ther university/college stream math course (MCF3M) is
designs _ .jr those who plan to attend university or college, but not necessarily in the area of mathematics.
The MC 3M course is a prerequisite to two Grade 12 university Math courses, the 4U Advanced Functions
and Introductory Calculus course (MCB4U) and the 4U Mathematics of Data Management course
(MDM4U).
Receipt of Special Education Advisory Committee Report 1 May 2002
On a motion by Trustee Laurenceson, your Committee recommends:
THAT REPORT NO.6, FROM THE SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
DATED 1 MAY 2002, BE RECEIVED. (ATTACHED AS APPENDIX A)
The report included a recommendation to the Board regarding the Special Education Plan for
2002 -2003, and 2003 -2004, and a recommendation regarding the review and revision of the identification
processes used by the Board in identifying gifted children.
In response to a query about the identification of gifted students process, Superintendent Mason
clarified that it is not the issue of using a multi -faced identification process that is of concern to SEAC, but
the actual criteria being used in the identification process.
With respect to the signing of IPRC determinations as referenced on page 3 of the report,
Superintendent Mason confirmed that if parents do not sign IPRCs within a designated time period, the
school board is entitled to implement the IPRC as it was presented to the parents. He noted that another
issue of concern to SEAC members was the possibility of parents losing their right to appeal the IPRC
determinations by signing the IPRC that includes the caveat "subject to budget approval ". Legal counsel
has indicated that it is appropriate for the Board to include the budgetary reference in the IPRC
determination, and confirmed that parents would not be waiving their right of appeal by signing the IPRC
determination with the inclusion of this clause.
Nancy Myers expressed the view that many parents are unaware of their rights regarding this
issue, and are searching for ways to deal with IPRCs they are dissatisfied with.
Work Plan for Potential Sites of Additional International Baccalaureate (IB Programs in OCDSB
Secondary Schools
Your Committee had before it for consideration report No. 02 -115 seel ng approval of the work
plan related to the establishment of additional IB Programs in OCDSB secondary schools. The report
included Policy P. 105.CUR: Changes to Programs and Program Delivery Structures at Secondary Schools,
as well as Procedure PR.629.CUR: Changes to Programs and Program Delivery Structures at Secondary
Schools.
Principal Zion presented an overview of the report, noting that the revised work plan incorporates
elements of the original work plan, as well as the Board's policy and procedure on changes to programs and
program delivery structures at secondary schools.
Trustee Scott referred to the reference to "the plan" in Numbers 6 through 9 of the work plan, and
noted that the phraseology should be revised to reflect the outcome of the work plan process, i.e.,
recommendations by staff regarding the establishment of IB Program(s) at certain sites, to the Board for
consideration.
Trustee Scott moved the recommendation in the report:
Education Committee 2 21 May 2002
63.
A. THAT the International Baccalaureate (IB) Program Work Plan be approved, subject to
the replacement of "the plan" in Numbers 6 through 9 of the work plan with either
"consideration of placement(s)" or "recommendations" to reflect the actual stage in the
process, and;
B. THAT the accompanying letter be sent to the secondary principals and school council
chairs, informing them of the IB work plan and of an information session for principals
and school council chairs of the schools which meet the criteria.
Trustee Spice noted that the last phrase of Part B is redundant, and she emphasized the importance
of inviting everyone to the information session on the IB Program, even if they are not considering the
establishment of a program at their school at this time.
An amendment by Trustee Spice THAT in Part B of the motion, "of the schools which meet the
criteria" be deleted, and "the secondary principals" be replaced by "all secondary principals ", was accepted
as friendly.
Trustee Spice requested that the invitation to secondary school principals and school council
chairs regarding the IB Program information session indicate that observers are also welcome to attend the
session. She also suggested that if the session is to be held in the Mezzanine, that consideration be given to
moving the meeting to a larger venue if the number of attendees warrant it.
In response to Nancy Myers' expressed concern that the establishment of a new IB program at a
school may impact on the already limited resources allocated to special education students, Superintendent
Mason noted that there is a possibility that schools would incur additional costs in establishing the IB
program, but indicated that it is too early in the process to predict the actual costs. The cost of the IB
program, and its impact on other school programs, would likely be addressed by the Board when the IB
program is being recommended for a particular school(s).
In response to a query about the date of the information session, Principal Zion noted that the
information meeting is scheduled to take place prior to the Board -wide retirement reception on 12 June
2002.
Trustee Graham expressed the view that the criteria for potential sites of an IB Program may
require some clarification for principals and school council chairs. In response to her query, Principal Zion
explained that the criteria would be clarified at the meeting if necessary, and noted that, with regard to
some of the criteria, system changes, for example, the double cohort leaving the system, would impact on
some schools' ability to meet the criteria. It may be too early in the process to determine if some schools
will or will not meet the criteria several years from now.
Trustee Graham requested that, if information clarifying the criteria for potential IB Program sites
is available for distribution at the information session, trustees be provided with it as well.
During a brief discussion of the impact of IB Programs on programs for the gifted across the
system, and a comparison of students enrolled in one program over the other, Superintendent Mason agreed
that the issue needs to be addressed by the Board at some point, and offered to investigate the research
literature on this issue and present a report to the Committee in future.
Student Trustee Robinson asked that the letter of invitation regarding the information session also
be extended to secondary student councils.
Trustees expressed support for the motion, noting that there has been an interest in the community
to establish one or more additional IB Program sites for some rime.
In wrap -up, Trustee Scott expressed the view that the western part of the Board would benefit
from the establishment of an IB Program. She also expressed the view that the IB Program would be
Education Committee 3 21 May 2002
�4
suitable for some gifted students, and she agreed that an intensive, pedagogical discussion of secondary
school program planning needs to take place in future.
The motion, as amended, was carried.
On a motion by Trustee Scott, your Committee therefore recommends:
A. THAT THE INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE (113) PROGRAM WORK PLAN
BE APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE REPLACEMENT OF "THE PLAN" IN
NUMBERS 6 THROUGH 9 OF THE WORK PLAN WITH EITHER
"CONSIDERATION OF PLACEMENT(S)" OR "RECOMMENDATIONS" TO
REFLECT THE ACTUAL STAGE IN THE PROCESS, AND;
B. THAT THE ACCOMPANYING LETTER BE SENT TO ALL SECONDARY
PRINCIPALS AND SCHOOL COUNCIL
CHAIRS, INFORMING THEM OF THE IB WORK PLAN AND OF AN
INFORMATION SESSION FOR PRINCIPALS AND SCHOOL COUNCIL CHAIRS.
5. Survey Results for OCDSB System Course Calendar for Secondary Schools
Your Committee had before it for consideration report No. 02 -111, presenting the survey results of
the OCDSB system course calendar for secondary schools. The report included a compilation of the
responses to six survey questions related to different aspects of the system course calendar.
Principal Zion provided a brief overview of the report, noting that generally, the feedback on the
system course calendar was favourable, and concerns expressed by the respondents will be addressed. He
noted that the 2003 -2004 edition would likely be less expensive, approximately $1.00 a copy, given the
removal of the OAC section from the calendar.
Trustee Graham moved the recommendation in the report, viz:
THAT the OCDSB continue its practice of developing and distributing a system course calendar
for all of its secondary schools for the 2003 -2004 academic year.
Trustees speaking in support of the motion noted that the calendar appears to be accepted as useful
by users across the system
In response to a number of trustee queries, Principal Zion noted that the purpose of the system
course calendar is not necessarily a marketing tool, but is rather intended to replace individual school
course calendars with a consistent, informative document that assists parents and students in making
program decisions. He noted his hesitation in establishing a committee of calendar users to address the
issues raised in the survey results, expressing the view that their work might compromise the consistency of
the calendar by attempting to make it all things to all people.
Superintendent Mason noted that the establishment of the system course calendar required a
significant allocation of staff resources, and that, if the motion is approved, staff will focus on maintaining
the calendar in its current format, with efforts to improve various aspects over time, for example, photos of
schools, etc.
A number of trustees expressed appreciation to staff for including the full set of survey comments
in the report, both those of a positive and a negative nature.
During the course of discussion, staff agreed to take under advisement, the following suggestions
for inclusion in next year's system course calendar:
• the student transfer policy, to promote to parents and students the Board's mandate
of school choice. (Trustee Spice)
Education Committee
21 May 2002
�s
• a secondary school boundary map to assist parents and students, especially new
(W residents to Ottawa in making decisions regarding secondary schools and programs.
(Jane Thompson);
• a brief contribution by the President of the School Council of each school.
In response to Trustee Sheryl MacDonald's suggestion, Principal Zion noted that asking printing
companies for donations of paper to print the calendars may be problematic, as the Board has an agreement
with a printing company at the moment that includes using its paper, its layout designers, etc. He agreed to
take the issue under advisement.
In wrap -up, Trustee Graham congratulated staff on a successful initiative, and urged the trustees to
support the motion to continue using the system course calendar format for the 2003 -2004 school year.
The motion was carried. On a motion by Trustee Graham, your Committee therefore
recommends:
THAT THE OCDSB CONTINUE ITS PRACTICE OF DEVELOPING AND DISTRIBUTING A
SYSTEM COURSE CALENDAR FOR ALL OF ITS SECONDARY SCHOOLS FOR THE
2003 -2004 ACADEMIC YEAR.
6. OCDSB School Review Process
Your Committee had before it report No. 02 -139 providing an update on the School Review
Process. A draft School Review Guide was distributed at the meeting.
Superintendent Mason provided an overview of the report, noting that the purpose of the school
review process is to maximize the quality of education for all students, to identify those areas of education
that should be celebrated, and those areas which should be a focus for future development. The review
process also provides schools with a base for school improvement planning, and an opportunity to
scrutinize themselves with respect to quality assurance and, public accountability.
Superintendent Mason explained that the review process is designed as a self - review using fairly
strict parameters. To assist a school in undertaking a review, and to ensure some form of quality control of
the process itself, the model includes the use of a lead auditor, a principal external to the school who would
work with the school -based review team to carry out the review and generate the report.
In response to a query, Superintendent Mason expressed the hope that all schools would undergo
the review process in the next three to five years.
In response to Trustee Sheryl MacDonald's expressed concern about adding to principals'
workloads, Principal Plato noted that while this is a concern, the overall benefit to schools and the system
as a whole is worth the time and effort on the review process. Principal Irving concurred, noting that much
of the process involves principals working on the review on their own time. She expressed support for the
review process, noting the benefit to principals as auditors of learning from other schools and bringing that
knowledge back to their own schools.
Trustee Lange thanked staff, including Principal Irving and Principal Plato for their input on this
excellent system initiative.
Arts Review Update (oral)
Marjorie Clegg reported on the status of the Arts Review, noting that the Quality Assurance
Division is continuing to collect survey data from principals, teachers and students, is collecting case
studies, and is planning student forums in late May at five different school sites.
Education Committee 5 21 May 2002
The Division will be presenting a semi -final report to the Arts Review Committee in June, after
which the Committee will analyze the report and begin to formulate recommendations to the Board. The
division will present its final report to the Committee in September, and following a few Committee
meetings, the Arts Review Committee will present its recommendations to the Board.
8. Update on Tracking the Double Cohort/Mathematics Marks
Your Committee had before it for information report No. 02 -132 presenting an interim report on
tracking the mathematics marks of the double cohort. The report included an analysis of the Toronto
District School Board and the OCDSB mathematics marks for Grade 10 students, the results of a survey of
OCDSB secondary schools regarding issues related to the Grade 11 math courses, and a list of Reach
Ahead and Make -Up courses being offered at Merivale HS and the Adult HS by Continuing Education.
Marjorie Clegg provided an overview of the report, noting that the issue of concern to teachers
regarding the Grade 11 course marks is related to the proper placement of students in courses. Schools are
addressing issues in a number of ways, including the counselling of students and parents.
Ron Gaudreau referred to a symposium held earlier that day, providing an opportunity for
mathematics department heads to address their concerns about the implementation of the Grade 9 Applied
Mathematics course, as well as the EQAO Grade 9 Applied Mathematics results. The purpose of the
workshop was to allow the teachers to share best practices, review resources, and identify needs and the
next steps needed to improve Grade 9 students' performance in Applied Mathematics.
Ms. Clegg noted that district -wide examinations are planned for mathematics courses at the Grade
11 level in Math 3U and 3M. The examinations should assist students and staff by training teachers in
assessment and evaluation, providing exemplar booklets for students and staff, and providing an
opportunity for conference marking of test papers.
Ms. Clegg referred to the Ministry's advisory committee's analysis of student marks for Grade 10
advanced courses in 1999 -2000 with student marks for Grade 10 academic courses in 2000 -2001, noting
that there was a difference of less than one percent between the test results of students in the former
advanced course, and the current academic course. The pass -fail data indicated that the differences in
difficulty between the former and current math courses are much more pronounced for the applied courses.
During the course of discussion, Trustee Libbey expressed concern about Grade 11 students' being
disadvantaged not only by the double cohort issue, but also by the possibility that there are significant
problems with the Grade 11 math courses. He noted the importance for school boards to clarify the issue
with universities and colleges, explaining to them that this year's marks may an aberration, given the new
secondary school curriculum and the double cohort.
Trustee Scott expressed concern about the registration deadline for the summer school programs,
noting that last year, many students missed the Ottawa- Carleton Catholic School Board deadline, as well as
the OCDSB's. As a result, a number of summer school classes were cancelled due to a lack of registrants.
She asked that staff ensure that the OCDSB registration deadline for Reach Ahead and remedial courses for
this summer be extended as long as possible. Principal Zion agreed to relay Trustee Scott's concerns to
Anna Bowles, Principal, Continuing Education, and her request that the issue be addressed.
9. Results of Education Quality Indicators Pro ram (EQUIP) Surveys
Your Committee had before it for information report No. 02 -131 presenting the results of the
Education Quality Indicators Program (EQUIP) surveys condticted in the spring of 2001. The report
included an overview of EQUIP, a summary of the surveys , -.:i the participants, an overview of the
numerous difficulties with the EQUIP survey designs and ir.,7aementation, the survey results at the
elementary and secondary level, and an analysis of the results.
r,aucanon Lommrttee 6 21 May 2002
A
Marjorie Clegg provided an overview of the report, emphasizing the concerns about the validity of
the survey design, especially the school safety surveys. She noted that these design, implementation and
content issues should be kept in mind when interpreting the results. Ms. Clegg also noted that principals
will be provided with their own school's results for use in school improvement planning.
Some trustees commented, and staff agreed, that the school review process will likely be far more
useful to schools and to the system as a whole, than the EQUIP results.
Trustee Trevor Robinson acknowledged the problems with the data collection, but noted that he
does not necessarily disagree with all of the findings. He suggested that in future, that students be asked to
assist in preparing the questions in the survey.
10. New Business
Trustee Scott asked that staff confirm the date of the Junior Kindergarten information session, as
the date indicated on the OCDSB web site is incorrect. Superintendent Mason agreed to follow -up with the
Communications department.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Margaret Lange, Chair
Education Committee
Education Committee 7 21 May 2002
� I
M0
APPENDIX A
Et
OT AWA-CA LLETON
DISrRICr SCHOOL BOARD
REPORT NO.6
SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TO: The Board DATE: 1 May 2002
A meeting of the Special Education Advisory Committee was held this evening in the Board
Room, 133 Greenbank Road, Ottawa, Ontario commencing at 7:30 p.m. with Lamar Mason in the Chair
and the following also in attendance:
TRUSTEE MEMBERS: Margaret Lange, and Myrna Laurenceson
OTHER TRUSTEES: Lynn Graham, David Moen, and Joan Spice
ASSOCIATION
REPRESENTATIVES: Elizabeth Buckingham, Association for Bright Children; Susanne Striegler,
Autism Society Ontario; Jon Kidd, Ottawa Deaf Centre; Michael Mastronardi, Children and Adults with
Attention Deficit Disorder; Greg Bonnah, Integration Action Group - Ottawa Chapter; Shirley Todd -
Deschamps, Learning Disabilities Association of Ottawa; Nancy Myers, Ontario Association for Families
of Children with Communication Disorders, (SEAC Co- Chair); Lamar Mason, Pam Fitzgerald, Ottawa -
Carleton Assembly of School Councils; Colleen Hendrick, VIEWS for the Visually Impaired; and,
Josephine Fitzgerald, VOICE for Hearing Impaired Children.
COMMUNITY:
REPRESENTATIVES: Bronwyn Funiciello, and Debi Kirwan (SEAC Vice - Chair).
STAFF: Dan Mason, Superintendent, Educational Programs and Services, Doris Davidson, Principal of
Special Education; Gilles Desmarais, Psychologist; Ronald Lynch, Coordinator, Field Services; John
Rager, Special Education Program Support Teacher; and Kim Young, Committee Coordinator.
NON - VOTING
REPRESENTATIVES: Tony Pearson, Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation - Teachers; Linda
Moran, Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation - EAs; Darryl Kicul, Ottawa- Carleton Secondary
School Administrators' Network; Val Eisen, Ottawa - Carleton Elementary School Administrators'
Association; Paul Dewar, Ottawa- Carleton Elementary Teachers' Federation; Christine DiZazzo,
Professional Student Services Personnel.
ALSO PRESENT: Steve Ardanaz, Diana Ardanaz, Sign Language Interpreters.
Note: Nancy Myers assumed the Chair when Lamar Mason wished to participate in the discussion.
1. Call to Order
Lamar Mason called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
2. Approval of Agenda
On a motion by Bronwyn Funiciello, the agenda was approved, subject to the addition of a motion
by Trustee Graham for input from SEAC under New Business, and information regarding the provincial
advisory committee on special education, under Members' Information.
Special Education Advisory Committee 1 1 May 2002
9 AGO
MAI
3. Public Ouestion Period
Pam Fitzgerald noted &.—.* she had asked for information regarding special education funding at t ;e
February SEAC meeting, and has. :)t yet received it. She requested that staff provide information
regarding the amount of grants that the OCDSB received from the Ministry of Education for special
education from January 1998 to the present, as well as the Board's expenditures on special education during
the same time period.
Lamar Mason noted that SEAC was provided with information related to OCDSB special
education expenditures as part of the March SEAC agenda, but agreed that the Ministry special education
grant information had not yet been received.
4. Chair's Report
Lamar Mason welcomed Michael Mastronardi, the voting representative for the Children and
Adults with Attention Deficit Disorder Association - Ottawa Chapter, to the meeting. She expressed
pleasure that CHADD is the newest association member of SEAC.
5. Division Update
Principal Davidson expressed pleasure in announcing that the Board's Cycle II ISA submissions
were given a 99 percent approval rating by the Ministry. All but two of the 231 files were approved. In
addition, eight files that were submitted at Level II were validated at Level III. Principal Davidson noted
that Cycle 11 generated approximately $3.8 million in grants for the OCDSB. The Ministry sent seven ISA
validators to deal with the Cycle II files. Their team leader, Stan Draffm commended the ISA team for its
superbly organized files and thorough understanding of the process. Due to the quality of the
documentation provided, the validators were able to complete their work in half of the expected time. She
explained that the ISA team capitalized on the opportunity to consult with the validators regarding a
number of ISA related issues, and expressed the view that the dialogue between the OCDSB staff and the
Ministry's validators was beneficial for both parties.
With respect to Cycle III of the ISA process, Principal Davidson reported that the ISA team is
currently working on approximately 800 files, with at least 650 ready for submission in May. Students'
names must be provided to the Ministry by 10 May, but staff will continue to work to complete and review
the documentation until the validators arrival, likely at the end of June. She noted that staff will have
approximately 500 files remaining for the fourth cycle of the review process in the fall.
Principal Davidson noted that Leanne Power, an OCDSB educational assistant (EA) who works
with the Autism team and Liane Duguay, occupational therapist, presented a Sensory Integration seminar
for educators on 24 April at Confederation HS. The successful event, based on thirty hours of preparation
time by the presenters, included both a tandem lecture format and hands -on demonstrations of equipment
and strategies.
Principal Davidson reported that she recently received SEAC's revisions to the Special Education
Comprehensive Plan, which will be reviewed by the Directors' Council of Superintendents (DCS) this
month, and presented to SEAC at its 5 June 2002 meeting. She noted that Bruce Drewett at the Ministry
indicated that the Ministry has not yet provided feedback to any school boards regarding their Special
Education Plans. He also confirmed that there is confusion among school boards across the province about
whether the Plans are to reflect current programs and services being provided to students this year, or
whether the Plans are to indicate the programs and services planned for next year. A working group has
been established to clarify these issues, and school boards will be provided with an update in the fall to the
Standards for School Boards' Special Education Plans.
With respect to the Special Education Plan that must be submitted to the Ministry by 31 July,
Principal Davidson noted that Mr. Dewett suggested that the Board submit its Plan as late as possible, given
Special Education Advisory Committee 2 1 May 2002
7D
the uncertainties of the budget. He also suggested that the Board submit another update in the fall should
there be significant changes to the Plan as a result of budget decisions.
With regard to the IPRC process for the 2002 -2003 school year, Principal Davidson noted that
schools have been provided with instructions about how to proceed with system class applications.
Principal Davidson expressed pleasure in announcing that Ellen Goodman, an OCDSB Itinerant
Teacher of the Visually Impaired, has been appointed to the Minister's Advisory Council on Special
Education. Ms. Goodman will represent blind and low vision education during her three -year appointment
on the Council. The Council's first meeting is scheduled for mid -June, at which the members will meet
with Minister Witmer. Principal Davidson expressed the view that Ms. Goodman will undoubtedly
contribute significantly to the effectiveness of the Council.
In response to queries about the OCDSB's use of the Special Education Plan when it was not
approved by the Board or SEAC last year, staff noted that the Ministry is aware that the 2001 -2002 Plan
was not approved by the Board and SEAC, but in the interests of carrying on with the business of the
Board, the administration had no choice but to implement the Plan as it existed.
Lamar Mason recalled that SEAC's objection to the 2001 -2002 Plan was not related to the
description of the OCDSB's special education services, but was related to the fact that the Plan failed to
accurately reflect the inadequate level of services being provided to meet students' needs.
In response to a query, Principal Davidson confirmed that SEAC would be presented with last
year's revised Plan, as well as this year's update for submission to the Ministry, at the 5 June 2001 meeting.
In response to Bronwyn Funiciello's query, Principal Davidson confirmed that the IPRC
information sheet was provided to schools on 1 May 2002 to accompany notice of IPRC meetings that are
sent to parents of special education students. Ms. Funiciello requested that an electronic copy of the
information sheet that was sent to the schools be provided to SEAC as well.
Jon Kidd referred to the impact of the OPSEU strike on students who attend provincial schools for
the deaf, noting that their needs are not being met. Mr. Kidd suggested that some of these students may
choose to attend OCDSB schools in the fall, and he asked whether the Board was prepared to offer services
to these deaf students.
During the ensuing discussion, Jon Kidd recalled that the OCDSB recently indicated that ISA
funding supersedes Program and Policy Memorandum 76C funding for deaf students. He asked that
SEAC clarify issues related to how Program and Policy Memorandum 76C is used by other school boards
across the province, noting that it appears to be the only source of funding to enable school boards to hire
qualified professional sign language interpreters.
Lamar Mason suggested that SEAC write to the Ministry requesting clarification of the available
funding for deaf students, and asked Mr. Kidd to provide her with information about the specific issues he
would like addressed in the letter.
In response to a query, Principal Davidson confirmed that school -level staff are unable to proceed
with an IPRC for a student who has applied for a system class, until acceptance in the system class has been
confirmed by central staff. If access to the system class is denied, then school staff can proceed with an
IPRC placement based on school resources, pending budget approval of resource levels.
Lamar Mason noted that the purpose of an IPRC is to identify students' needs and the appropriate
placement, including the type of system support they require. If IPRCs are not conducted until it is
determined that there is space for the students in the system classes, the Board is undermining the rights of
these students. The IPRC document should include information about students' exact needs and placement,
to do otherwise is a failure to acknowledge the real level of students' needs in the Board. Ms. Mason
pointed out that SEAC's role is to advocate for exceptional students and to ensure that their needs are
addressed, and she suggested that SEAC make parents aware of their right not to sign the IPRC document,
Special Education Advisory Committee 3 1 May 2002
7i.
if it indicates that access to appropriate services for their children is subject to budgetary resources and the
availability of system classes.
6. Review of Report No. 5. Special Education Advisory Committee 3 April 2002
On a motion by Greg Bonnah, Report No. 5 of the Special Education Advisory Committee, dated
3 April 2002, was received.
Colleen Hendrick requested that the second paragraph under item No. 13 on page 7 be revised as
follows: "Colleen Hendrick referred to a four Board initiative related to a new model of service delivery ...."
Elizabeth Buckingham requested that the following question she asked of staff at the previous
meeting be reflected in the 3 April 2002 report: Why do gifted students at the secondary level only have
access to core courses, including Math, English, and History, in a congregated setting, and not the rest of
their academic courses?
Business Arising
There was no business arising.
Status of Motions /Reports
Lamar Mason noted that the motion regarding the Ontarians with Disabilities Act was approved
by the Board at its 22 April 2002 meeting, and a committee of staff and SEAC members has been
established to develop a plan for implementing the Act in the OCDSB.
7. Presentation: Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario (LDAO) Initiative re: A New Definition
of Learning Disability, Carol Yaworski Executive Director LDAO
Carol Yaworski, Executive Director of the Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario (LDAO)
provided an overview of the issues related to the diagnosis of learning disabilities in young children. She
referred to a newly developed definition of learning disabilities, describing it as a variety of disorders that
affect the acquisition, retention, understanding, organization or use of verbal and/or non - verbal
information. Ms. Yaworski noted that learning disabilities range in severity and invariably interfere with
the acquisition and use of one or more skills, such as oral language, reading, written language, and
mathematics.
Ms. Yaworski noted that approximately 4 - 6 percent of the student population are learning
disabled, not 10 percent as is commonly cited in the research literature. She expressed the view that at least
half of the students identified as learning disabled are actually students who have different learning styles,
or who experience learning difficulties due to improper instruction.
In response to queries, Ms. Yaworski noted that the Ministry is developing program standards for
all exceptionalities. A volunteer resource group, of which she is a member, is recommending that the
Ministry accept the LDAO's new definition of learning disabilities for use across the province. While the
Ministry has a concern that the new definition may lead to over - diagnosis of learning disabilities among
children, Ms. Yaworski expressed the view that the definition is prescriptive, which should negate any
concerns related to over - diagnosis.
In response to a query, Ms. Yaworski noted that the transition of learning disabled students from
school to work is a difficult process for these young adults. They often experience difficulty in sustaining
employment because they do not have an understanding of their disability, are not able to art date their
accommodation needs, and do not adapt well to changes in their job conditions or duties.
Ms. Yaworski conceded that primary intervention for learning disabled students is costly, but
needs to be implemented in concert with initiatives aimed at students already in the system. Otherwise, she
Special Education Advisory Committee 4 1 May 2002
r
7a.
asserted, these students are marginalized due to being under - educated, under- employed, or even
incarcerated. These are social conditions that result in additional, long -term costs to the government and
society.
Lamar Mason thanked Ms. Yaworski for her excellent, thought- provoking presentation.
Learning Disabilities: A New Defmition/LDAO Initiative: Promoting Early Intervention
Lamar Mason referred to the new definition of learning disabilities and asked staff for input
regarding how it might impact on the assessment, identification and service delivery to these students.
Gilles Desmarais, OCDSB Psychologist, expressed support for the revised definition, noting that it
better addresses students' overall needs, and the impact of various factors on their achievement, including
behavioural and attitudinal issues.
In response to a query, Dr. Desmarais noted that if the definition in question were implemented, it
is likely that fewer students would be identified as learning disabled. He noted that there are several factors
at work concurrently for many of these students, and there are other issues to be addressed for such
students, for example, a need for more ESL instruction, and greater support for behavioural and attitudinal
issues.
Parent Guide to Special Education
Your Committee had before it report No. 02 -101 presenting the Parent Guide to Special Education
for input from SEAC.
Principal Davidson provided an overview of the Parent Guide, suggesting that the members
provide feedback to staff in writing, similarly to the input submitted by Elizabeth Buckingham and
distributed at the meeting.
In response to a query, staff confirmed that if feedback is received by SEAC soon, it is likely that
the Parent Guide can be released across the system by the end of June. They noted that principals have
been asked to note in newsletters the availability of the Parent Guide from the school or on the Board's web
site.
During the ensuing discussion, the members requested that the following changes be made to the
Parent Guide:
• On Folio 45, amend first paragraph to indicate that at or before a case conference, parents will
receive copies of the assessment reports prepared by school personnel and/or Special
Education/Student Services staff.
• Replace the heading: "What if I am unable to attend an IPRC meeting ?" on Folio 47 with a
more cooperative statement, such as that on Folio 57 which refers to arranging the appeal
meeting at a convenient time and place for the parents;
• The importance of ensuring that the Parent Guide is consistent with the provincial regulations
and standards, as well as the Ministry's sample of the Guide, was emphasized.
• It was requested that staff consider the extent to which the Guide can be translated into
languages other than French or English, or at least, to include information in the Guide in a
range of languages regarding the availability of assistance at the Family Reception Centre for
parents who need help understanding the English document.
• Include a reference to the availability of the needs list on the OCDSB web site.
Special Education Advisory Committee 5 1 May 2002
1'
• Replace "system class placement" with "special education class placement" throughout the
document. The latter term better describes the placement and is consistent with Ministry
terminology. Principa? Davidson agreed to take the issue under advisement.
• Emphasize on Folio 57 that it is the identification of the student as exceptional, and the
placement that can be appealed by parents.
• Include a full description of IEP (Individual Education Plan), and OSR (Ontario Student
Record) on Folio 50;
• Revise Folio 57, first paragraph, ".... you may, within 30 days of receipt of the original
decision and within 15 days of receipt of the decision from the second meeting ....... to clarify
that parents have the right to a second appeal meeting;
• Revise Folio 56, second paragraph to clarify that parents may request a review IPRC meeting
at any time.
In response to a query, Principal Davidson noted that there would not be enough time to present
the revised Guide to SEAC at its 5 June meeting before the Guide is distributed to schools later that month.
She noted that every effort would be made to accommodate all of SEAC's suggestions in the final version
distributed across the system.
At Elizabeth Buckingham's request, staff noted the difficulties in sending a large document
electronically to members, and suggested that it may be possible to provide a copy of the revised Guide to
SEAC in a Friday package prior to the next SEAC meeting.
Lamar Mason requested that SEAC members forward their written input to Principal Davidson no
later than 10 May 2002.
10. Revision to Special Education Plan, Elizabeth Buckingham
Notice having been given, Elizabeth Buckingham moved:
Whereas Regulation 306 requires each school board to maintain a special education plan for the
delivery of special education programs and services;
Whereas the Ministry of Education released province -wide standards for the preparation of Special
Education Plans in 2000 that the OCDSB must comply with;
Whereas while a Special Education Plan may be amended at any rime, there appears to be an
expectation by the Ministry that this will not be done more frequently than every two years;
Whereas the draft 2001 -2002 Special Education Plan that was submitted to the Ministry of
Education by staff July 31, 2001 was not in compliance with the requirements of the Ministry.
Some requirements were not addressed and information was included that was not required.
Whereas there is insufficient time between now and the end of the 2001 -2002 school year to revise
and adequately review the existing Special Education plan.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
A. That staff include in the 2002 -2003 work plan the revision of the Special
Education Plan to bring it into full compliance with the requirements of the
Ministry of Education's Standards for School Board's Special Education Plans;
special bducation Advisory Committee 6 1 May 2002
�y
B. That the OCDSB's Special Education Plan for 2003 -2004 address the standards
in the same order as they are provided in the Ministry of Education's Standards
for School Board's Special Education Plans to facilitate review by SEAC,
Education Committee, the Board, and other interested parries;
C. That staff be directed to ensure that:
i. documents clearly reflect any difficulties the Board is having in
meeting the needs of its special education students;
ii. where any description of approaches utilized are not applicable to all
exceptionalities that this be clearly indicated, i.e., Description of the
referral process and its references to remediation are not applicable to
gifted students.
D. That the draft document be presented to SEAC no later than at its April 2003
meeting so that meaningful discussion of the document can occur at its May
2003 meeting
In introducing the motion, Elizabeth Buckingham noted the importance for the Special Education
Plan to accurately reflect any difficulties the Board may have in addressing the needs of special education
students across the system.
In response to a query, Superintendent Mason noted that although the Ministry has issued
standards for Special Education Plans, it has yet to clarify what school year the Plan is intended to reflect,
i.e., the school year that has just ended, or the school year ahead. It is hoped that the Ministry will provide
clarification in a timely manner, to ensure that staff can adhere to the timelines set out in the motion.
Superintendent Mason indicated that staff intends to develop a Special Education Plan work plan,
with SEAC's input, for presentation to members at the April 2003 SEAC meeting.
The motion was carried.
On a motion by Elizabeth Buckingham, your Committee therefore recommends:
A. THAT STAFF INCLUDE IN THE 2002 -2003 WORK PLAN THE REVISION
OF THE SPECIAL EDUCATION PLAN TO BRING IT INTO FULL
COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MINISTRY OF
EDUCATION'S STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL BOARD'S SPECIAL
ED UCATION PLANS;
B. THAT THE OCDSB'S SPECIAL EDUCATION PLAN FOR 2003 -2004
ADDRESS THE STANDARDS IN THE SAME ORDER AS THEY ARE
PROVIDED IN THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION'S STANDARDS FOR
SCHOOL BOARD'S SPECIAL ED UCA TION PLANS TO FACILITATE
REVIEW BY SEAC, EDUCATION COMMITTEE, THE BOARD, AND
OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES;
C. THAT STAFF BE DIRECTED TO ENSURE THAT:
i. DOCUMENTS CLEARLY REFLECT ANY DIFFICULTIES THE
BOARD IS HAVING IN MEETING THE NEEDS OF ITS SPECIAL
EDUCATION STUDENTS;
ii. WHERE ANY DESCRIPTION OF APPROACHES UTILIZED ARE
NOT APPLICABLE TO ALL EXCEPTIONALITIES THAT THIS BE
CLEARLY INDICATED, I.E., DESCRIPTION OF THE REFERRAL
PROCESS AND ITS REFERENCES TO REMEDIATION ARE NOT
(W APPLICABLE TO GIFTED STUDENTS.
Special Education Advisory Comrittee 7 1 May 2002
16.
D. THAT THE DRAFT DOCUMENT BE PRESENTED TO SEAC NO LATER
THAN AT ITS APRIL 2003 MEETING SO THAT MEANINGFUL
DISCUSSION OF THE DOCUMENT CAN OCCUR AT ITS MAY 2003
MEETING
11. Update on 2001 -2002 Work Plans
Your Committee had before it for information report No. 02 -107 providing an update on the status
of divisional work plans, including special education funding, the IPRC Process, the Centres of Excellence,
Deployment of SELCs and SERTs, and Guidelines for the Use of IEPs.
Superintendent Mason provided an overview of the report, noting that the focus of the various
work plans was determined initially by staff through an analysis of outstanding motions and staff initiatives
but was altered through discussions with SEAC. It became clear in recent months that central staff would
not be able to coordinate all of the work on its own, therefore, a number of principals were asked to
coordinate the various work groups and committees. The need for staff to focus on the ISA process
impacted on staffs capacity to complete the tasks outlined in the work plans. Superintendent Mason
pointed out that some of the work plan initiatives have been completed, and all are underway. Work plans
for the 2002 -2003 school year will be presented at a fall meeting of SEAC, and will address issues still
outstanding from the current work plans, including the Special Education Plan, IEPs, and adaptive
programs.
In response to a query, Superintendent Mason confirmed that the report on the status of the
Centres of Excellence work plan to be presented to SEAC in June, would include a working definition of
"centres of excellence ".
Lamar Mason requested that staff respond to the questions and concerns outlined in Ms.
Buckingham's submission to staff regarding the work plans, as part of the information provided to SEAC
for its 5 June 2002 meeting.
With respect to the suggested initiatives for next year, Superintendent Mason noted that the Board
needs to begin the development of a secondary school formula for the deployment of SERTs and SELCs
before Christmas, in consultation with Human Resources regarding the existing collective agreements, to
ensure that it is completed before the staffing process in early 2003.
Lamar Mason thanked staff for their work on the work plans to date, acknowledged that this was
the first year of the implementation of the work plan approach, and recognized the extent to which the ISA
process dominated staff resources this year.
12. Summary of Special Education Tribunal Decisions
Your Committee had before it for information report No. 02 -089 providing a summary of Special
Education Tribunal Decisions from the Ministry of Education.
Superintendent Mason provided a brief overview of the report, noting that the information was
being presented to SEAC as a result of the approval of a Board motion on 8 April 2002.
Elizabeth Buckingham moved THAT
Whereas a motion was approved by the Board on 8 April 2002 that should there be items among
the collection of tribunal decisions that would appear to have implications for the OCDSB, staff
would entertain direction from SEAC, the Education Committee, and the Board to review the
tribunal decisions in more detail;
special Education Advisory Committee 8 1 May 2002
F]
Whereas the Special Education Tribunal in its decision of 2001 -09 -24 of B. v. Upper Canada
District School Board rejected the use of an IQ score as the single criterion for identification of
giftedness and accepts that a multi- faceted approach is in keeping with current research;
Whereas while the OCDSB also requires a student to have advanced or very advanced ratings on
more than 70% of the criteria on a teacher nomination form, the application of the OCDSB's
criteria as outlined in its Gifted Screening and Identification Procedures, February 2001, would
preclude the identification of a child as profoundly gifted based on a single score on the Canadian
Cognitive Abilities Test (CCAT) or the WISC III (Canadian norms);
Whereas the Tribunal noted in its decision that the "identification of gifted children is not simple"
and the process utilized by the OCDSB in grades 3 to 12 is based solely on test results and the
teacher nomination form and includes no defined step in the process other than a parental appeal
of the IPRC decision, where judgement can be applied;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
A. THAT staff, in the Special Education work plan for 2002 -2003, include a review and
revision of the identification processes utilized by the OCDSB for identifying gifted
children in light of the 2001 -09 -24 Special Education Tribunal Decision; and
B. THAT staff work with the Association for Bright Children (ABC) to bring forward, if
possible, a joint recommendation on an appropriate process for the identification of gifted
children.
In response to a query, Superintendent Mason recalled that staff worked with the Association for
Bright Children in 1997 when the identification process was revised. He acknowledged the issues raised by
Ms. Buckingham, but noted that given the Quality Assurance Division budget is likely to be reduced, and
the amount of work related to the work plans, it is important to recognize that staff would be unable to
undertake a review of the identification of the gifted process, without prioritizing it among the other
initiatives underway.
Ms. Buckingham pointed out that a review of the identification process must be carried out first,
prior to any action being taken. She noted that if the Ministry releases provincial standards in the near
future, the review process may be unnecessary. Ms. Buckingham expressed concern about framing a
debate around which students' needs should be addressed first.
Members acknowledged Ms. Buckingham's concerns about the identification process for the
gifted, but pointed out that in 1997 ABC had approved the current identification process. They recognized
the need to address all students' needs, but noted that staff resources are finite and priorities must be
established.
An amendment by Lamar Mason that Part A. be revised as follows, was accepted as friendly:
A. THAT, with respect to the Special Education work plan for 2002 -2003, staff consider the
inclusion of a review and revision of the identification processes....
The motion, as amended, was carried.
On a motion by Elizabeth Buckingham, your Committee therefore recommends:
A. THAT, WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL EDUCATION WORK PLAN FOR 2002-
2003, STAFF CONSIDER THE INCLUSION OF A REVIEW AND REVISION OF
THE IDENTIFICATION PROCESSES UTILIZED BY THE OCDSB FOR
IDENTIFYING GIFTED CHILDREN IN LIGHT OF THE 2001 -09 -24 SPECIAL
EDUCATION TRIBUNAL DECISION; AND
Special Education Advisory Committee 9 1 May 2002
71-
B. THAT STAFF WORK WITH THE ASSOCIATION FOR BRIGHT CHILDREN (ABC)
TO KUNG FOR`. "ARD, IF POSSIBLE, A JOINT RECOMMENDATION ON AN
API''.OPRIATE " ZOCESS FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF GIFTED CHILDREN.
13. Information Requested by SEAC
Your Committee had before it a memorandum from staff, which included responses to SEAC
queries and other issues raised at the 5 April 2002 meeting.
Bronwyn Funiciello referred to the information provided by staff regarding the impact of the
school closures on special education students, and moved that:
Whereas the current school closure recommendations, if approved, will have a very real impact on
many special education students;
Whereas staff has not adequately addressed the full impact of these closure recommendations on
such things as accessing the space required for adequate SELC /SERT/ESL withdrawal, the
potential increase in transportation costs for special education students, the potential reduction in
available SELC /SERT/ESL support, the availability of EA support, etc.;
Whereas when a special education system class is relocated, it may result in transition and
adjustment challenges for the affected students;
Whereas parents of children in system classes that would be relocated in order to "ease the closure
process" have not yet been officially notified of these potential changes, and therefore have not
had fair and meaningful access to the school closure consultation process;
Whereas the system class allocation work plan has not yet been completed;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
THAT the school closure process be suspended for any targeted or receiving schools where any
potential impact to special education students has not been fully addressed, and where parents of
students affected by the proposed changes have not been provided with meaningful access to the
consultation process.
In introducing the motion, Ms. Funiciello expressed disappointment about the delay in receiving
information from staff regarding the impact of the proposed school closures on special education students,
given that the trustee deliberations on school closures will be taking place next week. She expressed the
view that several aspects of the school closure process will impact negatively on exceptional students. Ms.
Funiciello noted that the parents of special education students were not consulted regarding the impact of
the closures on their children's education, nor provided with an opportunity to make a delegation to the
Board.
In response to a query, Ms. Funiciello noted that the intent of the motion is not to suspend the
entire school closure process, but to address the needs of special education students whose programs would
be negatively impacted by the closures.
Members speaking against the motion noted that the school closure process is almost complete,
and it would be irresponsible on the part of the Board to suspend the process, especially given the Board's
financial problems related to the inadequacy of the funding formula.
Members speaking in support of the motion noted that SEAC's mandate is to advocate on behalf of
exceptional students. They expressed the view that it would be unfair to students to move them from one
school to another in order to access a program that had been relocated due to school closures. They noted
6peciai t(lucation Advisory Committee 10 1 May 2002
0
the importance of offering system classes where they are required across the system, not where there
happens to be room for the program
In response to a query, Ronald Lynch noted that central staff did not notify parents of students in
system classes regarding the impact of possible school closures on their children's programs. Mr. Lynch
noted that superintendents are responsible for their families of schools, and he would have assumed that
principals provided information to the parents of students whose program might be affected.
A member noted that parents might not understand that even though their child's school is not on
the closure list, another school's closure or relocation of programs could still impact their child's system
class.
Trustee Spice expressed the view that the school closure policy should include issues related to the
impact of closures on special education students, particularly very high needs students who are even more
greatly affected by the disruption of relocated programs.
In response to a query, Ms. Funiciello reiterated concern about the closure of J. H. Putman PS on
the special education programs at Bells Comers PS and Pinecrest PS, but noted that there may be other
special education programs that will be negatively impacted by the closure of any of the four elementary
schools.
In wrap up, Ms. Funiciello expressed the view that it is SEAC's role as an advisory committee to
be concerned about special education students, not necessarily the global impact of the closures on all
OCDSB schools.
The motion was defeated.
Trustee Lange moved THAT, in the school closure process, parents of special education students
in targeted or receiving schools who may be affected, be informed of the impact on their child's special
education delivery.
During the course of discussion, concern was expressed about parents not having an opportunity to
present their views to the Board directly, and it was suggested that parents could correspond with trustees
during the remainder of the school closure process by electronic mail or phone.
Superintendent Mason agreed to take the issue of notifying parents of impacted students under
advisement, suggesting that the planning staff could be requested to send a memorandum to the principals
of impacted schools, asking them to notify parents that the system classes at Pinecrest PS and Bell Comers
PS may be relocated. He noted that in the short term, it may not be possible to fulfill the exact directive of
the motion, but in the future, staff could take the motion as direction to communicate with the parents of
students in system classes who will be impacted by school closures.
Some members expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of short-term solutions available to address
the fact that special education parents were not adequately informed of the impact of school closures on
some special education programs. It was suggested by one member that, with respect to future school
closure processes, the Board offer information sessions for the parents of special education students at each
school that would be impacted by school closures.
The motion was carried.
Lamar Mason noted that the SEAC Executive would consult with trustees and staff regarding the
dissemination of school closure information to special education parents as soon as possible.
Special Education Advisory Committee 11 1 May 2002
F ol
1q.
14. New Business
Trustee Graham requested that the Committee provide her with input regarding the following
motion that she intends to present to the 8 May 2002 meeting of the Business Services Committee:
THAT transportation not be provided for any students in grades 7 and 8, who reside within the Urban
Transit Area, with the following exceptions:
(a) students who are transported in accordance with section 3.1.3 of the transportation
policy (see below),
(b) students requiring financial assistance as provided for in the policy.
Note: Section 3.1.3 of policy P.068.TRA, Student Transportation reads as follows:
The Board will provide transportation at public expense without applying a distance criterion
for students who are attending a designated school and who are:
(a) physically challenged; or
(b) attending schools /classes for pupils with developmental disabilities; or
(c) autistic, hearing impaired, visually impaired or any other special need for
transportation as determined by the Special Education Division
during the IPRC process.
Trustee Graham noted that the motion does not target only congregated gifted students as those
capable of accessing OC Transpo. There is a large group of learning disabled students who would also be
capable of using public transportation to get to school. She referred to the positive impact of using pubic
transportation on students' self esteem and independence, as well as the opportunity to learn new life skills.
Trustee Graham estimated that the motion, if approved by the Board, would result in a savings of up to
$300,000, in addition to the estimated $400,000 by having eliminated transportation for Grade 7 and 8
students in the UTA.
Some members expressed concern about linking special education students' access to
transportation to the IPRC process, noting that if the IPRC process is not effective, transportation for these
students will be eliminated, and they may not have any other means of getting to school. They questioned
how parents would be alerted to the need to address transportation issues for their child during the IPRC
process. A concern was expressed that a lack of transportation for intermediate special education students
might affect acceptance by parents of a recommended placement in a system class. Other members pointed
out that catchment areas are not aligned to bus routes, and expressed concern about the possible length of
time it may take for some students to get to and from school. They suggested that the Board should factor
in the length of student travel time as part of the criteria to determine whether they are transported by
yellow bus or by OC Transpo.
Trustee Graham noted that sections (a), (b), and (c) of the motion were taken from the OCDSB's
transportation policy.
15. Members' Information
Colleen Hendrick expressed pleasure regarding Ellen Goodman's appointment to the Minister's
Advisory Council on Special Education, and requested that the terms of reference for the Council be
presented to SEAC so that the Committee can contribute to the Council's mandate.
Special Education Advisory Committee 12 1 May 2002
9
Lamar Mason noted that, with respect to the issue of the budgetary impact on IPRC
determinations discussed earlier in the meeting, a motion would likely be presented electronically to
Committee members shortly, for their consideration.
The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
Lamar Mason, Co -Chair
Special Education Advisory Committee
I F6 -
Special Education Advisory Committee 13 1 May 2002