Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 SEAC Report 9 2 Oct 2002• �w �-J] OTTAWA-CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD REPORT NO.9 SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO: The Board DATE: 2 October 2002 A meeting of the Special Education Advisory Committee was held this evening in the Board Room, 133 Greenbank Road, Ottawa, Ontario, commencing at 8:00 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; John Lloyd, Autism Society Ontario; Jon Kidd, Ottawa Deaf Centre; 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, Ottawa- Carleton Assembly of School Councils; Eileen Cope, Ottawa - Carleton Association for Persons with Developmental Disabilities; and, Josephine Fitzgerald, VOICE for Hearing Impaired Children. COMMUNITY: REPRESENTATIVES: Bronwyn Funiciello, Debi Kirwan (SEAC Vice - Chair). STAFF: Judy Turriff, Coordinating Superintendent of Instruction, Joyce Delahunt, Principal of Special Education; Jim Cowan, Special Education Support Teacher - Developmental Disability; Judy Makin, Psychologist; Judi Marshall, Human Resources Officer, Staff Development; Linda Rakus, Special Education Resource Teacher - Behaviour; Philip Ritchie, Acting, Coordinator, Field Services; Peter Wilson, Special Education Program Support Teacher; Peter Zion, Principal, Program - Secondary; and Kim Young, Committee Coordinator. NON - VOTING REPRESENTATIVES: Suzanna Brydon, Council for Exceptional Children; Evan Cooper, Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation - Teachers; Linda Moran, Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation - EAs; Aline Vachon, Ottawa- Carleton Elementary School Administrators' Association; and, Richard Latour, Ottawa- Carleton Elementary Teachers' Federation. ALSO PRESENT: Steve Ardanaz, Diana Ardanaz, Sign Language Interpreters. Note: Nancy Myers assumed the Chair when Lamar Mason wished to participate in the discussion. Special Education Advisory Committee 1 2 October 2002 13 Call to Order Lamar Mason called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m., apologizing for the late start of the meeting due to the need to attain quorum. Approval of A enda On a motion by Nancy Myers, the agenda was approved as presented. Public Question Period Paul MacKey asked for information regarding SEAC's role in providing advice to the Board, given the recent takeover of the OCDSB by the Ministry. Lamar Mason explained that a process is being developed to ensure that SEAC, in its advisory capacity, will continue to provide input to the Board, currently represented by Mery Beckstead, Supervisor. It is expected that the SEAC reports, including any recommendations, will be presented to Mr. Beckstead for consideration. Mr. MacKey referred to one of the recommendations of the Adaptive Program Restructuring Committee, to consolidate the program to Sir Guy Carleton SS and the Ottawa Technical Learning Centre (OTLC), and asked if the intent of the program change was directed by anticipated cost savings or by the needs of students. Peter Wilson who participated in the Adaptive Program Restructuring Committee, noted that the needs of students were the first priority in the restructuring process. He explained that the restructuring of the program would result in a consolidation of technical resources, to ensure that students could access all program strands, such as construction, hospitality and tourism in two sites. Mr. Wilson also noted that the placement of the adaptive programs at OTLC in the eastern region, and Sir Guy Carleton S.S. in the western region, would provide access points for students across the Board. 4. Chair's Report Ms. Mason asked the members to notify the SEAC Executive or Kim Young as soon as possible regarding changes in association representation on the committee. Division Report Principal Delahunt reported that schools were contacted earlier today with regard to providing waiting list data to central staff by 18 October 2002. Principal Delahunt noted that Special Education Program Support Teachers ( SEPST) delivered after school workshops to teachers on the gifted screening process, information on completing Individual Education Plans (IEP), behavioural issues, and the ISA process for Special Education Resource Teachers (SERTs). The workshops were well attended, and positive feedback was received from the participants. Principal Delahunt reported that principals were informed at a 25 September 2002 superintendency meeting, that while ninety percent of SEPST time is currently devoted to the ISA process, ten percent of their time is devoted to helping new SERTs and responding to the school's �peciai education Advisory Committee 2 2 October 2002 A needs. She noted that parents who are requesting case conferences should contact special education staff so that staff can prioritize and respond to the requests in a timely manner. At the last superintendency meeting, principals were also reminded that the OCDSB purchased seven Primary Resource kits on Disability Awareness. The kits were developed by the "Kids on the Block" and include a variety of hands -on items, books, and adaptive equipment. Principal Delahunt noted that a General Learning Program (GLP) class has been moved from Sir Guy Carleton SS to the OTLC, as the class at Sir Guy Carleton was under- enrolled. She indicated that neither the teacher nor the EA had been hired for the Sir Guy Carleton SS class. The principals of both schools were consulted and supported the decision. Dr. Ritchie reported that the search to hire speech and language pathologists and psychologists has been expanded to include the web sites for these professions. With respect to LLD classes, Dr. Ritchie noted that the classes are now full, and he expressed thanks to Joan Russell Ridgway for coordinating the efforts in screening the last group of students. With regard to the multidisciplinary teams, Dr. Ritchie noted that a workshop was held last week on the development of IEPs for behavioural students. A workshop was held this week for teachers regarding IEP programming for students in the Primary Assessment Centre (PAC) and GLPs. He indicated that, with respect to Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), the ISA process remains a priority, and a significant number of referrals continue to be received. Outreach to schools is ongoing, and staff are already engaged in post -ISA planning. The projects under discussion include workshops for teachers and EAs, a social skills group for students with Asperger's, as well as a plan for increased collaboration with parent experts. In response to a query, Jim Cowan confirmed that a number of developmentally disabled (DD) students on the waiting list were placed in June. There is currently only one student with developmental disabilities on the waiting list who is awaiting placement in a special education class that is closer to home. In response to a query about the use of restraints on students, Principal Delahunt noted that a form must be signed by the principal indicating that a restraint was used. The child's parents must be notified about the use of the restraint. In response to Greg Bonnah's query about the status of the Board's plan regarding the Ontario Disabilities Act, Principal Delahunt noted that the plan is due in the spring of 2003, and she would provide information on the status of the Board plan at the 6 November 2002 meeting. In response to Trustee Moen's query about the involvement of stakeholders in the development of the plan to address disability issues, Principal Delahunt agreed to provide further information on the issue as soon as possible. In response to a query, Principal Delahunt noted that while some parents might be requesting case conferences at the school level, there have been only two case conference requests at the central staff level. Special Education Advisory Committee 3 2 October 2002 Nancy Myers noted that, when announcing the elimination of the Senior Kindergarten Headstart program, the Supervisor stated publicly that "no children were in the classes ", and asked for clarification on this issue. Superintendent Turriff reported that the program is confirmed on an annual basis in September and staff are allocated at that time. Ms. Myers noted that the children who would have been supported by this class had been recommended last year by their JK teachers, and had been screened, and formally assessed by OCDSB Speech and Langauge Pathologists (SLPs) as having verified oral language disabilities. She expressed concern that the class was cancelled after many parents had received written confirmation last June that their children had been accepted into the program, and would receive this extra SLP support during their SK year. Ms. Myers pointed out that without the Headstart program, SK -aged children do not have access to the speech and language services they need because they can no longer access speech language pathologist support at either CHEO or through the First Words preschool speech language initiative. Under the tri- ministerial agreement, SLP support and services are to be provided by boards in schools to school -aged children. In response to a query, Principal Delahunt confirmed that the equivalent of 4.5 EAs were allocated for emergency purposes. At this time, there are three cases of EAs being assigned on a temporary basis, paid on a hourly rate, to assist in schools with basic needs, such as toileting. Bronwyn Funiciello noted that parents of JK- Grade 2 students have received notices advising them that if they think their child may be gifted, they can request that their child's principal arrange for a giftedness assessment. She asked whether parents can also request that their child in JK to Grade 2 be tested for learning disabilities. Staff confirmed that parents are free to request the assessment, noting that SERTs can conduct the academic assessment, but that the psycho educational assessment would require the student to be placed on a waiting list since psychologists are presently engaged in the ISA process. Review of Report No. 8, Special Education Advisory Committee 18 September 2002 Ms. Mason noted that the report from the 18 September 2002 meeting is unavailable for review by the Committee, and will likely be available for the 6 November 2002 meeting. The SEAC report is currently being reviewed by staff, after which it will be reviewed by the SEAC Executive. She explained that issues related to the Board and committee meeting schedule and procedures related to the receipt and approval of minutes are currently being reviewed by the Supervisor and staff. In response to a query, Superintendent Turriff noted that she had received the report for review earlier that day, and will review it as soon as possible. 7. Presentation: Delivery Options and Programs for Students with Developmental Disabilities, Jim Cowan Jim Cowan referred to the material which was distributed at the meeting, noting that information related to the provision of specialized programs at the OCDSB and the Ottawa - Carleton Catholic District School Board ( OCCDSB), and guidelines for the placement of students in semi - integrated sites are derived from the Memorandum of Agreement between the OCDSB and the OCCDSB regarding the education of pupils with developmental disabilities. Special Education Advisory Committee 4 2 October 2002 /6'. Mr. Cowan noted that there are 102 students with developmental disabilities (DD) at Clifford Bowey Public School, and 72 at the Crystal Bay Special Education Centre. Over time, many of these students are able to move into semi - integrated sites. There are a total of 193 students with DD in 20 semi - integrated classes in the OCDSB and the OCCSB. With respect to the DD curriculum, Mr. Cowan reported that last year a new syllabus was developed on the expectations related to the development of IEPs. The document has been provided to the teachers at Clifford Bowey and Crystal Bay, as well as to the twenty teachers at the semi - integrated sites. He emphasized that educators are looking at IEPs in a new manner, and are regarding them as living documents, requiring regular revision and innovative thinking. Greg Bonnah expressed the view that the integration of students into the regular classroom is a financial issue, and not based on students' individual needs. He emphasized that the allocation of 20 EAs for 193 students with developmental disabilities is not adequate to meet the students' needs or to facilitate integration. Mr. Bonnah noted the importance for the Board and SEAC to calculate the percentage of time, on average, by school, that students with developmental disabilities spend in the regular classroom versus a special education class. Staff noted that teachers do not have the time to undertake a task of this magnitude. Ms. Mason suggested that this issue be included in the development of the new Special Education Plan (update,) to ensure that standards set by the Ministry for integration are being addressed. Presentation: Intensive Support Amount (ISA) Update, Dr. Judy Makin Dr. Makin provided an overview of the four cycles of the new ISA funding process, as well as information related to the Planning Chart, and submitted files. She noted that, as of the end of the third cycle in June 2002, the Board has already achieved approximately $20.8 million of the $21 million proxy grant, with approximately 1100 files. Dr. Makin explained that, whatever files staff are able to complete and have approved in the fourth cycle, will earn new funding for the OCDSB. Dr. Makin noted that there are approximately 900 "possible" files, but estimated that the final number submitted for cycle 4 will be closer to 600 files. Dr. Makin referred to the ISA timelines, noting that the OCDSB is required to provide to the Ministry, by 7 November 2002, a number of reports regarding portability. The reports must include lists of students with ISA grants, in comparison to the Ministry list, as well as a list of students who have moved out of the OCDSB, and the students with ISA grants who have moved into the Board. Referring to SEAC's interest in the multi - disciplinary teams, Dr. Makin reported that the ISA process had resulted in a sharing of expertise among PSSPs, and improved interaction with special education teachers. In response to a query, Dr. Makin noted that at the end of the fourth cycle, the ISA team would compile a final report on the ISA process, and it would likely include the collation of ISA information, such as the total number of ISA U and ISA III grants, broken down by profile. Mr. Bonnah referred to a 12 June 2002 memorandum from the Ministry of Education (W which provided information on ISA portability adjustments, and asked that the document be provided to SEAC as soon as possible. Special Education Advisory Committee 5 2 October 2002 In response to a query, Dr. Makin estimated that the Board may be eligible for up to $8 - 9 million in new funding at the end of the fourth cycle of the ISA review, which is scheduled for December 2 to 6, 2002. She confirmed that this new funding would be in addition to the $21 million in proxy funding from the Ministry. During a brief discussion of occasional teachers, Nancy Myers recalled that in December 2000, the Board approved a motion indicating that schools should not use SELC or SERTs to replace absent non -SELC or non -SERT staff members. She noted the importance of tracking the occasional teacher budget at the school level. Richard Latour concurred, noting that a letter of agreement had been signed by the former Director and the union head, agreeing that special education teachers would not replace their ill colleagues, except in times of emergency. In response to a query about ensuring all necessary assessments are completed in time for ISA submissions, Dr. Ritchie reported that a portion of the $317,000 allocated by the Ministry to the OCDSB for the ISA process is being used to cover the cost of hiring qualified occasional teachers to conduct educational assessments, as part of the psycho - educational assessment. In response to a query about the recent special education reductions, Dr. Makin noted that it is too early to predict the impact of the reductions in the classroom. She acknowledged that staff are concerned, and noted that in some instances, school principals are aware of students who might be IPRC'd, and are allocating support staff to deal with these students' files. During the course of a brief discussion of students in the adaptive program, Peter Wilson noted that there are ISA candidates in the Adaptive programs, but not nearly in the same proportion as in special education classes, even in the same secondary school. He explained that some ISA files of Adaptive program students were submitted and accepted during earlier ISA cycles, due to the fact that staff were able to provide evidence of curriculum modifications, and differentiated expectations, and access to EA support. The Committee agreed, given the lateness of the hour, to proceed with the presentations by Judi Marshall regarding the teacher performance appraisal survey, and by Peter Wilson regarding the restructuring of the Adaptive Programs, and to defer the items related to the Ministry Response to the Special Education Plan, and the special education class placements to the 6 November 2002 meeting. Ms. Mason thanked Jim Cowan and Judy Makin for their interesting, informative presentations, and she expressed appreciation on behalf of SEAC, for the hard work that the ISA team has devoted to the review process. She emphasized the need for the Board, when the process is complete, to inform the Ministry of the total number of staff hours that was dedicated to the validation process, and the fact that this was time that could not be spent providing direct services to students. 9. Teacher Performance Appraisal Survey, Consultative Process Judi Marshall The Committee had before it for input report No. 02 -180 providing information on the development of a parent and pupil appraisal survey on teacher performance. The report included the draft parent and student surveys for teacher performance appraisals and the accompanying draft letter to parents. 3pectai =ucatnon Advisory Committee 6 2 October 2002 0 Judi Marshall presented an overview of the report, noting that effective September 2002, (W Bill 110, an Act to Promote Quality in the Classroom, requires school boards to implement the new teacher performance appraisal process. A significant component of the new performance appraisal process is the requirement for an annual parent survey and a pupil survey. The principal will use the survey information as part of the teacher performance appraisal process. Ms. Marshall explained that, over the summer, a group of principals, led by Staff Development, developed a strategy for implementation of the new process and the creation of a handbook for principals. The small working group also developed a draft sample of the new survey for input from stakeholder groups, as required by the legislation. In response to a query, Ms. Marshall noted that the terminology in the survey is derived from the legislation as it relates to 'performance indicators' or 'look -fors' in the areas of communication between teachers, parents, and students. She confirmed that definitions of the terminology used in the surveys, such as 'always', 'consistently', 'generally', and 'infrequently', were not provided by the Ministry. The OCDSB is developing its own operational definitions of the performance indicators. During the course of the discussion, the members provided the following input: • Include the performance indicator definitions with the survey distributed to parents and students; • Add another performance indicator such as' sometimes' between 'generally' and 'infrequently; • Remove the requirement for parents' signatures on the parent survey, which identifies the parent and their child; • Add a comments section to the surveys; • Reduce the number of questions on the survey to one all - encompassing question, in order to increase the likelihood of parents completing the survey. • Add a section to allow parents to provide information related to whether the student has been IPRC'd, the child's the exceptionality, and whether the child is waiting for support or assessment. In response to a query, Ms. Marshall explained that every parent, separated from their spouse or not, of every child, in every school will have the opportunity to complete the survey. In response to a query, Ms. Marshall noted that staff will monitor the costs related to the implementation of the process, and will have a better sense of the overall cost to the Board at the end of the school year. She confirmed that school boards have not received Ministry funding for the implementation of the survey. With respect to the storage of completed surveys, Ms. Marshall noted that only school principals and vice- principals will have access to the surveys, and while the assessments must be kept for six years, storage arrangements have not yet been made. Ms. Marshall noted that the OCDSB already has an excellent teacher appraisal process in place, and expressed the view that the Ministry's directive is likely more appreciated by school boards that did not have a process in place. She noted that the OCDSB has asked the Ministry to permit the Board to participate in the review of this process. Special Education Advisory Committee 7 2 October 2002 lq- Superintendent Turriff thanked Ms. Marshall for her leadership role in the development and implementation of the teacher appraisal surveys, and noted that she is recognized across the province for her expertise in this area. Ms. Marshall thanked the members of the Committee for their helpful suggestions. Ms. Mason thanked Ms. Marshall for her presentation, and requested that the members send any further input on the appraisal process to Ms. Marshall as soon as possible. Ms. Mason suggested that the Committee might consider sending a letter of concern to the Ministry about the process and its impact on teachers' and principals' workload, at some point in the future. 10. Recommendations on Restructuring of Adgptive Programs Peter Wilson referred to the information that was provided to the Committee at its 18 September 2002 meeting, regarding a set of recommendations on restructuring the adaptive programs offered to OCDSB students. He explained that the Adaptive Program Restructuring Committee was established in the fall of 2001. Following a series of meetings in the winter of 2002, the Committee developed the recommendations that are being presented to SEAC and to other stakeholders for input, prior to approval by the Director's Council of Superintendents. Mr. Wilson noted that the Restructuring Committee recommended that the adaptive program be offered at Sir Guy Carleton S.S. and the Ottawa Technical Learning Centre (OTLC), effective September 2003. All students in the current programs would be 'grandfathered', including those placed at the two sites and Laurentian H.S. in the 2002 -2003 school year. Other recommendations from the Committee addressed the balance of academic and technical subjects offered at the two sites, the intake of ESL /ELD students into the adaptive programs, and issues related to the chief entry points of Grade 9 and Grade 11 for students wishing to access the program. In response to a query, Mr. Wilson confirmed that there are a number of students in the adaptive program who have been IPRC'd, but he pointed out that it is not a requirement to enter the program. He also confirmed that the adaptive program is a system program, not a special education program. In response to a query about the cost of the adaptive program being charged to the special education budget, Mr. Wilson explained that staff are allocated from the regular program funding. He acknowledged that it might appear confusing when there are special education programs and the adaptive program offered at the same school, but pointed out that the special education staff are part of the special education programs, not the adaptive program. With respect to the boundaries for the programs, Mr. Wilson noted that the north/south boundary is the CPR train tracks through the Carleton University area, and the Rideau River. The distribution of students at Sir Guy Carleton S.S. and the OTLC would be similar, 49.2 percent at one site, and 50.8% at the other. The intent of the Committee's recommendation is to facilitate a more equitable distribution of the adaptive program, as well as a more equitable distribution of the General Learning Program (GLP) classes, of which there are two classes in the eastern area of the Board, and eight classes in the western area. Ms. Mason expressed concern about the reduction in Special Education Learning Centre (SELC) support at the secondary level, and asked if the Board was anticipating the transfer of more students into adaptive programs. Mr. Wilson noted that adaptive program students are Special Education Advisory Cornunittee 2 October 2002 working towards occupations following graduation, while regular secondary students are focused on entering post- secondary education. Students do not tend to move from one stream or profile to the other during the course of their secondary school careers, unless they redirect their school leaving focus. Following up on the earlier question from Mr. MacKey during public question period, Ms. Mason asked whether the removal of the adaptive program from Laurentian H.S. would impact on adaptive students' access to the full range of credit courses to meet their academic potential, given that the recommendations do not refer to university or college level courses. Mr. Wilson reiterated that at present, adaptive students are working toward occupations following graduation, and do not tend to take courses at those levels. Ms. Mason thanked Mr. Wilson and Principal Zion for making the presentation, and she encouraged the members to provide any additional input to Principal Zion by 18 October 2002. 11. New Business Greg Bonnah requested that a motion deferred from the 5 September 2001 meeting regarding the appeal procedure for failure to adhere to an IPRC decision be dealt with at the 6 November 2002 meeting. Bronwyn Funiciello gave notice of motion regarding the special education reductions for the 6 November 2002 meeting. 12. Members' Information There was no members' information raised at the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Lamar Mason, Co -Chair Special Education Advisory Committee ky /mins2oct02.doc Special Education Advisory Committee 9 2 October 2002