Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03f COW Budget Minutes 27 Mar 20004 l- OTTAWA - CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (BUDGET) MINUTES 27 March 2000 A meeting of the Committee of the Whole (Budget) was held this evening at 133 Greenbank Road, Nepean, commencing at 8:30 p.m., in the Board Room, with Trustee Pam Morse in the Chair, and the following in attendance: Trustees Cynthia Bled, Albert Chambers, Alex Getty, Lynn Graham, Patty Anne Hill, Russ Jackson (by phone), Andrew Lam, Jim Libbey, Norm MacDonald, Sheryl MacDonald and Lynn Scott. Staff. Director of Education and Secretary of the Board, James Grieve, Superintendent of Finance, Michael Clarke, Superintendents Larry Archibald, Rose -Marie Batley, John Brennan, Ross Donaldson, Dan Mason, Katharine Saunders, Barbara Stollery, Judy Turriff, and Bonnie Viney; Manager /Comptroller of Finance Marie- Louise Chartrand; Manager of Quality Assurance, Marjorie Clegg; Coordinator of Budget Services and Financial Systems Support, Charles D'Aoust; Chief of Psychological Services, Terry Laughlin; Manager, Principal of Special Education, Laura McAlister; Communications and Information Services, Maggie Melenhorst; Principal of Program, Bob Powell; Management, Policy and Planning Advisor, Janice Sargent; Chief of Social Work, Dan Wiseman; Assistant Secretary of the Board, Joan Melancon; AN Technician, Robert Giekes; and Committee Coordinator, Kim Young. Non - Voting Representatives: Ottawa - Carleton Assembly of School Councils, Cynthia Pohran, Joan Spice; Ottawa- Carleton Secondary School Administrators' Network, Neil Wyatt; Ottawa - Carleton Elementary Principals' Association, Lyndi MacDonald; Ottawa - Carleton Elementary Teachers' Federation, (W David Wildman; Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation/ Teachers, Tony Pearson, Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation/ESP, Helene Hume; Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation/PSSP, Christine DiZazzo; OSSTF Educational Assistants, Linda Moran and Judy Ramkerrysingh; and Special Education Advisory Committee Representative, Casey van der Grient. Student Representatives Justin Millette and Russell Ullyatt were also present. B. Notices of Motion, Additions to the Budget 1. Notice of Motion, Mileage Reimbursement, Trustee Scott Trustee Scott requested that this amendment to the budget be moved to follow Item No. 18 on the agenda. 2: Co- ordinator for Antiracism & Ethnocultural Equity, Trustee Lam As the amendment to the budget is cost - neutral, Trustee Lam requested that it be dealt with at the 28 March 2000 Board meeting. 3. Library Service Centre, Trustee Lam Trustee Lam withdrew the amendment and requested that staff publicize to a greater extent, the rationale for the library system conversion so that students and schools' concerns are properly addressed. 4. Central Library Service, Trustee Libbey Notice having been given, Trustee Libbey moved as follows in amendment to the budget: Committ ee of the Whole (Budget) -1- 27 March 2000 6�, . Whereas there is tremendous value in the central library function; Whereas the Board should maintain its strength in this area pending discussions with the new City that will probably lead to a strong partnership; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the central library service be retained. Trustee Libbey requested that staff provide further information about the research conducted in 1999 that led to the decision to harmonize the fCBE and fOBE library systems. Superintendent Archibald explained that the fCBE system did not provide Board wide services and that, in an effort to harmonize the two former systems, a decision was made to implement the Alexandria system. The Alexandria system offers greater flexibility and extra features not offered by the fOBE Dynix system. The implementation plan accepted by the Board in June 1999 was to convert the system to Alexandria over two years, and to fold down the Dynix operation over a two year period, while maintaining the central data server. A central Union Catalog will be located at the Media Centre, and connected over the Board's intranet to servers at all schools. Overall, the operation of this new system will be very similar to the internet, in that the location of the individual records will be secondary to the fact that all records at every site across the Board will be accessible by school staff and students. In introducing the amendment, Trustee Libbey expressed concern that the Alexandria system does not offer the range of services of either the Americas or Dynix systems. He noted that the municipal amalgamation process is underway, and he emphasized the importance of investigating possible links between the OCDSB library system and the municipal system, as well as university library systems. A discussion ensued regarding the impact on students, school and library staff during the transition to the Alexandria system. Some federation representatives expressed concerns regarding duplication of data entry and the greater amount of time library technicians must spend entering data into the Alexandria system. They expressed concern that eliminating the central library system will result in an even greater workload for library technicians at the Media Centre. Staff noted that any new books being catalogued now are automatically entered and accessed by all school databases. Superintendent Archibald explained that the plan is to transfer records from schools to the Union Catalog, as they are being catalogued. In response to a query regarding the addition of a central position to coordinate the entry of data, Superintendent Archibald noted that there would be no additional staff but rather a reorganization of central library staff. Every effort is being made to avoid duplication of effort. Some trustees who opposed the motion pointed out that the completion of the transition to the Alexandria system will save the Board a total of $300,000 over two years and a cost of $500,000 over two years to retain the current library system. Other trustees mentioned that, as an amalgamated school board, it is necessary to also harmonize the former library systems into one central system. In wrap up, Trustee Libbey stated that it is worth noting that the Toronto school board system uses the Dynix system. He noted that the Union Catalog is accessible by both the Dynix and Alexandria systems and that if central cataloguing were retained, the Alexandria system users would have access to it as well. He emphasized the value in delaying the implementation of the Alexandria system for a year, until the OCDSB has a better understanding of the impact of the municipal restructuring on our system, the potential increase in workload for library staff, and the possible accessibility issues for students. The amendment was defeated. 5. Lease Revenue, Trustee Libbey Committee of the Whole (Budget) -2- 27 March 2000 Trustee Libbey withdrew the amendment, following confirmation from staff that the $2 million surplus available from 1999 -2000 includes $600,000 from the lease of Confederation High School. 6. Increase in Working Fund Reserve, Trustee Libbey Trustee Libbey withdrew the amendment. 7. Support for Schools, Trustee Libbey Trustee Libbey withdrew the amendment, following a statement from staff that the enrolment projection process has been fine - tuned, in that the three relevant departments are working more closely, and staff is working more closely with principals. They do not anticipate a similar under- projection for the coming school year. budget: Waiting Lists for Assessment, Trustee Sheryl MacDonald Notice having been given, Trustee Sheryl MacDonald moved as follows in amendment to the WHEREAS in order to determine the level of services that should be offered, it is essential to know the needs of the students, both current and those waiting for services; WHEREAS this planning is necessary to fulfill the requirements of the OCDSB's Special . Education Comprehensive Plan; WHEREAS it is necessary to have adequate information with which to lobby the province for additional funding in Special Education; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, A. That the Board immediately begin to compile, maintain and update on a regular basis, as well as to share with SEAC bi- monthly, beginning in April 2000, lists of students needing or awaiting specialized assessments and/or supports, as well as obtaining and maintaining information regarding the number of students being supported in SELCs, and the number of applications for SELCs, system and specialized classes; and B. That this information contain a breakdown of each category on the basis of exceptionality and include the filing date of the longest waiting application. In introducing the amendment, Trustee Sheryl MacDonald noted that informal waiting lists are already in existence at the school level and that SEAC is requesting that these lists be compiled, maintained, updated and circulated to SEAC on a regular basis. She also noted that the results of a recent SERT /SELC survey indicate that teachers are reluctant to refer students for assessment due to a backlog of students awaiting assessment. She emphasized the potential usefulness of the waiting lists in the Board's efforts to attain more special education funding from the Ministry. Trustee Sheryl MacDonald pointed out that there would be no confidentiality issue as the list could be compiled and provided to SEAC without the inclusion of students' names. She, therefore, requested that "lists" be replaced with "numbers" to better reflect the intent of the amendment. In response to a query, Principal McAlister noted that the estimated cost of $100,000 to compile, maintain, and update the lists on a bi- monthly basis includes the work of central administration staff as well as the professional staff who visit the schools. To produce accurate and consistent information, additional funds would be required by each school in order to hire an individual to collate the information from teachers. Committee of the Whole (Budget) -3- 27 March 2000 KLL Christine DiZazzo, OSSTF/PSSP, noted that while a different process may be in place in the Departments of Psychology and Social Work due to the nature of their work, school staff do keep informal lists of students awaiting assessment, along with their level of need. This information is shared with principals on a regular basis. In response to a trustee's query regarding the Board's cycle of reporting, Principal McAlister noted that the Board receives student information annually from the school, and data from the Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) whenever it meets. Dan Wiseman reported that caseload figures are updated monthly and he noted that the nature of social work does not lend itself well to the waiting list model. Terry Laughlin reported that departmental staff updates their lists frequently on a school by school visit basis. The following sub - amendment by Trustee Chambers was accepted as friendly: THAT the numbers of students awaiting assessment be shared with SEAC three times per school year, beginning in May 2000. Trustee Bled moved in sub - amendment THAT "needing" be deleted from the amendment. Speaking to the sub - amendment, Trustee Bled stated that the concept of "need" is a perception and cannot be substantiated. Trustees who supported the sub - amendment remarked that there is a difference between needing and awaiting assessment and that the amendment would provide clearer direction to staff if the concept of need were omitted. Trustees who opposed the sub - amendment noted that the important issue is the number of students who are not being referred for assessment because of teachers' well - founded concerns that students will not receive assessments and services in a reasonable timeframe. The sub - amendment was carried. On a point of order. Trustee Sheryl MacDonald requested that a recorded vote on the sub - amendment be taken. The Chair noted that, according to the Board's By -laws, votes are not recorded in committee meetings. Trustees who supported the amendment noted that the compilation and maintenance of waiting lists is a good management practice as well as useful information for the budget process. Some trustees also noted the potential usefulness of the waiting lists during the current evaluation, and possible re- modelling and downsizing of the special education delivery model. They emphasized that the list was an estimate of the number of students awaiting assessment, and should not be misconstrued as a complicated or onerous task. Other trustees pointed out that given the demise of mitigation funding next year, the Board must make efficient use of its grant revenue by accurately identifying ISA I, II and III students. Trustee Graham requested information from staff regarding the number of students who receive private assessments and how and when their needs would be met, especially in terms of the waiting lists under discussion. The Director noted that the information could be collected over time. He also noted that the accurate collection of this data would require additional staff time and resources especially if the information were to be used as a lobbying tool. A brief discussion ensued with regard to the staff estimated $100,000 cost of compiling and updating the waiting lists. The Director noted that since staff would be required to report on waiting list numbers three times per year, as opposed to bi- monthly, the cost could be reduced to $75,000. Some trustees who opposed the amendment noted that while the waiting list concept has merit, it does not contain essential information, including a definition of "supports" and the function of the data that would be collected. One trustee pointed out that at any one point in time, a collection of numbers of students who are awaiting assessment is only a snapshot in time. Over time, while the comparison of lists Committee of the Whole (Budget) -4- 27 March 2000 4�-5 (W would reflect fluctuations in the number of individuals awaiting assessment, the list would not provide essential information as to whether it is the same students or different students who are awaiting assessments. Another trustee noted that the points raised in the staff rationale were valid, including the requirement for a definition of "need ", and the professional and administration staff capacity to absorb the additional workload. Casey van der Grient, SEAC Representative, expressed strong concern that the Board was having difficulty in recognizing the merits of the waiting lists. He emphasized that SEAC has dramatically moderated its expectations and that they are not asking the Board to improve special education services for the students on the waiting lists, but only to monitor the gaps in the system. In summary, Trustee Sheryl MacDonald reiterated that the waiting lists, in some form, already exist in the schools and that this information would be an excellent tool in approaching the Ministry for adequate special education funding. The amendment was carried and reads as follows: A. THAT the Board immediately begin to compile, maintain and update on a regular basis, as well as to share with SEAC three times per school year, beginning in May 2000, numbers of students awaiting specialized assessments and/or supports, as well as obtaining and maintaining information regarding the number of students being supported in SELCs, and the number of applications for SELCs, system and specialized classes; and B. THAT this information- contain a breakdown of each category on the basis of exceptionality and include the filing date of the longest waiting application. 9. Reinstatement of Special Education Positions & Speech and Language Pathology Support, Trustee Sheryl MacDonald Notice having been given, Trustee Sheryl MacDonald moved as follows in amendment to the budget: WHEREAS SEAC believes that there is a need to provide a full range of educational settings for students; WHEREAS there is no strong evidence that the workshop model will provide the training teachers require to deal with a greater variety of special needs students in their classes; WHEREAS direct service to students and direct support to teachers is seen as a more beneficial way of delivering services; WHEREAS SEAC prefers to retain as many system classes as possible and required to meet the needs of some of our neediest students effectively; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the OCDSB Special Education Budget Allocation for 2000 -2001 be modified as follows: A. THAT 19 teachers to be added as central program support teachers be deleted, leaving a net increase of 4 teachers; B. THAT 6 Kindergarten Language Headstart/LLD teachers /classes be re- instated, for a net reduction of 1.5 teachers/classes; C. THAT 6 General Leaming Program teachers /classes be re- instated for a net loss of 2 teachers /classes; Committee of the Whole (Budget) -5- 27 March 2000 D. THAT 3 Primary Assessment Centre teachers /classes be re- instated, for a net loss of 2 teachers /classes; E. THAT 4 speech and language pathologist positions be reinstated; F. THAT all central staff currently identified under system and school support teams be responsible for delivering services directly to the school level through training to teachers, direct assistance on curriculum modification to teachers, assessment of students, etc. G. THAT the OCDSB reinstate speech and language pathology support for children aged nine years and older who would benefit from such support. In introducing the amendment, Trustee Sheryl MacDonald noted that teachers have indicated that the current special delivery model is not meeting students' needs. The intent of the motion is to offer a cost - neutral alternative to the special education budget allocation for 2000 -2001. With regard to Part G of the amendment, Trustee Sheryl MacDonald noted that the intention is to spread the current resources to include support for children nine years of age and older, rather than the hiring of additional speech and language pathology support. Director Grieve noted that SEAC has worked very hard to refine the current model to better suit students' needs. He expressed concern however, about the number of staff that would be re- instated this year in the face of the large budget reductions that the Board will be facing next year. The Director also expressed concern that SEAC's proposed re- allocation of staff does not address the need for teacher capacity - building in the face of having to deal with a broader range of students and exceptionalities in the classroom. The proposed re- instatement of teachers and classes would, in the long term, be a move away from a model that is designed to address the needs of students. Casey van der Grient, SEAC representative, pointed out that the amendment is an attempt to protect those professional resources that would be most useful for providing in class training for very specialized exceptionalities. He also noted that SEAC is trying to ensure that regular classroom teachers receive as much help as possible in dealing with a greater number of exceptional students in the classroom. A brief discussion ensued regarding the benefits of classroom versus workshop training of teachers. Some federation representatives and trustees noted the need for more effective, long -term teacher training across the school board and the inadequacy of building professional development funding into the budget for only one year. Other representatives pointed out that neither the strategy of increasing staff for one year, nor increasing the number of workshops for teachers, will address the increasing need to deliver programs to a widening range of exceptional students and the comfort level of teachers. Some trustees who opposed the amendment noted that while they appreciated SEAC's effort to remain within the budgetary restraints, they were uncomfortable with the extensive number of changes contained in the amendment. They noted that it was premature to make significant changes to the model after only a few months of implementation and without an understanding of whether the model's inadequacies are linked to a lack of resources or the design of the model itself. A detailed discussion commenced in response to trustees' queries about the financial aspects of the amendment. Superintendent Clarke confirmed that Parts A. through F. of the SEAC model propose four fewer teachers, and four additional speech and language pathologists, resulting in a salary and benefits cost differential of approximately $80,000. The implementation of Part G. of the amendment would not result in an addition to the budget. Director Grieve confirmed that the special education is still $12 million over the funding envelope, as reported in November 1999. Committee of the Whole (Budget) -6- 27 March 2000 15� C 1� Trustees who supported the amendment noted that SEAC, parents and teachers have all expressed strong concerns about the delivery model. They expressed support for a variety of placements, including congregated classrooms, and noted that the SELC model does not appear to be meeting students' needs. In summary, Trustee Sheryl MacDonald noted that the amendment serves to create some breathing space for a system that has changed too radically in too short a timeframe. She emphasized that SEAC's proposed changes to the model would help all students, not just students with exceptionalities. On a request by Trustee Jackson, Parts A - G of the amendment were voted upon separately. Each part of the amendment was carried. On a motion by Trustee Scott, the meeting was adjourned to recommence at 7:00 p.m. on 28 March 2000. It was noted that the 28 March 2000 Board meeting would be re- scheduled to 8:00 p.m. on 29 March 2000 and that the 28 March 2000 Chair's Committee would be cancelled. The meeting adjourned at 12:45 a.m. Pam Morse, Chair Committee of the Whole (Budget) ky /mins- COWbudget7Mar00.doc Committee of the Whole (Budget) -7- 27 March 2000