HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 SEAC Report 4, 1 Mar 2000/t.
Ot
OTLAWA CARLETON
DISTRICT SCHOOL WARD
REPORT NO.4
SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
To: The Board Date: 1 March 2000
A meeting of the Special Education Advisory Committee was held in the Sir Robert Borden High
School Library, 131 Greenbank Road, Nepean, commencing at 7:30 p.m. with Myrna Laurenceson in the
Chair and the following in attendance:
Trustee Members: Sheryl MacDonald; Lynn Scott
Other Trustees: Patty Anne Hill; Jim Libbey
Association Representatives: Jane Berman, Peter Quinn (alternate), Association for Bright Children;
Susanne Striegler (alternate), Casey van der Grient, Autism Society Ontario; Jon Kidd, Ottawa Deaf
Centre; Jean Traynor, Easter Seals Society; Nora Ann McKibbon, Epilepsy Ottawa - Carleton; Jack Ruyter,
Head Injury Association; Gregory Bonnah, Integration Action Group; Bob Fraser, Shirley Todd -
Deschamps (alternate), Leaming Disabilities Association of Ottawa; Nancy Myers, Ontario Association for
Families of Children with Communication Disorders; Lamar Mason, Margot Humphreys (alternate),
Ottawa- Carleton Assembly of School Councils; Myrna Laurenceson, Ottawa - Carleton Association for
Persons with Developmental Disabilities; Colleen Hendrick, VIEWS for the Visually Impaired; Josephine
Fitzgerald, VOICE for Hearing Impaired Children.
Community Representatives: Bronwyn Funiciello, Evan Cooper, Debi Kirwan
Staff: James Grieve, Director of Education and Secretary of the Board; Dan Mason, Superintendent of
Program; Barbara Stollery, Superintendent of Schools; Laura McAlister, Principal, Special Education;
Marjorie Clegg, Manager, Quality Assurance; Terry Laughlin, Chief, Psychological Services; Janice
Sargent, Management, Policy & Planning Advisory; Eleanor Thomas, Research Associate; Dan Wiseman,
Chief, Social Work; Kim Young, Committee Coordinator.
Non - Voting Representatives: Marilyn Engelbert, Council for Exceptional Children; Lynn Moran,
Elizabeth Jurshevshi, Tony Pearson, Pauline Sellers, Ontario Secondary Schools Teachers' Federation;
Jacquie Hawken, Ottawa- Carleton Elementary Teachers' Federation; Terry Greatrix, Professional Student
Services Personnel.
Also present: Crystal Cheung, Student Representative; Steve Ardanez and Diana Ardanez, Sign Language
Interpreters.
Note: Throughout the meeting, Casey van der Grient assumed the Chair when Myrna Laurenceson
wished to contribute to the discussion.
1. Call to Order
Myrna Laurenceson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
2. Approval of Agenda
On a motion by Casey van der Grient, the agenda was approved as presented.
Special Education Advisory Committee -1- 1 March 2000
16-
3. Public Question Period
There were no questions from the public.
4. Review of Report No. 3. Special Education Advisory Committee. 2 February 2000
Myrna Laurenceson made reference to a recent memo from Joan Melancon, Assistant Secretary of
the Board regarding the reporting and amending procedures for SEAC reports. SEAC reports are received
first by the Education Committee and then forwarded to the Board for receipt and consideration of any
recommendations contained in the report. SEAC members, who receive the SEAC reports with the
Education Committee agendas, should notify the Co- Chairs prior to Education Committee if they wish
revisions to be noted at the Education Committee meeting. The SEAC report is listed on the agenda of
each SEAC meeting for the purpose of business arising.
Debi Kirwan referred to folio 6 of the report, and noted that she, rather than Nancy Myers, drew
attention to the safety issues related to an inclusive model.
Myrna Laurenceson noted that the letter to the Ministry regarding its 27 January announcement of
additional special education funding would be sent the following day. The OCDSB and other school
boards receiving mitigation funds will not benefit from the additional funding.
On a motion by Casey van der Grient, Report No. 3 of the Special Education Advisory Committee
was received as amended.
Special Education Programs and Services Policy
Your Committee had before it for consideration staff report No. 00 -060 providing the proposed
Special Education Programs and Services Policy, including revisions based on recommendations made by
SEAC members at its 2 February 2000 meeting.
Principal McAlister noted that the policy is being presented to SEAC a second time for further
input.
To accurately reflect the recommendations made by SEAC at the last meeting, Myrna
Laurenceson and Debi Kirwan requested that:
• "subject to available resources" be deleted from 3.2 c)
• "within the spectrum provided and periodically reviewed by the Board" be deleted from 3.3 a)
• "within the context of available Board resources" be deleted from 3.3 c)
• "Within the financial resources of the Board," be deleted from 4.2.1
Principal McAlister took the suggestions under advisement, noting that she would discuss the
policy implications with Janice Sargent.
6. Waiting Lists for Specialized Assessments /Support, Nancy Myers
Notice of motion having been given, Nancy Myers moved as follows:
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;
Special Education Advisory Committee -2- 1 March 2000
/6.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,
THAT the Board immediately begin to compile, maintain and update on a regular basis, as well as
to share with SEAC each month, beginning in April 2000, lists 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
THAT this information contains a breakdown of each category on the basis of exceptionality and
includes the filing date of the longest waiting application.
In speaking to the motion, Nancy Myers noted that since the Ministry is now responsible for
education funding, there is no reason why the OCDSB should not document every need that is not being
met in the system.
Some members referred to report No. 00 -058, Interim Report on the Special Education Student
Services Program Review, in which teachers noted their practice of referring for assessment only those
students they are confident can be assessed or supported within the school year. The teachers in the report
also noted that if their referrals were based upon need as opposed to available resources, the number of
referrals would be much greater.
A discussion ensued regarding the relevance to SEAC and the feasibility for staff in providing
monthly, bi- monthly or quarterly reports on waiting lists. Staff noted that they regularly review and
prioritize the needs of students awaiting assessment or support services. The students having the most
urgent needs are always made a priority. Staff also noted that individual psychologists, social workers and
speech and language pathologists monitor their own caseloads, and in effect, maintain sub -lists of those
students who urgently require assessment/support.
Those members who supported the motion noted the potential usefulness of the waiting lists in
approaching the Ministry for additional funding, and they also noted the importance of knowing the exact
number of students who would be described as being in low, moderate, high or crisis need of intervention.
They remarked that informal waiting lists are already kept and that it should require minimal effort to
forward these lists to central administration staff on a regular basis. Members also noted that school staff
should understand that accurate waiting lists are a crucial element in creating a realistic picture for the
Ministry of special education services in this province.
Members who opposed the motion noted that the tracking of students in need is already being
done at the teachers and professional services personnel level. They also noted the relevance of tracking as
to whether a teacher, principal, or parent requested the assessment and/or support services.
Some members suggested that school staff be instructed to keep accurate lists of students awaiting
assessment and/or support, despite some teachers' impressions that services may not be available to these
students. One member noted that monitoring those students who are waiting for assessment and services is
an important part of good management practices.
In response to queries from association representatives and trustees about the amount of staff time
and effort required to establish and maintain the waiting lists, Superintendent Mason noted that
a considerable amount of extra work would be required by the teachers to create and update the lists and by
central administration staff to compile, monitor and provide regular updated lists to SEAC.
Principal McAlister noted that there is ambiguity across the system regarding a working definition
of exceptionalities and the different levels of special needs. She emphasized that the reporting and
updating of the waiting lists will be very time - consuming for both special education teachers and staff, and
(W in particular, central staff who would have to compile this data. She also mentioned that Ministry
information regarding the 2000 -2001 ISA funding process is imminent and that if the revised guidelines are
Special Education Advisory Committee -3- 1 March 2000
received in April or May, there will likely be a significant increase in workload for special education
teachers and staff during this period.
In response to members' queries, staff members noted that the needs of students far exceed what
the school system can provide, due in part to the increasing demands placed on the system but also to
significantly reduced funding. Staff members ensure that students with the greatest needs are made a
priority.
Terry Laughlin, Chief of Psychology, noted the importance of setting realistic limits as to what the
system can handle and recognizing the varying levels of need of those students awaiting assessment and
support. He also noted that, in his view, a waiting list would reflect those assessments that surface
following a prioritization of need at the school level.
Nancy Myers expressed strong concern that students over the age of nine years do not have access
to the services of speech and language pathologists.
Director Grieve noted that the Ministry has recently announced its plans to define special
education levels of service in an effort towards greater consistency of service across the province. He
commented that there are students who have been pre- screened and provided with support services, but
who are now awaiting more serious intervention. He noted that this kind of information about students is
also important, as the results are both achievable and measurable.
Dan Wiseman, Chief of Social Work noted that in social work, waiting lists have little relevance
to the needs in the system and the services provided. Students requiring social work intervention are in
crisis and must be dealt with promptly. It would be more useful if a broader range of factors, for example,
drug or suicide intervention, augmented the formal assessment process.
Jacquie Hawken expressed the view that teachers are very aware as to which students require
testing and she expressed confidence that teachers would be willing to provide these names on a regular
basis. Other than the effort required to create the initial waiting list, she doubted that teachers would
experience a significant increase in work. She added that, in her opinion, most of the work in compiling,
monitoring and distributing the information would be borne by central administration staff.
Note: The motion incorporates two friendly amendments accepted during discussion.
The motion, as amended, was carried.
Your Committee therefore recommends, on a motion by Nancy Myers:
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.
7. Interim Report on the Special Education Student Services Proff m Review
Your Committee had before it for information staff report No. 00 -058 presenting an interim report
on the Special Education/Student Services Review. Two surveys, one for Special Education Resource
Teachers (SERTs) and one for Special Education Learning Centre (SELC) teachers were conducted in
Special Education Advisory Committee -4- 1 March 2000
in
December 1999. The surveys were designed to elicit quantitative information from SERTs and SELC
teachers that was not available from the Central Student Database. The preliminary report on the survey
findings is attached to the report.
Superintendent Mason thanked Marjorie Clegg and Eleanor Thomas for their hard work on the
surveys. He provided a brief overview of the report, noting the challenges inherent in reviewing a program
while it is still in the early stages of implementation. He also noted that the survey results were predictable
in that service providers are experiencing discomfort in adapting to a new delivery model. He expressed
confidence that the second set of surveys, to be conducted later this year, will provide a more complete
picture of the special education delivery model.
Marjorie Clegg emphasized the importance of assessing the delivery model using more than one
source of information. She referred to the surveys planned for later this year, including a second survey of
SERT and SELC teachers asking for their ideas and perceptions about special education delivery and a
survey of principals, teachers of regular and congregated classes, parents, and Student Services personnel.
The survey findings will be analyzed and recommendations put forward regarding ways to improve the
delivery model to best suit the needs of both teachers and students.
Ms. Clegg expressed appreciation to the SERTs and SELC teachers who completed the survey,
noting a return rate of more than 90 %.
Casey van der Grient expressed appreciation to the OCDSB for producing the report and noted
that the teachers' responses validate many of SEAC's concerns regarding the inadequacies of the current
delivery model. He commended the Board for its co- operative and transparent efforts.
In response to a member's query, Marjorie Clegg explained that, in addition to her own
involvement and that of Principal McAlister, the Advisory Committee for the Special Education/Student
Services Review consisted of principals, vice - principals, special education program support teachers,
psychologists, social workers, as well as two Children's' Aid Society representatives and a former
employee of the Community and Social Services Ministry.
A SEAC member suggested that in future, a member of SEAC be invited to contribute to advisory
committees of this kind.
Responding to a query about the inclusion of gifted children in the survey, Marjorie Clegg noted
that while it is not possible to assess the gifted program at this time, a screening process is being carried
out, including a survey of parental choice. Data is being gathered for future analysis.
In response to a member's comment that the survey, while illuminating, does not elicit suggestions
from teachers regarding possible solutions to the delivery model's weaknesses, Marjorie Clegg noted that
the next survey is designed to be more open- ended. Teachers will have the opportunity to voice their ideas
as to what tools they require in order to teach effectively.
A member expressed concern that staff is attributing the problems with the delivery model to
teachers' discomfort with a recently implemented model, rather than to systemic inadequacies of the model
itself that will not be solved with time. Another member noted that there were no positive statements in the
report.
Marjorie Clegg noted that the survey did not specifically ask for positive comments regarding the
delivery model but that the second, open -ended survey would allow for more feedback and ideas from
teachers. She also noted that the second survey would be presented to SEAC for input prior to its
distribution to teachers.
In response to a query, Superintendent Mason noted that the survey results will be analyzed to find
the best ways to address students' needs and teachers' concerns with the model. He also noted the focus on
teacher capacity - building and the benefit of additional funding in the proposed budget.
Special Education Advisory Committee -5- 1 March 2000
Marjorie Clegg reported that the second survey would be sent to SERT and SELC teachers this
spring with the expectation that results will be presented to SEAC in June. She noted that staff is hoping to
meet these timelines so that potential ideas and solutions can be built into teacher work plans for September
2000.
Trustee Sheryl MacDonald noted that she had attended the 25 February 2000 professional
development day activities. In response to her questions to some special education teachers about the
delivery model, she learned that these teachers are feeling frustrated and "burned out ", and regular
classroom teachers expressed concern that entire classes are suffering from the teachers having to focus on
the needs of the special education students.
Jacquie Hawken observed that while classes are larger and students' needs are greater, it is
important to remember that the teachers' comments were made in the context of a very busy time of year
for teachers. Trustee Sheryl MacDonald noted that she has the names of approximately 75% of the
teachers she spoke with, and she intends to speak with them again in a month's time to gauge their reactions
to the delivery model a second time.
List of Special Education/Student Services Workshops /Services
Your Committee had before it for information staff report No. 00 -042 providing a list of dates and
locations of special education workshops which are scheduled for January to June 2000, as well as, a
workshop on non - violent crisis intervention and a peer -led initiative on dating violence.
Debi Kirwan expressed disappointment that special education teachers, rather than regular
classroom teachers, are attending special education workshops. Principal McAlister noted that the
increased emphasis on professional development in the new model will include an enhanced information
campaign to reach all the teachers in the system.
In response to Tony Pearson's concern regarding the scheduling of professional development
during school hours, Superintendent Mason noted that the workshops and training will be offered during
the day and after school hours. He agreed that there will be a challenge in scheduling professional
development activities, and noted that if school hours are compressed to allow teachers to attend
professional development during the day, revised transportation schedules will result in problems for
students and their parents.
New Business
In response to Greg Bonnah's queries, staff noted that:
The hiring of replacement educational assistants is at the discretion of school principals. It is
their responsibility to judge the needs of their school and to hire replacement educational
assistants accordingly.
Principal McAlister and Superintendent Hoye have been ensuring that speech and language
pathology- related concerns are being met, while Cheryl Thorns is away on sick leave.
• IPRCs are considered by the OCDSB to be a very important process, as set out in the
Education Act.
Bob Fraser, LDAO distributed copies of LDAO's response to Ontario Public Supervisory
Officers' Association's (OPSOA) position paper on special education funding, as well as the LDAO's SEAC
Circular. He welcomed members' comments or questions.
In response to a query, Principal McAlister noted that efforts are being made, in consultation with
special education teachers, to streamline the IPRC process to make it as user - friendly as possible for
parents and teachers.
Special Education Advisory Committee -6- 1 March 2000
F�
Responding to Jane Berman's request for a brief description of the OCDSB gifted programs
planned for the next school year, Superintendent Stollery noted that this information has also been
requested at a Board meeting and that a report of the gifted programs at all OCDSB secondary schools will
be distributed in the Friday package.
Casey van der Grient provided a brief overview of the proposed budget for special education,
including a $1.6 million reduction and a one -time influx of funds from the reserve funds. He encouraged
the associations to look closely at the special education budget information and to appreciate the
consequences if the budget is approved. He also encouraged all SEAC associations to attend the 20 March
SEAC presentation to Committee of the Whole (Budget).
10. Discussion re: Special Education Delivery Model and Budget Proposal
Myrna Laurenceson expressed the view that the special education delivery model is in crisis and
she noted her confidence that SEAC will bring forward constructive ideas as to how the special education
model can be amended to better meet the needs of students and teachers.
Director Grieve conceded that the special education model will be in a critical situation in three
years. In meetings with other Directors of Education, he has noted that other school boards across Canada
are facing similar special education challenges and that some jurisdictions look upon the OCDSB and other
centrally located school boards with envy. He expressed pride in the special education budget and model
that is being proposed, including the Board's efforts to expand the regular classroom teachers' capabilities
with one -time additional funds, while anticipating a Ministry initiative to put more money into special
education in the next IS months.
The Director expressed pleasure that the discussion this evening, and its continuation tomorrow
evening, will focus on solutions and concrete ideas to present to the Committee of the Whole (Budget) on
20 March 2000.
The topic of "centres of excellence" was introduced and during discussion, the following points
were made in support of the concept:
• At least one centre of excellence would be located within each family of schools. The centre
would be established in a wing, or floor of the school. The social and practical benefits of
combining special education students and regular students in one site were emphasized.
• The centres would provide built -in professional development as regular teachers could consult
with SERTs in each centre.
• The centres of excellence would be cost - effective in that professional student support
professionals (PSSPs) would not be required to travel to every school having students
requiring their services, but would rather focus on these students congregated in the centres.
• Additional transportation savings would be realized as a result of special education students
attending schools in their own areas.
• It is anticipated that some students would receive intensive support in the centre for a few
years, and then be integrated into the regular classroom setting.
• The centres of excellence concept addresses the concerns raised by SEAC association
representatives regarding the negative impact of an integrated approach on the learning of
both special education and regular students.
Some members expressed their support for the concept, but noted the following concerns:
Special Education Advisory Committee -7- 1 March 2000
• Teachers are less concerned with the actual number of students in the classroom; and more
concerned with the range of exceptional students that they are expected to teach. The centres
of excellence, as outlined so far, do not address this significant issue.
• There are few schools that have extra rooms available to dedicate to centres of excellence.
• Some students, especially learning disabled and language /learning disabled students, are
unable to learn in an integrated setting with other exceptionalities.
• Sometimes schools that offer a number of classes designed to meet the needs of a particular
exceptionality, develop a "reputation" and some parents hesitate in sending their children to
these schools. To avoid such a situation, it is important to consider the number of grade levels
existing in one school, as well as the proportion of exceptional students and regular students
within one school setting.
• The centres of excellence may be more successful in some areas of the Board than others, in
that travel time for students in urban areas may be reduced, while students in outlying areas
who require services, may face longer travel times.
• Some SELCs are operating very effectively, but the overall number of SELCs in the system
and their locations must be further assessed.
• A cost analysis would have to be conducted to determine the actual transportation costs of the
centres of excellence approach.
Lamar Mason requested that staff provide information to SEAC regarding the number of students
beyond Grade 4 who require, but are not receiving speech and language support.
Casey van der Grient presented an overview of the ASO's special education - related suggestions to
the Board, including: a focus on improving communication and planning with parents; a commitment to
establish programs where the students in need are actually located (for example Lady Evelyn P.S. has 14
autism students); an emphasis on teacher training and support for specific exceptionalities; and, a
recognition that teachers and students can benefit from increased access to technology. He noted that
special education students are ultimately discharged, and that the Board plays a significant role in preparing
exceptional students to make the transition from the school system to other support systems.
Superintendent Stollery provided an overview of the integration versus congregation research and
emphasized that, in practice, the best person to teach the child is the best teacher, in other words, "the
teacher makes it happen ".
In response to Jane Berman's query about the savings associated with an integrated model,
Superintendent Stollery explained that an integrated model saves money through reduced staffing and
fewer transportation costs. She noted that if teachers are not providing 100% remediation to exceptional
students in a congregated setting, the result is that more students can be moved through the system.
Director Grieve noted that the special education model has been designed with enough flexibility
to withstand the fiscal reductions of the next few years. He referred to the proposed increase in special
education spending in the 2000 -2001 budget, in an effort to build capacity across the system.
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m., with plans to re- convene the next evening at 7:30 p.m.
Myrna Laurenceson, Co -Chair
Special Education Advisory Committee
ky /minslmazchOO.doc
Special Education Advisory Committee -8- 1 March 2000
rdiram
non-2
Et
OTMA-CARLETON
DISTPJCf SCHOOL BOARD
REPORT NO.5
SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
To: The Board Date: 2 March 2000
A special meeting of the Special Education Advisory Committee was held in the Sir Robert Borden High
School Library, 131 Greenbank Road, Nepean, commencing at 7:45 p.m. with Casey van der Grient in the
Chair and the following in attendance:
Trustee Members: Sheryl MacDonald; Lynn Scott
Other Trustees: Albert Chambers; Alex Getty; Lynn Graham; Patty Anne Hill; Jim Libbey;
Pam Morse
Association Representatives: Jane Berman, Association for Bright Children; Casey van der Grient, Autism
Society Ontario; Jon Kidd, Ottawa Deaf Centre; Jack Ruyter, Head Injury Association; Nancy Myers,
Ontario Association for Families of Children with Communication Disorders; Lamar Mason, Ottawa -
Carleton Assembly of School Councils; Myrna Laurenceson, Ottawa - Carleton Association for Persons with
Developmental Disabilities; Colleen Hendrick, VIEWS for the Visually Impaired; Josephine Fitzgerald,
VOICE for Hearing Impaired Children.
Community Representatives: Bronwyn Funiciello, Evan Cooper, Debi Kirwan
Staff: James Grieve, Director of Education and Secretary of the Board; Barbara Stollery, Superintendent of
Schools; Laura McAlister, Principal, Special Education; Terry Laughlin, Chief, Psychological Services;
Kim Young, Committee Coordinator.
Non - Voting Representatives: Tony Pearson, Pauline Sellers, Ontario Secondary Schools Teachers'
Federation; Jacquie Hawken, Ottawa - Carleton Elementary Teachers' Federation; Christine DiZazzo, Sara
Wegner, Professional Student Services Personnel.
Also present: Janel Yu, Student Representative; Steve Ardanez and Diana Ardanez, Sign Language
Interpreters.
Note: Throughout the meeting, Myrna Laurenceson assumed the Chair when Casey van der Grient
wished to contribute to the discussion.
This special meeting is a continuation of the discussion of item No. 10, Discussion re: The Special
Education Delivery Model and Budget Proposal begun at the 1 March 2000 meeting.
Public Question Period
In response to a query from a member of the public regarding the availability of the entire OCDSB
2000 -2001 budget on the web site, including the special education budget, Director Grieve noted that the
entire budget will be posted on the web site as soon as possible.
Continuation of Discussion re: The Special Education Delivery Model and Budget Proposal
The Chair invited the members to voice their ideas or concerns regarding the special education
model and the OCDSB 2000 -2001 proposed budget.
Special Education Advisory Committee -1- 2 March 2000
a3-
a) Itinerant Programs
Colleen Hendrick moved,
WHEREAS the OCDSB provides a specialized itinerant educational program for students with a
visual impairment as well as an itinerant educational program for hearing impaired students;
WHEREAS the OCDSB itinerant educational program for students with a visual impairment
provides specialized educational services to visually impaired students attending other area school
boards and is recognized as a centre of excellence;
WHEREAS itinerant teachers are responsible for addressing the specific needs of individual
students by providing specialized services, supports and interventions directly to impaired students
and specialized consultative services to classroom teachers;
WHEREAS the itinerant model of specialized teaching services is recognized as an effective, cost -
efficient method to meet the needs of impaired students;
BE IT RESOLVED
THAT the OCDSB develop specialized itinerant programs of service to include students with
other exceptionalities who have specialized needs.
Speaking to the motion, Colleen Hendrick noted that itinerant teachers provide an essential
service to students as well as a valuable consultative service to teachers. She recognized the important
contribution of volunteers, but noted that volunteers cannot replace teachers with specialized skills. Ms.
Hendrick explained that the motion's intent is to expand the itinerant model to include a range of options
for students with a variety of special needs.
Principal McAlister noted that there are currently two delivery models for students with hearing
impairments. Students have the choice of either, a congregated program at Laurentian H.S. and Centennial
P.S., or a program with an itinerant teacher of the hearing impaired; additional support may be provided by
educational assistants.
In response to a query regarding the merits of the itinerant versus the congregated model,
Josephine Fitzgerald explained that, in the case of deciding whether to integrate deaf children into the
regular classroom, it would depend upon the needs of the particular student.
The motion was carried.
On a motion by Colleen Hendrick, your Committee therefore recommends:
THAT THE OCDSB DEVELOP SPECIALIZED ITINERANT PROGRAMS OF SERVICE TO
INCLUDE STUDENTS WITH OTHER EXCEPTIONALITIES WHO HAVE SPECIALIZED
NEEDS.
b) Centres of Excellence
Lamar Mason moved,
WHEREAS a great many objections, based upon experience as well as research, have been raised
by students, parents, educators and associations about the advisability of a swift transfer to an
integration/inclusive model for special education;
Special Education Advisory Committee -2- 2 March 2000
(/2 J/ -
WHEREAS serious concerns have been raised about the impact of an accelerated pace of
integration, not only on special education students but on students in the regular classrooms into
which students are to be increasingly integrated;
WHEREAS a great deal of the literature on integration suggests that its effective implementation
depends on small class sizes, limits on the range of exceptionalities, and strong back -up support
resources including personnel — which factors are not guaranteed by the suggested delivery model;
WHEREAS an alternative model, colloquially entitled "Centres of Excellence ", offers some
promise of maintaining needed resource back -up without increasing overall program costs (and
indeed suggesting many cost efficiencies);
BE IT RESOLVED,
A. THAT the Special Education Advisory Committee continue to express its grave
reservations to the OCDSB trustees about the impact of the "New Delivery Model" on
student services and student achievement;
B. THAT the Special Education Advisory Committee support the Special Education
Learning Centre model; however, it requests that the Board introduce the concept of
"Centres of Excellence" to extend work already done by staff, and
C. THAT no allocations of additional Board teaching personnel to central staff training
teams be made, but that the current level of Professional Student Services Personnel staff
be maintained within the proposed budget allocation.
Speaking in support of the motion, Lamar Mason raised the following points:
• Special Education Leaming Centre (SELL) teachers are feeling isolated and unsupported in
individual schools. The centres of excellence concept would bring SELC teachers together
with students having more serious exceptionalities into a common setting. Teachers would
benefit from the consultative support of other special education teachers and students would
be leaming in an environment with other students having similar needs.
• A workshop format, funded by a one -time influx of funding, is not the most suitable method
of training teachers to deal with an expanded range of students' needs. It is not in students'
best interests to have the most experienced special education teachers removed from the
classroom to instruct other teachers about the needs of exceptional students.
• The centres would be designed to accommodate the needs of students who will eventually be
integrated into the regular classroom as well as those who may remain in the centre
indefinitely.
• The concept is designed to alleviate the workload of regular classroom teachers as they strive
to meet the learning needs of regular students as well as an expanding range of exceptional
students. Some teachers have reservations about the staff proposed model, including the
number of exceptionalities they would be expected to teach, class size, and which leaming
model they would be expected to use in the classroom.
• The challenge of finding appropriate space in existing schools would have to be addressed.
• It should be recognized that schools containing centres of excellence could be unfavourably
labeled, and that a strong public relations campaign to counter negative perceptions would be
necessary.
Special Education Advisory Committee -3- 2 March 2000
�6-
In the discussion that followed, members raised a number of queries about the practicalities of
implementing the proposed model. Lamar Mason expressed discomfort in being asked to provide elaborate
details at this stage, and she expressed confidence in staffs expertise and ability to address issues related to
the centres of excellence concept and implementation.
Some members who supported the motion noted that the centres of excellence concept would exist
as part of a continuum of services and should not be viewed as a long -term move towards integration.
They pointed out that the proposed model, if implemented, would save Professional Student Services
Personnel (PSSP) travelling time, student busing time and transportation costs. Other members expressed
support for the concept as a way of addressing the frustration of parents of regular students who are
concerned about teachers having to focus on the needs of exceptional students in an integrated setting, to
the detriment of their own children's needs. One member noted the potential for the centres of excellence
to be used as training sites for student teachers.
Some trustees who opposed the motion noted that while the concept had merit, they required
additional information, including a definition of "centres of excellence ", information about the size of
schools that would contain the centres, congregated class sizes, as well as detailed financial projections
before they could lend their support to the motion. They expressed concern for those parents who would
prefer to have their children served in integrated settings within their own family of schools.
In response to queries about the impact of the proposed model on current staffimg levels, Director
Grieve pointed out that the proposed model involves the re- allocation of very experienced teachers into a
new setting, and does not involve the hiring of more staff. He noted that staffing for schools begins 1 April
2000, directly following the approval of the proposed budget and he expressed doubt regarding the
feasibility of implementing the proposed model for September 2000.
A detailed discussion of Part C of the motion ensued. Some members suggested that rather than
adding 22 teachers to the in- school teams under the staff proposed model, the funds should be reallocated
towards maintaining the current level of PSSPs. Members agreed that, while this reallocation of funds
may result in net savings, the overall intention is not to decrease the special education budget but to
enhance the level of service to special education students.
Trustee Hill noted the importance of recognizing the spirit of the motion and the intent of reacting
constructively to teachers' concerns about the delivery model, the funding cuts, and the impact on special
education students. She suggested the possibility of staff conducting a pilot project to better assess the
proposed model.
Some trustees requested staff input regarding the degree of reduction or trade -off in SELCs needed
in order to fund the proposed model, and noted the importance of assessing the impact that the centres of
excellence would have on all the other parts of the delivery model.
Jane Berman moved in amendment that the following be added as a new Part C, and that the
existing Part C be re- labeled Part D:
THAT SEAC work with the leadership team and stakeholders to investigate the design parameters
of centres of excellence for exceptional students.
Members speaking in support of the amendment noted the importance of staffs expertise in
developing and implementing the concept. They emphasized the need for staff, trustees and association
representatives to work collaboratively in building and implementing the proposed model. Some members
referred to the rapid development and implementation of the special education delivery model last year,
despite the strong concerns expressed by SEAC.
Members who opposed the amendment questioned the timelines for the implementation of the
proposed model, and expressed concern over the timelines of a project of this magnitude.
Special Education Advisory Committee -4- 2 March 2000
a6.
The amendment was carried.
The members accepted as friendly the following amendment:
THAT "as part of a continuum of services" be inserted into Part B following "SELC model".
Myrna Laurenceson moved in amendment THAT Part B be re- worded as follows:
THAT SEAC support the SELC model, as part of a continuum of services, however, it requests
that the Board introduce the concept of "Centres of Excellence" to serve exceptional students in
cost - effective, congregated settings, to extend work already done by staff.
The amendment was carried.
Following a brief discussion of the possible savings which may result from the implementation of
centres of excellence, Myrna Laurenceson moved in amendment that Part E be added as follows:
THAT any savings from the implementation of this motion that may be realized in the proposed
special education budget, be retained within the special education funding envelope.
The amendment was carried.
On a motion by Trustee Scott, each part of the motion was voted upon separately.
In wrap up, Lamar Mason noted that she planned to fine -tune the proposed model's framework in
preparation for the 20 March SEAC presentation to the Committee of the Whole (Budget). She also noted
that she does not feel that the proposed model will eliminate services, but will rather shift current services
to better meet the needs of special education students. The move towards integration is not necessarily the
best solution for all exceptional students. She acknowledged that implementation of the proposed model is
not likely for September 2000 but reminded trustees of other "bare- bones" concepts that were approved by
the Board and "fleshed out" at a later time.
In summary, Parts A, B, C and E of the motion were carried. Part D was defeated.
On a motion by Lamar Mason, your Committee therefore recommends:
A. THAT THE SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE CONTINUE TO
EXPRESS ITS GRAVE RESERVATIONS TO THE OCDSB TRUSTEES ABOUT THE
IMPACT OF THE "NEW DELIVERY MODEL" ON STUDENT SERVICES AND
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT;
B. THAT THE SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUPPORT THE
SELC MODEL AS PART OF A CONTINUUM OF SERVICES, HOWEVER, IT
REQUESTS THAT THE BOARD INTRODUCE THE CONCEPT OF "CENTRES OF
EXCELLENCE" TO SERVE EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS IN COST - EFFECTIVE,
CONGREGATED SETTINGS, TO EXTEND WORK ALREADY DONE BY STAFF;
C. THAT THE SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE WORK WITH THE
OCDSB LEADERSHIP TEAM AND STAKEHOLDERS TO INVESTIGATE THE
DESIGN PARAMETERS OF "CENTRES OF EXCELLENCE" FOR EXCEPTIONAL
STUDENTS;
D. THAT ANY SAVINGS FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS MOTION THAT
MAY BE REALIZED IN THE PROPOSED SPECIAL EDUCATION BUDGET BE
RETAINED WITHIN THE SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING ENVELOPE.
Special Education Advisory Committee -5- 2 March 2000
The motion, as amended, was carried.
C) OCDSB Web Site
Jane Berman moved,
WHEREAS the OCDSB web site is recognized as a major communications tool with our
community;
WHEREAS central staff availability as a primary source of Special Education information is
becoming more and more limited;
WHEREAS SEAC believes our system should be transparent;
WHEREAS SEAC believes good information is crucial to sound decision - making;
WHEREAS the proposed OCDSB 2000 -2001 budget provides adequately for technological
efficiencies;
BE IT RESOLVED,
THAT the OCDSB web site be developed to include under Special Education, information or links
to detailed information about the Special Education Advisory Committee, Intensive Support
Amounts, the Identification, Placement and Review Committee, Individual Education Plans,
program options, the Parent Guide to Special Education and Student Services, and any other
information that will assist the community in understanding Special Education in the OCDSB.
Speaking in support of the motion, Jane Berman noted the importance of the web site in providing
detailed, accurate information to the public about the OCDSB's special education programs. She noted the
increased demands on administrative staff and the value of a user - friendly, comprehensive web site in
providing information to parents prior to approaching central staff.
The motion was carried.
On a motion by Jane Berman, your Committee therefore recommends,
THAT THE OCDSB WEB SITE BE DEVELOPED TO INCLUDE UNDER SPECIAL
EDUCATION, INFORMATION OR LINKS TO DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT THE
SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, INTENSIVE SUPPORT AMOUNTS,
THE IDENTIFICATION, PLACEMENT AND REVIEW COMMITTEE, INDIVIDUAL
EDUCATION PLANS, PROGRAM OPTIONS, THE PARENT GUIDE TO SPECIAL
EDUCATION AND STUDENT SERVICES, AND ANY OTHER INFORMATION THAT
WILL ASSIST THE COMMUNITY IN UNDERSTANDING SPECIAL EDUCATION IN THE
OCDSB.
d) Speech and Language Pathology Sunnort
Nancy Myers moved,
WHEREAS the needs of children with communication disorders do not end at age nine;
WHEREAS communication is directly related to literacy;
Special Education Advisory Committee -6- 2 March 2000
BE IT RESOLVED,
THAT SEAC proposes that OCDSB speech and language pathology support be reinstated for
children aged nine years and older who would benefit from such support.
The motion was carried.
Your Committee therefore recommends, on a motion by Nancy Myers,
THAT THE OCDSB REINSTATE SPEECH AND LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY SUPPORT FOR
CHILDREN AGED NINE YEARS AND OLDER WHO WOULD BENEFIT FROM SUCH
SUPPORT.
A discussion ensued regarding the Committee's presentation to Committee of the Whole (Budget)
on 20 March 2000. Members expressed the need for another scheduled meeting to continue preparation of
the presentation.
Myrna Laurenceson moved,
THAT a SEAC sub - committee be struck to prepare a draft of the presentation to the Committee of
the Whole (Budget) on 20 March 2000 and that a special meeting of SEAC be held on 9 March
2000 to review and finalize the draft.
Jane Berman, Colleen Hendrick and Myrna Laurenceson agreed to form the sub - committee.
The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Casey van der Grient, Co -Chair
Special Education Advisory Committee
ky /mins2march00.doc
Special Education Advisory Committee -7- 2 March 2000
q.
Et
OTTAWA CARLETON
DISTRICr SCHOOL BOARD
REPORT NO.6
SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
To: The Board Date: 9 March 2000
A special meeting of the Special Education Advisory Committee was held in the Sir Robert
Borden High School Library, 131 Greenbank Road, Nepean, commencing at 6:00 p.m. with Myrna
Laurenceson in the Chair and the following in attendance:
Trustee Members: Sheryl MacDonald
Other Trustees: Alex Getty
Association Representatives: Jane Berman, Peter Quinn (alternate), Association for Bright Children;
Susanne Striegler (alternate), Casey van der Grient, Autism Society Ontario; Nora Ann McKibbon,
Epilepsy Ottawa - Carleton; Gregory Bonnah, Jane Naugler (alternate), Integration Action Group; Nancy
Myers, Ontario Association for Families of Children with Communication Disorders; Lamar Mason,
Ottawa - Carleton Assembly of School Councils; Myrna Laurenceson, Ottawa - Carleton Association for
Persons with Developmental Disabilities; Colleen Hendrick, VIEWS for the Visually Impaired; Josephine
Fitzgerald, VOICE for Hearing Impaired Children.
Community Representatives: Bronwyn Funiciello, Evan Cooper, Debi Kirwan
Staff James Grieve, Director of Education and Secretary of the Board; Barbara Stollery, Superintendent of
Schools; Laura McAlister, Principal, Special Education; Terry Laughlin, Chief, Psychological Services;
Dan Wiseman, Chief, Social Work; Kim Young, Committee Coordinator.
Non - Voting Representatives: Marilyn Engelbert, Council for Exceptional Children; John Allen, Ontario
Secondary Schools Teachers' Federation; Jacquie Hawken, Ottawa - Carleton Elementary Teachers'
Federation; Judy Makin, Professional Student Services Personnel.
Note: Throughout the meeting, Casey van der Grient assumed the Chair when Myrna Laurenceson
wished to contribute to the discussion.
1. Approval of A¢enda
On a motion by Evan Cooper, the agenda was approved as presented.
2. Public Ouestion Period
Cathy Graham expressed strong concern that the level of educational assistant support needed by
her son could not be met by the OCDSB. Ms. Graham explained that, because her son's needs were not
being met in the school system, she enrolled her son in the Crossroads program and that in a year or two, he
will be returned to his home school. She urged the OCDSB to address the shortcomings of the special
education delivery model and to focus on providing a learning environment that is solely based on students'
needs.
Special Education Advisory Committee 4- 9 March 2000
tJ �v .
In response to a member of the public's query, Principal McAlister noted that the results of the
SERTs and SELC teachers' survey will be sent to all OCDSB schools shortly.
Review of SEAC Sub - Committee Report
Prior to a discussion of the sub - committee's report, the following motions were presented to the
committee for consideration.
Lamar Mason moved,
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 Learning Program teachers /classes be re- instated for a net loss of
2 teachers /classes;
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.
Speaking to the motion, Lamar Mason noted that the re- allocations would remain within the
constraints of the proposed special education budget. She also noted the committee's discomfort with the
roles and responsibilities of the system support teams and the school support teams, as outlined in the
proposed model, and stressed SEAC's preference that teachers focus on teaching students, as opposed to
instructing other teachers.
In response to concerns, Director Grieve noted that the personnel aspect of the model has been
revised since it was first circulated in November 1999. There are two co- ordinator positions in the model
that will require the expertise of the current team leaders in the department. He also noted that the
Principal of Education and the two co- ordinator positions will report directly to the Director of Education at
the outset.
Special Education Advisory Committee -2- 9 March 2000
,91.
The motion was carried.
On a motion by Lamar Mason, your Committee therefore recommends:
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 LEARNING PROGRAM TEACHERS /CLASSES BE RE-
INSTATED FOR A NET LOSS OF 2 TEACHERS /CLASSES;
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.
Nora Ann McKibbon moved as follows:
WHEREAS the province's decision to remove local school board's ability to access municipal
taxes to ensure the recognition of the educational needs and priorities of each area;
WHEREAS it is recognized that the provincial funding model as it pertains to Special Education is
inadequate;
WHEREAS the reductions that are made by Ontario School Boards to approach and/or live within
the provincial funding model have a very adverse effect on the delivery of quality Special
Education; and
WHEREAS the Greater Essex County District School Board has recognized that further
reductions will severely compromise the quality of its education programs and has voted to submit
a deficit budget for 2000 -2001;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,
THAT the Special Education Advisory Committee of the Ottawa - Carleton District School Board
send a letter to the Special Education Advisory Committee of the Greater Essex County District
School Board to express its support of their 2000 -2001 budget decision.
Speaking to the motion, Nora Ann McKibbon noted the importance of supporting the Greater
Essex County District School Board (DSB) and sending a strong message to the Ministry regarding the
difficult situation that their funding decisions have created for many school boards.
Special Education Advisory Committee -3- 9 March 2000
Director Grieve clarified that the Greater Essex County District School Board, as reported earlier
today, had voted against making further spending cuts, which may result in a deficit budget. The Greater
Essex County DSB is in a somewhat different position in that their mitigation funding is ending this year
and they are facing a $2 million reduction as opposed to $54 million for the OCDSB.
The Director referred to the Ministry's recent announcement regarding the establishment of
accountability mechanisms and province -wide standards for special education, as well as the obligation on
the part of school boards to adhere to current Ministry guidelines. He expressed concern about lending
support to the decision made by the Greater Essex County DSB in that it may jeopardize the OCDSB's
participation in the process to establish standards for special education services.
The Director suggested that a letter of support be sent to the Greater Essex County DSB when
more information about their situation is known.
In response to a query, Director Grieve noted the Ministry's announcement earlier in the day
including, including an additional $1 million to the OCDSB in Special Education Per Pupil Amount
(SEPPA) funding, and $10 million across the province for English as a Second Language program. He
explained that while the additional funding will not have a significant impact on the proposed 2000 -2001
budget, he was pleased to report that the Ministry has released approximately $13.5 million in Education
Development Charge (EDC) funds. The OCDSB can now proceed with the building of at least two new
schools.
Jane Berman moved in amendment THAT the OCDSB Special Education Advisory Committee
send a letter to the Greater Essex County DSB, copied to the Greater Essex County DSB Special Education
Advisory Committee, to express support for its decision to submit a 2000 -2001 deficit budget.
Nora Ann McKibbon accepted this as a friendly amendment.
Some members noted that while they were unable to support what may be an illegal action on the
part of the Greater Essex County DSB, they did appreciate the difficult financial situation facing the school
board.
Lamar Mason moved in amendment THAT SEAC send a letter to the Greater Essex County DSB
SEAC to express its shared concerns for the inadequacy of provincial funding to meet the needs of all
students.
Members who supported the amendment noted the importance of offering support to the Greater
Essex County DSB.
Members who opposed the amendment noted that a half - hearted gesture of support would be a
poor reflection on the OCDSB and SEAC.
The amendment was defeated.
The motion, as amended, was carried.
Debi Kirwan moved as follows:
WHEREAS students with developmental disabilities and/or autism require consistency and
continuity;
WHEREAS for this population the Summer Learning Program is an essential part of the learning
process and should be considered the eleventh month of the school year; and
WHEREAS there is a recognition on the part of the OCDSB to reduce its costs;
Special Education Advisory Committee -4- 9 March 2000
9:6.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,
THAT SEAC express its support for the necessity of this program.
The motion was carried.
Following the distribution of the sub - committee's report, including outlines of the proposed
written and oral presentations to the March 20 Committee of the Whole (Budget), the Chair called a 15-
minute recess to allow the members an opportunity to review the material.
** 15- minute recess **
Jane Berman provided a brief overview of the planned- presentation, which will include a brief
description of the associations, SEAC's mission statement, concerns about the SELC model, and a detailed
explanation of the motions contained in the SEAC reports. She explained that SEAC will submit written
materials to the Board, as well as making their oral presentation, which will be supported by information
presented via overhead projection.
The members engaged in a detailed discussion about the presentation outlines and the following
points were made:
The prioritization of the motions in the presentation is very important, including the
presentation of the centres of excellence motion first. The supporting statements about the
centres of excellence should address, as much as possible, issues regarding the anticipated
mixture of similar age groups in one centre, the percentage of time that exceptional students
would be integrated into the regular classroom, staffing reallocation, timelines for
implementation, and the number and location of the centres.
• Association representatives expressed willingness to work with staff in the research,
implementation and evaluation of their proposal. They reiterated their belief that the current
model does not meet the needs of students and teachers.
• Some members noted that SEAC, in its role as an advisory committee, has accomplished its
mandate by presenting to the Board a number of constructive ideas that could address some of
the strong concerns expressed by stakeholders, teachers about the inadequacies of the current
special education model.
Director Grieve emphasized the importance of presenting as much information as possible to
trustees, including the proposed model's impact on the current model and SEAC's predictions of how the
centres of excellence will weather the funding cuts over the next three years. He also suggested that the
presenters refer to the fact that centres of excellence for exceptional students with high level needs already
exist in the system, at Featherston, Clifford Bowey and Crystal Bay.
The Director described the centres of excellence concept as a hybrid of the current delivery model
and noted the possibility of incorporating some of the ideas into the staff proposed model, while adhering
to budgetary restrictions. He also noted that the current model, still in the development stage, will be
adjusting to the loss of $8 million in another year.
In response to a trustee's expressed concerns that the centres of excellence motion will be
presented too late to have an impact on the 2000 -2001 budget process, some members noted that, while
they understood that implementation of the proposal is unlikely this year, they want the Board to engage in
a discussion of the concept and approve the motion in principle. They pointed out the benefit of conducting
a pilot study and noted that issues related to timelines and implementation can be addressed at a later date.
The members expressed appreciation to Myrna Laurenceson and Lamar Mason for agreeing to
make the presentation to the Committee of the Whole (Budget) on 20 March 2000.
Special Education Advisory Committee -5- 9 March 2000
EnTm
Fen
4. Finalization of 20 March 2000 SEAC Presentation to the Board
Nancy Myers moved,
THAT the Sub - Committee proceed with the preparation of the presentation, based upon the two
outlines presented to the Committee, and that a draft version of the presentation be circulated to
members prior to the presentation to the Committee of the Whole (Budget) on 20 March 2000.
The motion was carried.
5. New Business
Debi Kirwan referred to the recent school closure process decision made by the Board and asked if
Clifford Bowey and Crystal Bay will be exempt from the process until after the 2000 -2001 developmental
disabilities/secondary school special education review has been completed. Director Grieve agreed to
provide information at a later date.
Principal McAlister noted that the Ministry of Education regional representatives provided in
service earlier today regarding the revised Intensive Support Amount (ISA) funding handbook. She also
noted that the while the current funding levels have been guaranteed for 2000 -2001, there are a few
changes to the process, including:
• The guidelines apply only to those students who are currently enrolled.
• ISA funding is assigned to the school board, not to specific students.
• The Ministry emphasized that there is now one funding envelope that contains both SEPPA
and ISA funding.
Principal McAlister explained that the guidelines still require prerequisite profiles that will be
matched to student profiles.
Casey van der Grient pointed out that all autistic children would be ineligible for ISA 3 funding,
under the revised guidelines. Principal McAlister responded that this issue will be addressed.
Nancy Myers requested information regarding the number of students who are no longer eligible
for ISA funding due to the changes in ISA funding criteria.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Myrna Laurenceson, Co -Chair
Special Education Advisory Committee
kyminsO9mar00.doc
Special Education Advisory Committee -6- 9 March 2000