HomeMy WebLinkAbout09c Delegation Cynthia Pohran re Special Education Delivery and OCDSB BudgetOTTAWA- CARLETON ASSEMBLY OF SCHOOL COUNCILS
DELEGATION TO THE BOARD
DATE: Tuesday, March 28, 2000
TOPIC: OCASC Position with regard to Special Education Delivery and the
OCDSB Budget 2000/2001
Presenters: Cynthia Pohran - Chair of OCASC, Lamar Mason — OCASC
Representative on SEAC and Chair of the OCASC Special Education Committee
The presentation will strongly urge Trustees to REJECT the proposed further
implementation of the Special Education Delivery Model for 2000 -2001 and MAINTAIN
all specialized classes for exceptional students that existed in 1999 -2000. This request is
made until such time as a thorough analysis can be done of the impact on student learning
of implementation of the staff - proposed Special Education Delivery Model.
Although the arguments for this request will be sufficiently developed in the upcoming
presentation, Trustees will note that the OCASC recommendation and position is
BUDGET NEUTRAL. It simply asks the Board not to disburse the current congregated
classroom teachers, but rather MAINTAIN their assignment. The staff - recommended
decrease in Special Education for $1.6M would not be affected based on the OCASC
recommendation.
In addition, the Assembly members strongly recommend the Board take immediate action
to request all schools identify those students who are waiting to receive Special
Education services and/or assessments regarding their academic requirements. The
Assembly members also recommend that these waiting lists be compiled centrally so that
the OCDSB can accurately determine the extent of its Special Education service needs.
The OCASC position on the Special Education Delivery Model has been established with
a strong majority vote on a motion brought forward by the OCASC Special Education
Committee by the direction of Assembly members on the March 9, 2000 general meeting.
Assembly members identified Special Education as the third most important priority for
the OCASC in October 1999. Our members and their school communities are not
unfamiliar with this subject. Their children, along with their educators, live with the
reality of the Special Education Delivery Model outcomes and impacts within the
classroom on a daily basis. The OCASC recommendations on the Special Education
Delivery Model were framed within the following context:
I. The members of OCASC believe that the OCDSB does not have sufficient
evidence to determine the impact to date of the new Special Education Delivery
Model on the learning of exceptional students and students in the regular
classroom as a result of increased integration of exceptional students; and
II. The OCDSB Report 00 -058 clearly indicates that the teachers assigned to ensure
the success of this new model in terms of the educational outcomes of students are
experiencing significant difficulties.
The motion was also presented with an introduction from the OCASC Special Education
Committee Chair and SEAC Representative, Lamar Mason, in order to give members
further information upon which to base their debate and vote. Information was also
provided at the March 9 OCASC meeting.
The following voting procedure was outlined and adhered to by members. The approval
of the procedure is identified by the fact that absolutely no school council member raised
an objection to the procedure regardless of the vote cast.
OCASC e-mail voting procedure for motion on Special Education Delivery Model:
a) a quorum of responses (i.e. in favour, against, or abstentions) were received by
unique school councils prior to the deadline (Thursday, March 23, prior to or by
noon)
b) school council representatives identified themselves by replying with:
• his/her name;
• the name of his/her school council; and
• his/her vote (i.e. IN FAVOUR, AGAINST, ABSTENTION)
PLEASE NOTE: The abstention vote was just as necessary in this "virtual" meeting in
order to determine quorum, but will not be addressed in this presentation.
c) NO school council member in good standing objected to the identified process.
School council members followed these procedures and the results have been published
on the School Council Bulletin Board on BEAM for utmost transparency with the Board.
The final vote was 75 "IN FAVOUR" of the OCASC motion and 1 "AGAINST ". This
result is clearly among our strongest positions and sends a clear message to the Board.
We would also ask the Trustees to consider that the result was provided within four and a
half days (i.e. Sunday night to Thursday noon) with many school councils undertaking
further telephone consultation and/or holding special "emergency" school council
meetings. (N.B. In addition, school council members were assured that their views would
be represented if received prior to Monday, March 27 noon and school councils are still
responding.)
Although the e-mail procedure precluded debate, it did not eliminate the opportunity to
ask questions and receive answers to those questions. School council members have
asked questions and consulted with school council members and/or the community as to
the needs of exceptional students and the current challenges of the increasing dismantling
of the current delivery model in the many months preceding the presentation of this
formal motion. Many school council members offered additional comments and/or
insight to their individual school community situation and/or position. Many of these
points will also be brought forward during the presentation.