Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 Education Report 6, 26 May 19984-15- OTTAW A- CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD REPORT NO. 6, EDUCATION COMMITTEE TO: Board of Education DATE: 26 May 1998 A meeting of the Education Committee was held this evening commencing at 7:30 pm in the Board Room, 133 Greenbank Road, Nepean, with Trustee Chambers in the Chair, and the following in attendance: MEMBERS: Trustees Alex Getty, Patty Anne Hill, and Lynn Scott ALSO PRESENT: Trustee Lynn Graham STAFF: Barbara Stollery, Superintendent of Program & Information Technology Lorne Rachlis, Superintendent of School Operations Judith Hoye, Superintendent of School Services Ann Houlden, Principal, Sir Guy Carleton Secondary School Katie Jarvis, Principal, Laurentian High School John Patton, Principal, McArthur High School Angie Spence, Principal, Educational Services Norm Smith, Audio - Visual Technician Brenda Cooper, Committee Coordinator REPRESENTATIVES: Diana Gauthier, Ottawa - Carleton Elementary Vice - Principals Association Terry Leung, Ottawa - Carleton Assembly of School Councils Nancy Murdock, Ottawa - Carleton Secondary School Administrators Network Jean Traynor, Co -Chair of the Special Education Advisory Committee, was also in attendance. 1. Call to Order The Chair called the meeting to order, and the trustees, staff and non - voting representatives introduced themselves. Approval of Agenda On a motion by Trustee Getty, the agenda was approved subject to adding a discussion of education credits for participation in the Central Choir (reference item 3 below). 3. Public Ouestion Period - Ian Scott, Central Choir Ian Scott of the Central Choir thanked trustees for the vote of confidence demonstrated in the $25,0000 grant to the Choir, which was approved at the Board meeting the previous evening. He recalled Chair Scott's request that the question of developing guidelines for education credits for participation in the choir be considered at this evening's meeting. Education Committee - 1 - 26 May 1998 Mr. Scott noted that the Choir has a good handle on the music criteria, but needs assistance with drafting the educational criteria, and with steering the program through the Ministry of Education and Training. Trustee Graham suggested that the soon- to -be- established Arts Advisory Committee would be most helpful, and that the Choir ask them to become involved. Superintendent Stollery agreed with this idea, and suggested the draft curriculum be forwarded to the AAC. Trustee Hill noted that a new qualifier was added to the grant this year, i.e., that every effort be made to accommodate disadvantaged children. She pointed out how difficult it is for low income children to participate, and asked if they will receive help with transportation, etc. Mr. Scott advised that no child would be denied participation because of financial hardship, and noted that carpooling is used to transport students from the outlying areas. Students in the core have less difficulty. He also noted that the Choir could use some assistance in making carpooling arrangements and for children at remote schools. Mr. Scott will provide the Board with a list of the schools attended by members of the Central Choir. 4. Centennial Public School Special Olvmpics. Vid Chair Chambers welcome Principal Patricia Orme and teacher Dorothy Gray of Centennial Public School. Ms Orme reported that it is a pleasure to serve both regular school children and ten special classes, including orthopaedic students, at Centennial. In her introduction to a video of the special olympics held at the school recently, Ms Orme noted that this activity is not only fun for the children, but teaches them about good sportsmanship, sharing, and other life skills they will need as they get older. Most importantly, it can be seen from the great joy in their faces that they gain a sense of accomplishment and a boost to their self esteem. Ms Orme suggested that viewers watch how school staff were involved in the special olympics, sometimes acting as the children's eyes, arms, and legs, as well as their cheering sections and coaches. The video had no text, but used Queen's We are the Champions to effectively convey its message about the value of the special olympics at Centennial. The members joined the Chair in thanking Ms Orme and Ms Gray for providing a window into the world of these exceptional children. Delegation. McArthur High School Council Elaine Murphy Elaine Murphy, Chair of the McArthur High School Council, read a letter from Keenan Wellar of the Special Needs Network regarding the value of the specialized vocational and life skills programming at the secondary level, especially as it pertains to the developmentally delayed (note: the letter was distributed with the agenda). In response to queries, Ms Murphy advised that although the letter was mainly about the developmentally delayed, the Council is equally concerned about programs for basic level students, and wishes to see them preserved. She estimated that about half the population at McArthur has been EFRC'd, including some of the basic level students. Education Committee - 2 - 26 May 1998 Trustee Scott observed that vocational programs are not special education programs, and that these students may be gifted in non - academic ways, and are known to have different learning styles. As secondary school reform is implemented it will be important to preserve vocational programs. 6. Receipt of Special Education Advisory Committee Report 6 May On a motion by Trustee Hill, your Committee received Report No. 6 from the Special Education Advisory Committee, dated 6 May 1998. It was noted that the recommendations in the report were addressed at the 11 May 1998 Board meeting. The first, regarding the reinstatement of special education positions, was referred to the Budget Committee. The second, regarding funding for summer programs for the developmentally disabled and autistic, was adopted by the Board (Board minute 198 -98 refers). On a motion by Trustee Hill, your Committee recommends: THAT THE BOARD RECEIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 6 DATED 6 MAY 1998 (APPENDIX A). 7. New Policy: Education /Business Links: (Partnerships, Sponsorships. Donations. and Cooperative VenturesL Your Committee had before it for consideration staff report 98 -160 seeking approval of a proposed new policy regarding education /business links. With the report were the accompanying business /education procedures and an extract from the 12 May 1998 Business Services Committee report summarizing the members' response to the proposed policy. Superintendent Stollery briefly reviewed the policy and procedure, and recalled that this had been done at the Business Services Committee too. She reported that the York Region school boards have now engaged a consultant to determine how advertising can be made more profitable. Terry Leung reported that since the Business Services Committee meeting and the initial input from their executive, the Ottawa- Carleton Assembly of School Councils discussed the proposed policy and procedures at the OCASC meeting on 21 May 1998. As a result, the Assembly is strongly opposed to advertising on school buses, particularly commercial messages, and very concerned about opening the door to all manner of advertising. OCASC suggests that the OCDSB needs to have a broader discussion of the question in a philosophical context. The assembly requests that paragraph 3.7 be deleted from the policy, and paragraph 4.8 from the procedure. Mr. Leung emphasized, however, that OCASC does not wish to see any of the current practices changed. That is they do not want to see a prohibition on school fundraising activities which may include some commercial signage, e.g., hot dogs donated by Smith's Grocers, or prizes donated by The Old Gift Shop. In the same vein, they do not want to impede sponsorship arrangements which may include banners, hats and jackets which name a commercial sponsor. Trustees were concerned that the question of sponsorships and fundraising will become a gray area if advertising is not permitted, and felt that advertising needs to be better defined to avoid such problems. Education Committee - 3 - 26 May 1998 Trustee Getty moved the recommendation in the staff report. Trustee Hill moved in amendment THAT paragraph 3.7 be removed. A sub - amendment by Trustee Graham, that only the reference to advertising on school buses be removed, was ruled hostile. The amendment was defeated. * * * * Trustee Getty assumed the Chair* * * * Trustee Chambers stated that while he understands the concerns about advertising, if that is put aside, the policy is a framework to build relationships with the community. He believes that the most important section is partnerships, and noted that there are a number of areas where the Board will likely be seeking partners to help sustain programs, e.g., outdoor education and adult education. He also noted that the Central Choir could benefit from a partnership or sponsorship. He suggested that decision - making on issues like these is best when priorities have been established, and when it is known what must be achieved, and the roles, timing and direction to be taken. He raised the matter of developing an OCDSB strategy in addition to the policy and procedures. * * * * Trustee Chambers resumed the Chair * * * * Trustee Scott moved in amendment THAT the policy be approved with the exception of paragraph 3.7, which is referred to staff for further consultation. In response to queries, Superintendent Stollery advised that there had not been enough time for full consultation with the Student Presidents' Council, although she did have an informal discussion with the co- presidents. It was suggested that more consultation is required with OCASC on other aspects of the policy. Terry Leung advised that the Assembly's only concern is with the advertising section of the policy. Otherwise, the members of OCASC are pleased with the policy, and feel it is well- written and clear. The amendment was carried. Trustee Hill moved in amendment that all references to advertising be removed from the policy. The amendment was carried. The main motion, as amended, was also carried. On a motion by Trustee Getty, therefore, your Committee recommends: THAT BOARD POLICY P.044.GOV, PARTNERSHIPS, SPONSORSHIPS, DONATIONS, AND COOPERATIVE VENTURES, BE APPROVED (APPENDIX B), WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PARAGRAPH 3.7, WHICH IS REFERRED TO STAFF FOR FURTHER CONSULTATION, VIZ: *3.7 Provided that it does not exploit students and is in conformity with the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards, advertising on Board -owned or leased property, and external and /or internal advertising on school buses, shall be permitted in order to offset educational costs. Education Committee -4 - 26 May 1998 4? *This paragraph and all references to advertising have been removed from the attached policy. 8. Secondary Basic Level Credit Program Your Committee had before it for information staff report No. 98 -138 regarding the secondary basic level credit program. The basic level program is delivered to students in three settings, at Laurentian and McArthur High Schools, and at Sir Guy Carleton Secondary School. Superintendent Stollery reported that it was a pleasure to bring information about the programs at the three schools, and introduced principals Ann Houlden (Sir Guy Carleton SS), Katie Jarvis (Laurentian HS), John Patton (McArthur HS), and Angie Spence (Educational Services). She noted her personal interest in these students, having spent many years working with them, and four years as the principal of McArthur. The congregated basic level program at Laurentian serves about 150 students in a regular high school setting, while the students at McArthur and Sir Guy are served in a dedicated setting. The latter sites also house life skills programs for developmentally delayed students. Superintendent Stollery noted that the program is defined in OSIS as focusing on the development of personal skills, social understanding, self confidence, and preparation for the world of work ... The program focused on outcomes, long before such ideas were popular, and while they take different routes, the outcomes are the same. That is, preparation for a successful, independent home and work life, and the ability to be financially responsible, effective in their communications, and to have a healthy and positive attitude. (W She emphasized that the basic level is not a special education program, but because the students have specific needs, special programs to assist them are in place. Because of the emphasis on preparation for the world of work, students in the basic level program spend more time with guidance staff than most students do. In the secondary school reform documents, issues regarding basic level education are not addressed, and school boards have been advised to wait for the curriculum. Superintendent Stollery noted that this uncertainty has prompted great concern among school staff, parents, and senior staff, regarding how students' needs will be met. In addition, a literacy test will now be required to qualify for the Ontario Secondary School Diploma, and some students in the basic level are unlikely to qualify. The mandatory forty hours of community service is also a matter of concern. A lengthy and wide - ranging discussion ensued, during which certain fundamental issues arose, and others were clarified. The following points were noted. The question of IPRC's and grants is linked only when students have identified special needs. Most students in basic level are not IPRC'd (although many were at the elementary level). Generally, the Intensive Support Amount (ISA) grant would not be available to regular basic level students since it is not a modified program. ISA's are to provide educational assistants, psychological services, speech language services, etc., and are available to all the developmentally delayed students in the life skills programs. • Work - oriented basic level programs are highly successful, and the students are in high demand for summer employment and cooperative education placements. Employers are pleased to find them to be honest, dependable and reliable Education Committee - 5 - 26 May 1998 employees, with exceptional work habits. Efforts to track graduates have proven to be difficult, but it is still felt to be worthwhile. • Some students in the basic level program at Laurentian take some general level courses. They require a lot of support. • There is resistance among parents about sending their children to basic level programs. This is tied to past negative images of vocational schools, and to the question of integrated versus congregated program delivery for the basic level. Integration is the Ministry's primary focus in secondary school reform. Because of parental resistance, and teenagers' concerns about not being different, some students who could benefit from basic level programs are in regular high schools at the general level; these students may tend to drop out. Those students who do attend the basic level programs are rewarded with a sense of accomplishment and increased self esteem, often for the first time in their school experience. The greatest success is often with students entering at grade 9. The Chair suggested that the members consider how the basic level programs can be seen as centres of excellence, and noted that they are the best and most appropriate choice for their students. He thanked the principals and staff for identifying areas of concern, and noted that if the new curriculum does not deal with basic level appropriately, it will be necessary to pursue solutions, including sufficient funding to carry smaller basic level classes and adequate support services. 9. Other Information Reports Your Committee noted for information the following staff reports: Secondary School Reform Implementation Update (report 98 -182); Education Quality and Accountability Office Assessments, (a) EQAO French Immersion Results (98 -163) and (b) EQAO Update (memo); Science & Technology JK -8, Inservice for Teachers (98 -181); and Liability Issues, School Council and Community Programs. The Chair advised that the item on liability issues for school councils and community programs had been dealt with at the Board meeting the previous evening. The meeting adjourned at 11:05 pm. Albert Chambers, Chair Education Committee BLC /cb EC/980526 Education Committee - 6 - 26 May 1998 A Plot ry o l -� THE OTTAWA- CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD REPORT NO 6 SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO: Education Committee DATE: 6 May 1998 A meeting of the Special Education Advisory Committee was held this evening in the Trustees' Lounge, 133 Greenbank Road, Nepean, commencing at 9:10 p.m. with Co -Chair Jean Traynor in the Chair and the following in attendance: ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVES: Jane Berman, Association for Bright Children Lynn Best, VOICE for Hearing Impaired Children Gregory Bonnah, Integration Action Group Bob Fraser, Learning Disabilities Association of Ottawa Colleen Hendrick, VIEWS for the Visually Impaired Myrna Laurenceson, Ottawa - Carleton Association for Persons with Developmental Disabilities Nora Ann McKibbon, Epilepsy Ottawa- Carleton Nancy Myers, Ontario Association for Families of Children with Communication Disorders Jack Ruyter, Head Injury Association Jean Traynor, Easter Seal Society _ Linda Turner, Ottawa - Carleton Assembly of School Councils Marian Waldie, Down Syndrome Association COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES: Margaret Hill Debi Kirwan Keenan Wellar STAFF: Judy Turriff, Superintendent of Special Education and Student Services Jim Vair, Superintendent of Human Resources Anna Bowles, Principal of Special Education Terry Laughlin, Chief of Psychology Carol Lithwick, Manager of Special Services Laura McAlister, Principal of Special Education Dan Wiseman, Chief of Social Work Sharon Campbell, Committee Co- ordinator NON - VOTING REPRESENTATIVES: Marilyn Engelbert, Council for Exceptional Children Jacquie Hawken, Ottawa - Carleton Elementary Teachers' Federation Pauline Sellers, Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation Sara Wegner, Professional Student Services Personnel ALSO PRESENT: Shirley Deschamps, Learning Disabilities Association of Ottawa - Carleton, Alternate Judy Smith, Association for Bright Children, Alternate Jean Traynor called the meeting to order at 9:10 p.m. SpecW Education Advisory Conunittee 1 6 May 1998 I�f 6-1, 6�• On a motion by Keenan Wellar, the agenda was approved as presented. Public Ouestion Period There were no questions from the public. Review of Report No. 5. 22 Aril 1998 Your Committee reviewed Report No. 5, dated 22 April 1998. There were no questions or comments. Your Committee had before it Report No. 98 -162, Special Education Work Plans. Superintendent Turriff reviewed the report and noted that the work plans are the result of an effort to harmonize the programs and services for students with special needs from the predecessor boards. The Leadership Team has development a series of work plans to examine all components of the special services /education department. Consideration was given to the beliefs and principles developed by SEAC and staff in the development of the staff - recommended budget. She noted that copies of the minutes from the individual focus groups are available in the public reading room. In response to a query, staff noted that the recommendation regarding the provision of services is intended to indicate that limiting services is not desirable and does not utilize resources effectively. Priorities must be determined and ways to provide the services within those priorities will be developed. Keenan Wellar queried as to where the two programs for pupils with developmental disabilities will be located. Staff noted that there will be one eastern and one western location, however, schools have not been identified. Staff noted that the standardized assessment and approach to the Identification, Placement and Review Committee process were different between the two former boards and will have to be harmonized. An analysis of the two processes will be conducted and, in accordance with the Ontario regulations, a new process will be developed. Greg Bonnah expressed concern that there is no reference in the work plans to programs for integrated students and commented that he will raise this issue at a later date. Your Committee had before it background information on the budget for special education and student services. Superintendent Turriff noted that trustees are in the process of deliberating the staff - recommended budget and that the final budget is anticipated to be approved by the Board at its 25 May 1998 meeting. She commented on the principles used in considering the budget noting that the benefit of the students is the first priority. Staff responded to a number of questions of clarification and the following points were noted during the discussion: All decisions with respect to the delivery, availability and accessibility of programs and services are subject to budget approval. Senior staff are attempting to ensure that there is a continuum of services in each area in the harmonization of these programs. Special Education Advisory Committee 2 6 May 1998 (—,V) S� * Judy Smith requested information, in writing, on the differences between the former Ottawa and Carleton Boards' gifted programs and screening processes. Staff noted that they intend to equate the measures used to determine eligibility for the gifted programs and harmonize the accessibility. * Greg Bonnah expressed concern that it could be perceived that parents may be forced to choose a segregated program in order to receive the appropriate level of services. * Pauline Sellers commented on the reduction in the Special Education Resource Unit staff. Superintendent Turriff noted that the proposal provides for one full -time Special Education Resource Teacher in each secondary school and .5 in each elementary school. In response to a request by Judy Smith regarding the reduction of SERI support, staff will seek clarification on the percentage reduction in this area. * Debbie Kirwan expressed concern with the proposed reduction in staff at the Clifford Bowey School and the possibility of the elimination or reduction of the kitchen life skills and music programs.. She expressed the viewpoint that the programs are essential and that parent chose the school because of the lower teacher to student ratio. Staff noted that a number of options are being considered and that attempts will be made to minimize the impact of the proposed changes as much as possible. Sara Wegner provided statistics compiled by the Professional Student Services Personnel group with respect to the number of students serviced through the social work, psychology and speech /language pathology disciplines and the impact of the proposed reductions. Bob Fraser suggested that the Committee make a recommendation to the Board that the proposed budget is unacceptable to the Special Education Advisory Committee as it represents a significant reduction in the level of support and the ability to address the concerns of the special needs communities adequately. He commented that this concern should also be related to the Ministry of Education and Training. Superintendent Turriff reviewed the Special Education funding noting that there was a $16 million shortfall in the funding allocation from the current level. Recognizing the importance of special education, staff have tried to address this shortfall by allocating funds from other funding envelopes. Staff have also met with MOST officials regarding the Intensive Support Amount (ISA) grant applications to ensure that the applications are completed properly. Myrna Laurenceson requested that the specialized programs and sites be referred to as such rather than as segregated programs. In her opinion, the reference to segregated sites has a negative connotation and may imply a second class program which is not the case. She commented on the need to maintain the summer learning pro- gram as an integral program for those students. Marian Waldie suggested that SEAC could assist in the tracking of students who are eligible for ISA grant to ensure that as much funding as possible is received. Jane Berman noted that SEAC can send their comments with respect to the budget to her attention as the budget observer. * * *On a motion by Myrna Laurenceson, the Committee agreed to continue beyond 11:00 p.m. * ** Special Education Advisory Cornrrdttee 3 6 May 1998 5� The Committee reviewed the organizational chart for the Program, Special Education and Information Technology department being proposed in the staff - recommended budget. Superintendent Turriff noted that a reduction in the number of superintendents resulted in the combination of the special services/ students services and program/ information technology portfolios. Nancy Myers suggested that additional reductions in central administration need to be considered in order to reinstate essential special services and programs and professional services for special needs students. She moved the following: WHEREAS the new education funding model is not supposed to negatively impact students; WHEREAS given the proposed approximately 25% reduction in speech /language pathology services, there is a potential that approximately 1000 students will not receive the current level of services and similar reductions will result in the social work and psychology disciplines; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board examine ways to reinstate all student services and professional services positions. Staff were asked to verify the number of students who would not receive service under the proposed budget and include that information in the report to the Board. Staff noted that they are in the process of harmonizing the exemplary programs and services provided within the predecessor boards and a harmonized delivery model will be developed consistent with past practice, guiding principles and approved expenditures. The motion was carried unanimously, viz: WHEREAS the new education funding model is not intended to negatively impact students; WHEREAS given the proposed approximately 25% reduction in speech /language pathology services, there is a potential that approximately 1000* students will not receive the current level of services; WHEREAS, similarly, the proposed reductions of approximately 25% in psychological services may result in 1755* students not receiving comparable one-on -one levels of direct service; WHEREAS this reduction represents 1100* students who may not benefit from the services currently provided within the social services discipline; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board examine ways to reinstate all student services and professional services positions. *PLEASE NOTE: These numbers are based on a merged statistical analysis (1996 -97) from both former boards and it is important to note that the collection of this data reflects the compilation of distinct statistical methodologies. Staff are in the process of harmonizing the exemplary programs and services provided within the context of these three disciplines and the creation of a harmonized delivery model will be articulated and implemented consistent with past practice, guiding principles and approved expenditures. Special ucation Advisory Committee 4 6 May 1998 Myrna Laurenceson moved: THAT the Board make every effort to ensure that appropriate funding is provided by the Ministry of Education and Training, including transportation and support costs, for the Summer Learning Program for Pupils with Developmental Disabilities and Autism. The motion was carved unanimously. (Please note these motions were addressed at the 11 May 1998 Board meeting. The first motion was referred to the Budget Committee and the second was adopted by the Board.) 7. New Business In response to a query, staff noted that the letter to the Minister of Education and Training expressing SEAC's concerns with respect to Special Education funding will be finalized and mailed this week. The meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m. Jean Traynor Co -Chair Special Education Advisory Committee 980522/sc SpecW Education Advisory C ommittee 5 6 May 1998 OTTAWA - CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD 6 POLICY P.044.GOV TITLE: PARTNERSHIPS, SPONSORSHIPS, DONATIONS, AND CO- OPERATIVE VENTURES Date issued: Revised: Authorization: Board Next review: 06/2001 1.0 OBJECTIVE To govern Ottawa - Carleton District School Board education - business relationships involving partnerships, sponsorships, donations, and co- operative ventures. 2.0 POLICY 2.1 _- The Board supports the development of sustainable education - business relationships between the Board, its schools, and the community, and encourages community groups, businesses, corporations, labour groups, civic organizations, industries, government agencies, colleges, universities, and others to join in developing education- business relationships with the Board and /or its schools and associations. 2.2 To ensure that these relationships produce measurable benefits for students, commitment from all parties and time and energy on the part of staff are required. The commitments made by the Board and /or schools and associations in return for these benefits shall be consistent with the Board's educational values, beliefs, policies and procedures, and with good business practice. 3.0 SPECIFIC DIRECTIVES 3.1 The Conference Board of Canada's Ethical Guidelines for Business - Education Partnerships shall be followed. 3.2 Education business relationships shall be designed to support the curriculum, enhance the quality and relevance of learning, and relevant to the Board's desired educational outcomes. 3.3 Where financial considerations are involved as a result of education - business relationships, revenue opportunities for the Board /school /association shall be optimized. 3.4 Where a donor voluntarily gives a donation, he /she may receive appropriate public acknowledgment and, where applicable, a receipt for tax purposes. Donations may be in the form of cash, goods, or services. All donations shall become the property of the Board and remain under the Board's control. C57. 3.5 Where the Board is approached by organizations to participate in education business ventures that will involve co-development of products or services related to education, it is expected that these products/ services will be marketable and hence generate revenue. 3.6 Any direct involvement by students in a workplace setting shall be for reasons that are educationally relevant and consistent with principles governing Co- operative Education. 3.7 The Director of Education is authorized to issue such procedures as may be necessary to implement this policy. 4.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS Education Act, as amended, Section X Ethical Guidelines for Business - Education Partnerships, 1995: The Conference Board of Canada Board Policy P.000.XXX: Fundraising Board Procedure PR.535.GOV: Partnerships, Sponsorships, Donations and Co- operative Ventures PI P7