HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 Education Report 3, 10 Mar 1998OTTAW A- CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
TO: Board of Education
REPORT NO. 3, EDUCATION COMMITTEE
DATE: 10 March 1998
/O.
A meeting of the Education Committee was held this evening commencing at 7:30 pm in the
Trustees' Committee Room, 133 Greenbank Road, Nepean, with Trustee Chambers in the Chair, and the
following in attendance:
MEMBERS: Trustees Patty Anne Hill, Norm MacDonald, and Lynn Scott
ALSO PRESENT: Trustee Sheryl MacDonald
STAFF: Carola Lane, Director of Education /Secretary of the Board
Lome Rachlis, Superintendent of School Operations
Barbara Stollery, Superintendent of Program & Information Technology
John Brennan, Superintendent of School Services
Judy Turriff, Superintendent of Special Education & Student Services
Marjorie Clegg, Program Evaluation Officer
Phil Dawes, Senior Planner
Pamela Gemmell, Acting Manager of Curriculum Services
Dennis Murphy, Principal, Adult Day School Programs /Alternate Programs
Robert Powell, Principal of Curriculum Services
Jill Doherty, ESL and ESD, Secondary Coordinator
John McKinven, ESL and ESD, Elementary Coordinator
Roxanne Parent, Curriculum Resource Teacher, French Programs
Brenda Cooper, Committee Coordinator
REPRESENTATIVES: Janet Fader, Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation
Lisa Falls, Ottawa - Carleton Elementary Teachers' Federation
Terry Leung, Ottawa - Carleton Assembly of School Councils
Sprague Plato, Ottawa - Carleton Elementary Principals Association
Angie Spence, Ottawa - Carleton Secondary School Administrators Network
Approval of Agenda
On a motion by Trustee Norm MacDonald, the agenda was approved as presented.
� �_ :11Wei M 1 qT$71T 0TOTITT-1
There were no questions from the public.
�� - • S Ali c._ • _d. 1. - 1 _ . ! - I _ M
Spokesperson Nancy Douglas introduced the executive members of the Ottawa - Carleton Inner
City Education Association (OCICEA) who were in attendance: President Julie Tuepah, Principal of St.
Francis of Assisi School; 1st Vice - President Hazel Lambert, Principal of Jean Vanier Intermediate
School; Secretary Barbara Wright, Principal of Cambridge School; and Directors JoAnn Cooke, Social
Worker OCDSB, Torry Hansson, Principal of Emily Carr Middle School; Harriet Lang, former OBE
trustee; Nancy Murdock, Vice - Principal of Woodroffe High School; and Sprague Plato, Principal of
Charles H. Hulse School. Ms Douglas, the Principal of Connaught School, is the Association's 2nd
Vice - President.
Education Committee - 1 - 10 March 1998
. Ms Douglas pointed out that poor children live in all areas of the region, not just downtown, so
the name "inner city" is not particularly applicable here. The members want the communication and
support offered by the Canadian Council for Inner City Education, however, and by using the "inner
city" name have benefited from collaboration with groups from across Canada. The membership in
OCICEA is spread amongst all the local school boards, and includes educators and other interested
people.
Ms Douglas outlined the Association's goals. The first goal is to advocate equity of learning
opportunities and outcomes for economically disadvantaged children; the second is to promote forums
for partnerships and ongoing communication among educators of poor children; and the third is to
provide professional development for teachers of poor and at -risk children.
To meet these goals, the Association has undertaken a broad range of activities, from
supporting breakfast programs in collaboration with the United Way, food banks, and the Ottawa -
Carleton Community Foundation, to organizing a successful conference which attracted teachers from
this region and from Montreal. Networking among the teachers of these high risk students provides
effective support.
The Association asked that during its budget deliberations, the Board reflect on disadvantaged
students who cannot speak for themselves, and urged that limited resources continue to be distributed
equitably, keeping in mind that some children need more resources than others in order to be given a
chance at equality. Poor children depend on their schools more than any other group in the community,
and the members of OCICEA hope they can support the Board in building an education system that
helps all students, including the most needy.
In response to queries, Ms Douglas confirmed that trustees are most welcome at OCICEA
meetings, but there is no formal partnership with any of the local boards. The association will be
making similar presentations at the other area boards. Superintendent Stollery noted that there is a
link with the Ottawa - Carleton Centre for Research and Innovation (formerly the Ottawa- Carleton
Learning Foundation). The Chair thanked the Association members for their presentation, and noted
that in working to help economically disadvantaged children break the bonds of poverty, they are
helping meet an important objective of public education.
4. Receipt of 5}2ecial Education Advisory Committee Reports:
On a motion by Trustee Hill, your Committee received the following reports from the Special
Education Advisory Committee: Report No. 1, dated 18 February 1998; Report No. 2, dated 3 March
1998; and Report No. 3, dated 5 March 1998.
The Chair noted that the Education Committee may comment on recommendations from SEAC,
but the recommendations must go to the Board unchanged. It was noted that SEAC Report No. 1 contains
the following recommendations: (a) Action Plan for Creation of Comprehensive Plan; and (b) Action
Plan for study of Specialized Schools and Programs. There were no recommendations in SEAC Report
No. 2, and the recommendations in SEAC Report No. 3 were dealt with at 9 March 1998 Board meeting.
On a motion by Trustee Hill, your Committee recommends:
THAT THE BOARD RECEIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT
NO. 1 DATED 18 FEBRUARY 1998 (ANNEX 1); REPORT NO.2 DATED 3 MARCH 1998
(ANNEX 2); AND REPORT NO.3 DATED 5 MARCH 1998 (ANNEX 3).
Education Committee - 2 - 10 March 1998
/2?.
5. - Information_ R
The Chair remarked that the information reports being presented at this meeting, and in the
coming months, will give trustees a good understanding of the issues as these matters come up for debate
during the budget deliberations. He also noted that a special information meeting has been scheduled
for Monday, 30 March.
Trustees were highly complimentary about all of the reports, citing them as succinct and well
organized in their presentation of complex information. They thanked staff for their hard work and
the evidence of collaborative efforts which preceded the formation of the new Board.
6. Status Report Junior Kindergarten Progrm
Your Committee had before it for information staff report No. 98 -29 providing trustees with an
overview of the main issues surrounding the delivery of junior kindergarten. The report also provided
pedagogical, financial and demographic information, and five possible options regarding the program.
Superintendent Stollery briefly introduced the report, emphasizing that all the information is
preliminary, and meant only to provide an overview of the issues associated with the implementation
of junior kindergarten. An accurate projection of the costs and /or savings requires the provincial funding
model, the harmonization of collective agreements, a review of space and portable requirements, and
the harmonization of transportation entitlements.
The options examined are:
(a) Extend junior kindergarten throughout the district using certificated teachers;
(b) Offer junior kindergarten throughout the district using early childhood educators (this
would require Ministry of Education and Training approval, and possible negotiation
with the elementary federation on regulatory change);
(c) Offer targeted junior kindergarten in selected schools only; the criteria for admission
are to be established, but the objective would be serving high risk children (i.e., the
Saskatchewan model, reference Appendix B in staff report 98 -29);
(d) Offer full day /alternate day junior kindergarten throughout the district (this reduces
transportation costs over the half day /every day program); and
(e) Cancel the junior kindergarten program throughout the district.
During a wide - ranging discussion, a number of clarifications were provided by staff. It was
noted that the former Ottawa Board provides a French immersion program for its junior kindergarten
students, but the former Carleton Board always offered its EFI program beginning in senior
kindergarten.
With respect to Dr. Robert Coplan's preliminary findings regarding student outcomes in the
OBE's differentiated staffing JK pilot project, staff will follow up to determine whether there is
additional North American research on this topic. Previous reports will be provided to trustees, and it
is hoped that there will be an interim report in April regarding this year's research
The current JK program includes some classes which are combined with senior kindergarten.
The Saskatchewan model mixes 3, 4, and 5 -year olds. It has been found that mixed classes provide some
advantages for younger children with advanced learning skills.
Education Committee -3- 10 March 1998
13,
In response to a query about the readiness of students entering senior kindergarten from daycare
versus those entering from junior kindergarten, it was pointed out that this would be most difficult to
quantify as "daycare" covers such a wide spectrum. Furthermore, daycare is not an education program,
whereas junior kindergarten is. Early childhood education graduates need training and ongoing support
in the provision of junior kindergarten.
A ratio of twenty -five students to one teacher was used in the calculation of space needs and
other costs, with ECE wage and benefit costs calculated at $35,000. Staff confirmed that junior
kindergarten students would be placed in appropriate classroom space, and any students displaced by
their arrival would be housed in portable classrooms. Staff advised that during this preliminary
investigation, it has been assumed that there is adequate kindergarten space in the system.
In response to a concern about the need for research on any learning differences between the
every day /half day versus the all day /alternate day programs, it was confirmed that this was of some
concern to CBE parents, especially when there were long gaps due to PA days, etc. Staff will determine
whether there is any research on this issue.
In response to Trustee Hill's suggestion that where there is inadequate space, the Board explore
housing JK classes within high -tech companies, the members noted that such creative solutions may
require further examination in the coming months.
The Chair thanked staff for the report, and noted that future reports should include
information on the impact of the five options on the Board's surplus space.
7. French Immersion Entry Points
Your Committee had before it for information staff report No. 98-65 regarding French immersion
entry points. Superintendent Stollery remarked that this had been a difficult report to prepare in view
of the number of unknowns, including the harmonization of programs and attendance boundaries.
Superintendent Stollery briefly reviewed the report, and noted the summary of research, with its
emphasis on entry points. The report also included the rationale for the programs adopted by the
predecessor boards.
Previously, staff had considerable discussion about whether to continue or eliminate the
middle French immersion program (MFI). Concomitant issues include the future of the junior
kindergarten program, community versus satellite schools, transportation, school closures, etc. It is
proposed that there be community consultation about two potential options: to continue and expand the
MFI program in 1999, or to eliminate it. Extended core French programs can also be examined at this
time.
Staff emphasized that they are not suggesting the elimination of MFI. Although it is only
located in three schools, it is an excellent program, and the students like it very much. Superintendent
Stollery pointed out that for the most part, parents choose EFI, parents and students choose MFI, and
students choose LFI. The 'best" immersion entry point is hotly debated, although there is a general
belief that the earlier and the longer the program, the better. Research by the predecessor boards will
be made available to trustees.
In response to a query about whether pupils who withdraw from the early French immersion
program (EFI) take advantage of the opportunity to re -enrol in the late French immersion program,
staff do not have statistics on this, but doubt that it is common. It was noted that "dropouts" from EFI
often have a delay in their first language skills, so this could discourage them from additional second
language study.
tctucation committee -4- 10 March 1998
It was requested that an observation in the report about rural preferences vis -a -vis immersion
programs be removed from future reports as it is an inaccurate and out of date opinion. Trustees noted
that rural communities have worked long and hard for early immersion in their areas, and that the
ensuing enrolment reflects the program's popularity.
Staff advised that immersion programs at the secondary level will-be examined in concert with
secondary school restructuring.
With respect to special education in French immersion programs, resource support is provided to
students who require it.
Superintendent Stollery responded to a query about whether there could be just one entry point.
She recalled that both predecessor boards had begun with only one entry point (EFI), and added one or
more later in response to the needs of the community. Society is highly mobile, and parents moving into
the area did not want their children to miss the opportunity to enrol in an immersion program because
they were not here for the EFI entry point. In addition, some parents requested a later entry point
because they wanted their children to get a solid grounding in English before tackling a second
language.
The principal difference in operating French immersion programs versus regular English /core
French programs is the cost of transportation. Staff will examine whether there are other costs, and
will respond further if there are any significant differences.
The Chair reiterated an earlier request for a Board -wide map showing the location of
programs.
(W 8. ESL/ESD (English as A Second Languagg /English Skills Development)
Your Committee had before it for information staff report No. 98-66, with an overview of
English as a second language (ESL) and English skills development (ESD) program delivery in the
predecessor boards, guiding principles for the development of strong OCDSB delivery models for these
programs, and the unresolved issues and proposed options to address them.
Superintendent Stollery reported that an amalgamation planning committee has been
examining ESL /ESD since mid -1997, and thanked them for their work, particularly in the formulation
of the guidelines. The guidelines are based on a review of best practices in the predecessor boards and
across the province. Since funding for ESL and ESD is still not known, the proposed delivery model is
based on assumptions and 'best guesses ", and on continuation of the welcome centre concept.
The suggested guidelines for OCDSB elementary and secondary ESL and ESD programs are as
follows:
(a) The ESL and ESD programs should be staffed and delivered separately.
(b) The ESL and ESD delivery model should incorporate both congregated classes and
withdrawal approaches.
(c) A community school model with flexibility of staffing is required to address the needs
of schools with small ESL populations.
(d) There should be continuous intake.
(e) There should be clear criteria for placement into ESL and ESD programs.
(f) The development of an integration continuum will allow for a variety of integration
experiences.
(g) Placement in ESL and ESD classes should be age appropriate for all students.
Education Committee -5- 10 March 1998
/6-
With respect to the staffing flexibility in guideline (c), staff clarified that it is necessary to
have flexibility to avoid a "one size fits all" model because the ESL and ESD populations are
sometimes widely scattered, and sometimes found in large numbers. Flexibility need not cost more than
staff allocations by a formula.
Staff briefly discussed the difference between the inner city and suburban/rural ESL /ESD
populations. Elementary principals' representative Sprague Plato reported that his school has 428
ESL students in a 600 -pupil school. He estimates that 80 -90% of new immigrants to this area are
within the former OBE's boundaries, and pointed out that new immigrants are often financially
disadvantaged.
Staff do not favour using itinerant teachers to serve the schools with fewer ESL children.
Because itinerant teachers are not part of the school, they cannot assist children in the same way as a
regular teacher with ESL qualifications. A regular teacher with a split assignment for ESL
withdrawal will be more available. The supply of qualified ESL teachers is not an issue.
It is hoped that the disparity between the staffing levels at the predecessor boards can be
resolved when the funding is known. There is no federal funding for ESL, just provincial. It is rumoured -"
that the funding model will include a three -year cap on ESL programs, and /or funding based on how
long a student has been in Canada. This would be unsatisfactory because some students need more time
to catch up, and others may have been in the country since a very early age, but have spoken only their
first language by the time they arrive in school.
Mr. Plato announced that Citizenship Court was being held at Charles H. Hulse school on the
next day, 11 March, when people from 29 countries would become Canadian citizens. He invited
trustees to attend and share the 9X5 foot Canadian flag cake to celebrate.
Chair Chambers remarked that he hopes the funding model is adequate, and that if it is not,
the Board makes a prompt and pointed response to the province.
* * * * Trustee Norm MacDonald assumed the Chair * * * *
Your Committee had before it for information staff report No. 98-67 reviewing the potential
impact of the change in funding for students aged 21 or over, and providing an overview of the adult day
schools, a profile of the adult learner, and a number of options for discussion. Superintendent Stollery
noted that the main issue is the change from regular day school funding to continuing education funding
for students over 21. A question remains about how the province will define an adult (18 or 21). Costing
remains speculative.
Superintendent Stollery corrected paragraph No. 5 in the section headed "Success at the Adult
Programs" (folio 65), i.e., the most successful model is the status quo, and not a mix of adults and
adolescents.
The Principal of Continuing Education, Dennis Murphy, stressed the successful outcomes for
students in the adult day programs, and noted that the majority go on to post secondary education, often
Algonquin College. Due to funding changes, classes were significantly larger last year.
* * * * Trustee Chambers resumed the Chair * * * *
Janet Fader reported that OSSTF strongly supports the adult day program, and noted that it
has strong community support as well. She remarked that the profile of the adult learner is important,
and stressed that the continuing education model may make students feel that they are not as valued.
Education Committee - 6 - 10 March 1998
/6.
. Ms Fader stated that the federations will be creative in looking at how the program is
delivered, and hopes the Board continues to consult with OSSTF.
Ms Fader pointed out that if it is proposed to close the adult day programs, the usual school
closure consultation should take place.
Trustees expressed full support for staff's plans to develop the concept of an adult training
centre, and a further report to the Board.
10. Priorities /Long Range Agenda for Future Meetings
Your Committee had before it for information the Chair's report on the establishment of
priorities, with a tentative long range agenda for future meetings. Trustee Hill reported that the
Special Education Advisory Committee plans an examination of special education delivery models, and
pointed that this might be useful information for members of the Education Committee.
In response to a remark that it is hoped that all of the priorities will appear on the agenda
soon, it was noted that many have been scheduled. Some are phrased differently, however, e.g., the
topic "magnet schools /community schools" is on the agenda for the 30 March special meeting as
"Program Entitlements and Delivery Models" because it covers a wider range of information.
11. New Business
There was no new business.
The meeting adjourned at 11:20 pm.
Albert Chambers, Chair
Education Committee
BLC /cb
ES /980310A
Education Committee -7- 10 March 1998
ANNEX 1
THE OTTAWA - CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
(W REPORT, NO. 1. SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TO: Education Committee DATE: 18 February 1998
A meeting of the Special Education Advisory Committee was held this evening in the Trustees'
Lounge, 133 Greenbank Road, Nepean, commencing at 7:30 p.m. with Trustee Hill in the Chair and the
following also in attendance:
TRUSTEE MEMBERS: Trustees Chambers and Graham
ALSO PRESENT: Trustees Libbey* and Scott*
COMMUNITY
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
Jon Kidd, Capital Region Centre for the Hearing Impaired
Myrna Laurenceson, Ottawa - Carleton Association for Persons with
Developmental Disabilities
Nora Ann McKibbon, Epilepsy Ottawa - Carleton
Jack Ruyter, Head Injury Association
Jean Traynor, Easter Seal Society
Linda Turner, Ottawa - Carleton Assembly of School Councils
Marian Waldie, Down Syndrome Association
STAFF: Judy Turriff, Superintendent of Special Education and Student Services
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: Pauline Sellers, Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation
Sara Wegner, Professional Student Services Personnel
ALSO PRESENT: Shirley Deschamps, Learning Disabilities Association of Ottawa- Carleton,
Alternate
Elizabeth Hare, Autism Society of Ontario, Alternate
Kathleen Saunders, VOICE for Hearing Impaired Children, Alternate
Steve Ardanaz, Sign Language Interpreter
Abigail Fenn, Sign Language Interpreter
* Present for a portion of the meeting.
1. Call to Order
Superintendent Turriff called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone in attendance. She
noted that this is a challenging time in the history of education and that this Committee has an
Special Education Advisory Committee 1 18 February 1998
I
opportunity to benefit the children of Ottawa - Carleton. Members, alternates and staff were invited to
introduce themselves.
2. Election of the Chair /Vice -Chair
Superintendent Turriff explained that the community representatives have not been appointed
to this Committee yet and that it would be appropriate to wait until they are appointed before holding
elections for the Chair and Vice - Chair. She suggested that two of the members could serve as Chair
and Vice -Chair pro tem until the April meeting.
Trustee Hill volunteered to be Chair pro tem. She assumed the Chair for the duration of the
meeting.
Myrna Laurenceson nominated Jean Traynor as the Vice -Chair pro tem. As there were no
further nominations, Ms. Traynor was declared the Vice -Chair pro tem.
3. Public Ouestion Period
The Chair of the Board commented on the work which SEAC will be doing to assist the Board
in delivering special education services and programs. She noted that, given the many changes facing
education, e.g., amalgamation of boards and changes in funding, trustees have some very serious issues
to consider and that they realize the importance of the Special Education Advisory Committee's
contribution.
4. Approval of Agenda
On a motion by Greg Bonnah, the agenda was approved as presented.
5. Department Report
Superintendent Turriff noted the quality of staff from both of the former boards and the
excellent continuum of services which they provide. Special services /special education staff recognize
the necessity to meet and respond to the needs of all students including those identified as exceptional.
She noted that the community representatives for this committee are expected to be appointed
at the 9 March 1998 Board meeting, following interviews with the Chair of SEAC and other trustees.
At the invitation of Superintendent Turriff, members of the Leadership Team, which consists of
Superintendent Turriff, Anna Bowles, Principal of Special Education, Terry Laughlin, Chief of
Psychology, Carol Lithwick, Manager of Special Services, Laura McAlister, Principal of Special
Education and Dan Wiseman, Chief of Social Work, provided a brief description of their experience
and commented on the roles they have in the new Ottawa - Carleton District School Board and their
work with exceptional students. They commented that they looked forward to working together and
that through their combined efforts, students, including those identified as exceptional, are supported
and helped to fulfill their potential.
Superintendent Turriff referred members to the information provided regarding the interim
organization of special services/ special education staff. Staff responded to questions of clarification.
A suggestion that a legend be included in any charts to explain the abbreviations used, will be referred
to the Communications Office which was responsible for creating this information.
6. Overview of Committee Terms of Reference and Reporting Structure
Your Committee had before it Report No. 98 -19, SEAC Terms of Reference and Reporting
Special Education A visory ommittee 2 18 February 1998
• Structure, which provided information regarding the terms of reference and Ministry of Education and
Training regulations governing the Special Education Advisory Committee. Superintendent Turriff
reviewed the report and outlined the reporting structure whereby reports from SEAC will be presented
to the Education Committee for comment and discussion only and then to Board. She noted that the
Board's by -laws and rules of order also apply to the SEAC.
In response to a query, it was noted that the professional development funds for SEAC are for
the use of the committee members.
7. Action Plan fir the Creation of a Comprehensive PI
Your Committee had before it, for approval, Report No. 98-20, Action Plan for the Creation of a
Comprehensive Plan, which outlined a process to establish a new Comprehensive Plan for the Ottawa -
Carleton District School Board. Superintendent Turriff noted that the action plan, which was
developed by the Leadership Team, identifies key objectives and tasks in developing the process
which much be provided to the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) by May 1998. The new
Comprehensive Plan must be completed and submitted to the MOET by May 1999. The action plan does
not preclude any reviews of programs and /or services during the budget process.
In response to queries, staff noted that, while the Leadership Team will hold brainstorming
sessions to begin the work to create the philosophy, visions and guiding principles for special education
and special services, consultation will be on -going with the Special Education Advisory Committee.
Some members expressed the desire to be involved in all aspects of the process including the
brainstorming, however, staff noted the logistical difficulties with this approach and assured members
that full consultation will take place throughout the process. Consultation regarding the general
philosophy will take place at the March meeting.
Several members expressed concern that the plan was too vague and felt that additional
information would be beneficial prior to approving the plan of action. Staff noted that information
will be provided in the agenda material for the next meeting to assist members in the discussion and to
provide some time to solicit input from the various organizations.
Myrna Laurenceson submitted that the process would be easier if staff were to do the initial
work and present the information to the Committee for examination and comment. She commented that
the role of the Special Education Advisory Committee is to participate in the annual review of the
plan.
Jane Berman suggested that the Committee approve the proposed plan in the interim until the
actual role of the Special Education Advisory Committee is clarified.
On a motion by Myra Laurenceson, your Committee recommends:
THAT THE PROPOSED PLAN OF ACTION FOR THE CREATION OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BE APPROVED (ATTACHED AS ANNEX 1).
8. Action Plan for Study of Specialized Schools and Programs
The Committee had before it, for approval, Report No. 98-21, Action Plan for Study of
Specialized Schools and Programs, which outlined a process for the review of existing specialized
schools and programs within the Ottawa - Carleton District School Board.
Members expressed concern that the Committee is being asked to consider two substantial items
in one meeting and requested additional information.
Special Education Advisory Comnuttee 3 18 February 1998
In response to a query, staff noted that the review of specialized schools and programs is not
being separated out from the comprehensive plan, however, this issue must be addressed in order to
begin harmonizing programs within the new Board as soon as possible. Issues such as admissions,
geographical distribution, past practices, and staffing must be considered in order to have equity in
access for all students in September. It was noted that this review may also be affected by the budget
process.
It was suggested that the March meeting be separated into two sessions and that the
philosophy of the development of the Comprehensive Plan be discussed on 3 March 1998 and the
details of the plan for the review of specialized schools and programs be considered on 5 March 1998.
Members supported this approach.
Trustee Libbey noted the substantial work required by the SEAC and encouraged the Committee
to consider alternative approaches to regular meetings such as informal meetings and sub - committees.
He commented on the restrictive timelines but emphasized that the Board is committed to consultation.
On a motion by Jane Berman, your Committee recommends:
THAT THE PROPOSED PLAN OF ACTION FOR THE STUDY OF SPECIALIZED SCHOOLS
AND PROGRAMS BE APPROVED (ATTACHED AS ANNEX 2).
Long -Range Agenda - March to June 1998
Your Committee had before it, for consideration, Report No. 98 -22, Long -Range Agenda - March
to June 1998, which outlined tentative agenda items for the SEAC meetings until the end of the school
year. Superintendent Turriff noted that the long -range agenda is tentative and subject to change at any
time.
With regard to the meeting scheduled for 4 March 1998, it was noted that a meeting to discuss
the Developmental Services Restructuring Project is scheduled for that evening and is of interest to
many SEAC members. It was agreed that the 4 March meeting will be rescheduled to 3 and 5 March
1998 as discussed earlier. An information item on the Restructuring Project will be provided at the May
meeting.
In response to a query, staff noted that budget information will be presented when it is
available. The funding model for education has not been provided by the MOET and is not expected
until early in March.
On a motion by Myrna Laurenceson, the Committee approved the long -range agenda for March
to June 1998.
10. Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Special Education Advisory Committee is scheduled for Tuesday, 3
March 1998 followed by a meeting on Thursday, 5 March 1998. It was agreed that the time for all future
meetings will be changed to 7:30 p.m.
11. New Business
a ) Association of Bright Children Survey
In response to a request by Jane Berman, Linda Turner agreed to present a survey on
parents' expectations for gifted students to the next meeting of the Ottawa- Carleton
Assembly of School Councils for distribution to its parent members. The survey was
Special Education Advisory Committee 4 18 February 1998
4§/.
developed by the parent members of the Association for Bright Children.
A number of members commented on the need for a process whereby associations could
distribute this type of information to parents outside of their organizations to gain a
broader perspective. Trustee Chambers requested that staff consider this issue and
report back.
b) Scent -free Meetings
Elizabeth Hare requested that members refrain from wearing perfume or aftershave to
the SEAC meeting to ensure the comfort of sensitive members.
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Patty Anne Hill
Chair (pro tem)
Special Education Advisory Committee
980225/sc
Special Education Advisory Committee 5 18 February 1998
ANNEX 1 To REPORT NU. 1, SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY- =MITIEE. 18 FEBRUARY 1998
(*-Ottawa - Carleton District School Board
Special Education/ Student Services Comprehensive Plan
Work Plan *
Objective
Centre I Date
Outline philosophy /vision/ 1. Brainstorm. Leadership Team March 1998
guiding principles for special 2. Consultation with SEAC,
education and student special services
services personnel, special --
education staff.
Acquire sample 1. Determine which plans Leadership Team
Comprehensive Plans for to acquire. L. McAlister
examination 2. Access plans (including
those of former CBE and
former OBE).
Chapter /issue definitions
the Comprehensive Plan
1. Outline all areas to be
addressed within the
Plan (e.g. roles of
personnel, fact sheets
etc.).
2. Create subcommittees
with wide representation
from all stakeholders to
examine all areas of the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. Schedule meetings of the
subcommittees, take
minutes and
summarize.
4. Formulate
recommendations.
Team I Avril 1998
Presentation of subcommittee Individual June 1998
recommendations to the members of the
Leadership Team I Leadership Team
G�
4'�-!3.
Presentation of -
Superintendent
June 1998
recommendations to Senior
of Special
Staff
Education and
Student Services
Presentation of
Superintendent
June 1998
recommendations to SEAC
of Special
Education and
Student Services
Review of Practices, Chapters,
1. Outline areas for review.
Leadership Team
September
Issues
2. Distribute over the
SEAC
1998 - March
timeframe.
1999
3. Establish review
committee format.
4. Convene committees to
review chapters/ issues.
5. Summarize.
6. Make recommendations
for change.
Presentation of final
Superintendent
March 1999
Comprehensive Plan to
of Special
Senior Staff
Education and
Student Services
Presentation of final
Superintendent
April 1999
Comprehensive Plan to SEAC
of Special
Education and
Student Services
Presentation of final
Superintendent
April 1999
Comprehensive Plan to
of Special
O -C DSB
Education and
Student Services
SEAC
Submission of Plan to MOET
O -C DSB
May 15, 1999
* It must be noted, however, that changes may be forthcoming for September 1998. This Plan of Action does not
preclude examination of programs and services as part of the budget process.
P]
1E
P
ANNEX 2 TO REPORT NO. 1, SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, 18 FEBRUARY 1998 4��.
Ottawa = Carleton D Board
Specialized Schools and Special Programs
- .
Work Plan *
Objective
Tasks
Responsibility
Completion
Centre
Date
Outline philosophy /vision/
1. Brainstorm.
Leadership Team
March 1998
guiding principles for
2. Consultation with SEAC,
special education and
Special Education staff,
student services
Special Services.
personnel and Principals
of Schools.
Determine what
1. Brainstorm.
Leadership Team
February 1998
information is required
such that informed
decisions can be made
regarding schools and
-irograms
Identify all specialized
1. Create list.
Leadership Team
February 1998
schools and programs
2. Determine which
member of the
Leadership Team will be
responsible for accessing
current information from
which school /program.
Outline questions, issues to
1. Write uniform set of
Leadership Team
February 1998
be used in discussion with
questions, data
each of the
requirements for all
schools /programs
schools, programs.
2. Establish who should be
interviewed (principal,
Department Head, SO of
School Services, parent
groups etc.).
3. Set interview
dates /times.
Presentation of -
1. Receive and interpret
Leadership Team
March 1998
information, data to the
information.
12.
Leadership Team
Formulate
recommendations.
Presentation of
Superintendent of
March 1998
recommendations to Senior
Special Education
Staff
and Student
Services
Presentation of
Superintendent of
April 1998
recommendations to SEAC
Special Education
and Student
Services
* It must be noted, however, that changes may be forthcoming for September 1998. This Plan of Action does not
preclude examination of programs and services as part of the budget process.
ANNU 2
THE OTTAWA - CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
REPORT, NO. 2. SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TO: Education Committee DATE: 3 March 1998
A meeting of the Special Education Advisory Committee was held this evening in the Trustees'
Lounge, 133 Greenbank Road, Nepean, commencing at 7:30 p.m. with Trustee Hill in the Chair and the
following also in attendance:
TRUSTEE MEMBERS: Trustees Chambers and Graham
COMMUNITY
REPRESENTATIVES: Jane Berman, Association for Bright Children
Lynn Best, VOICE for Hearing Impaired Children
Gregory Bonnah, Integration Action Group
Shirley Deschamps, Learning Disabilities Association of Ottawa
Colleen Hendrick, VIEWS for the Visually Impaired
Jon Kidd, Capital Region Centre for the Hearing 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
Linda Turner, Ottawa - Carleton Assembly of School Councils
Casey van der Grient, Autism Society of Ontario
Marian Waldie, Down Syndrome Association
STAFF: Judy Turriff, Superintendent of Special Education and Student Services
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: Peter Thomas, Ottawa - Carleton Elementary Principals' Association
Jennifer Offord, Ottawa - Carleton Elementary Teachers' Federation
ALSO PRESENT: Elizabeth Hare, Autism Society of Ontario, Alternate
Judy Smith, Association for Bright Children, Alternate
1. Call to Order
Trustee Hill called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. and welcomed everyone in attendance. At
the invitation of the Chair, everyone introduced themselves.
The Chair noted that the trustee members of the committee have met and considered the 11
applications received for the two community representative positions. Margaret Hill, Debbie Kirwan
and Keenan Waller were chosen as the community representatives on the Special Education Advisory
(W Committee, subject to Board approval. These appointments will be submitted to the Board meeting of
9 March 1998.
Special Education Advisory Committee 1 3 March 1998
,�7.
As the current structure for the Special Education Advisory Committee permits the
appointment of only two community representatives, a recommendation to appoint an additional
community representative will be considered at the SEAC meeting on Thursday, 5 March 1998.
2. Public Ouestion Period
There were no questions from the public.
Approval of the Agenda
On a motion by Casey van der Grient, the agenda was approved as presented.
4. Review of Report No. 1.18 February 1998
Report No. 1, dated 18 February 1998, was reviewed. The correct motion with respect to the
Action Plan for the Creation of a Comprehensive Plan will be inserted.
Gregory Bonnah requested that, where possible, the report indicate where a decision is
unanimous.
At the suggestion of Nancy Myers, Debbie Kirwan and Keenan Waller, the newly- selected
community representatives were invited to join the members at the table. -
5. Department Report
Superintendent Turriff advised that, in response to Trustee Chambers request at the 18 February
meeting, she has discussed the issue of a policy and /or procedure for the distribution of materials to
students with senior staff. A committee will be struck to consider this issue and will consult with
stakeholders to be chaired by the Superintendent of School Operations, Lorne Rachlis. It is
anticipated that a draft policy will be submitted to the Board for approval in the spring. In the
interim, principals are to review the materials to be distributed and consult with their Superintendent
of School Services, if necessary, to determine if distribution is appropriate.
She commented on the focus groups held recently to provide data and information which will be
collated and used to begin establishing some guiding principles to assist in the development of special
education programs and services. The groups included principals, vice - principals, special services staff
from all disciplines and representation from both of the former boards. She complimented the
leadership team which facilitated the exercise and expressed appreciation to the staff who were
involved in the groups.
6. Philosophy re Development of Comprehensive Plan
To begin the process of identifying beliefs and guiding principles to assist in the development of
programs and services, the committee considered ideas, goals, needs and concerns with respect to special
education individually and as smaller groups. During the subsequent plenary session, the following
issues were noted:
GOALS:
• To assist each child to reach his /her full potential to meet his /her academic, psycho - social,
developmental and communication needs.
To enable each student to become a productive member of Canadian society by maintaining
sufficient funding to enable best practices to be established.
Special Education Advisory Conunittee 2 3 Marc 1998
• To enhance the quality of life of all exceptional children by ensuring they are supported to the
best level possible in a quality environment for learning, allowing them to reach their full
potential through a range of special education services.
• To consistently provide special education services of the highest quality to all students in need,
in spite of the turbulence in the province.
• That all students (those deemed exceptional and those not deemed exceptional) receive the
nature and extent of supports (including accessibility, environmentally, intellectually,
communications, physical) that they require in order to be successful and that measurable
criteria be developed for each child in meeting his /her potential.
• To provide full educational opportunity for each exceptional student to reach his /her true
potential.
• To ensure that all students identified as "exceptional' are provided with appropriate resources
and supports to reach their full learning potential by maintaining flexibility and providing a
continuum of services which respond to the changing needs of Special Education students.
• To provide an individual education plan for each student with all appropriate supports and
services identified including accessible classrooms for all students at each school.
NEEDS:
• In order to be inclusive and supportive we need to establish enough flexibility and diversity
within the delivery system to meet the needs through sufficient resources for direct services and
professional expertise to be delivered in an equitable and non - discriminatory manner.
• Uniformity through a collaborative team approach throughout the system is needed in all
areas of special education, e.g., IEP, IPRC, and staff training.
• Requirement for necessary support capacity to meet the needs of all students through providing
a full, accountable range of service including early identification /prevention, assessment, and
intervention within a wide range of program response.
• To provide a range of services which provides for the practical lifelong needs of the student
while not ignoring unusual individual circumstances.
• A board and SEAC, Access, Flexibility, Advocacy, Support in spirit and action.
• There is a need to ensure that student/ staff ratios for Special Education programs guarantee not
only safety and proper supervision, but also quality education in all areas. There is a need to
quickly assess students with special needs and provide adequate supports.
• To provide educational programming which responds to the practical life -long needs of the
students.
IDEAS:
To enshrine in the educational system the rights of all children to achieve to their potential,
addressing comprehensively their special needs, through information and education to parents,
staff and community.
All teachers should be comfortable working with special needs children.
Special Education Advisory Comnuttee 3 3 March 1998
4�!9.
• Ensure a commitment to a community partnership including parents, teachers, special educators,
multi- disciplinary personnel to address the needs of the whole child.
• Maintain viable current programs and services and incorporate also new creative and
innovative programs that have been proven effective such as the Circle of Friends in order to
provide a continuum of services in support to the classroom including professional supports.
• To further enhance in -house delivery of services by identifying best practices, engaging in
relevant research and encouraging community awareness and partnerships.
• All parents, staff and association representatives from the two former boards unite efforts in
advocating for students and all need to be involved in meaningful consultation to ensure that
quality programming is maintained.
• Develop a process for SEAC members to receive direct input from teachers, professionals and
support staff on service suggestions and improvements.
• To incorporate the Circle of Friends concept in all schools for at risk students and their peers.
CONCERNS:
• Due to political and economic climate, there is concern that special education services will be
cut and that remaining resources will be directed away from meeting the needs of the student in
order to complete administrative requirements.
• Quality of programming and needs with adequate supports will not be available, e.g., finances,
human resources, technology resources, class size.
• That adequate, designated funding for meeting needs of special education students will not be
available, resulting in increased problems and lack of ability to create consensus and
partnerships.
• Child - that we maintain flexibility in the system so that we can change a program when the
first plan doesn't work. System - the funding model may limit the ability to provide for a range
of services for individuals or groups of children.
• Funding limitations. Not to discard valuable or proven program options if we can't guarantee
full equality. That there be valid opportunity for input from community to staff.
• Due to funding constraints the required supports will be eroded thereby pitting parent against
parent and program against program. There is a concern that this will impact negatively on all
children in the regular classroom —pay now or pay later.
• Fully supported educational options with flexibility to change programs if needed.
Laura McAlister thanked the group for its hard work with this difficult exercise.
7. New Business
a) Orientation Session
Laura McAlister advised that Regulation 464, which governs the Special Education
Advisory Committee, requires that there be an orientation session for SEAC members to
discuss issues such as the structure of the SEAC, and its role and responsibilities as an
advisory committee to the Board. This session could be held as a separate meeting and
Special ucation Advisory ommittee 4 3 March 1998
zo .
(W may be held jointly with the Ottawa - Carleton Catholic School Board. Copies of a
SEAC Handbook, which is outdated but may contain some useful information, will be
provided to members at the next meeting.
Members considered a joint session with the Catholic School Board may be beneficial.
Staff will pursue this option and report back at the next meeting.
b) Request for EPRC Updates
Nancy Myers requested that the Committee receive regular updates on the status of
IPRC requests, i.e. how many are waiting for an iPRC. Superintendent Turriff noted
that staff will try to accommodate the request, however, given that the budget process
will occupy a great deal of time, it may be problematic to start the updates in April.
She advised that no one is waiting for an 1PRC at the moment.
C) Staff Lay -off Notices
In response to queries, staff explained that, in accordance with the Employment
Standards Act, 16 weeks notice must be given when more than 500 employees are to
receive notice of potential lay -off. As seniority lists have not been combined for
bargaining units within the former boards, 479/6 of administrative and support staff
from each employee group were issued with notices.
With regard to the high percentage of administrative and support staff who were
issued notices, including those who work directly with students, Trustee Chambers
noted that, based on media reports, the current focus of the provincial government
appears to direct resources away from administration and into the classroom. The
government definition of classroom seems to be very limited.
While it was noted that the Toronto Board of Education has chosen not to take action at
this time pending the release of the funding model, Trustee Chambers commented that
the OCDSB considered the potential considerable cost if adequate notice was not given
and lay -offs were required. It is anticipated that the funding information will be
announced in mid March, possibly prior to March Break. The Board's final budget must
be submitted to the Ministry of Education and Training by 15 May 1998. The Board
could be faced with a $20 million reduction in funding next year and $60 million over
the next three years.
In response to a query by Casey Van der Grient, Trustee Chambers noted that the
provision in the Education Act which would have enabled the government to pursue an
equalization payment from the former OBE has been eliminated under the new
legislation.
Jon Kidd expressed concerns that the funding reductions may result in the elimination of
services for deaf students and that the government needs to be informed that these
reductions are not acceptable.
The Chair noted that budget information with respect to special education will be
provided for SEAC once funding information is available.
d) Education Ouality and Accountability Office Testing Results
Nancy Myers commented on the success of special education students in the former
Ottawa and Carleton Boards as compared to the provincial average and that it is
Special Education Advisory Committee 5 3 March 1998
unfortuate that these results were not highlighted more in the press. She submitted
that these results are an indication that the educational needs of exceptional students
are being well served.
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Patty Anne Hill
Chair (pro tem)
Special Education Advisory Committee
980305/sc
Special Education Advisory Comrrtittee 6 3 March 1998
ANNEX 3
THE OTTAWA - CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
REPORT. NO. 3, SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TO: Education Committee DATE: 5 March 1998
A meeting of the Special Education Advisory Committee was held this evening in the Trustees'
Lounge, 133 Greenbank Road, Nepean, commencing at 7:30 p.m. with Trustee Hill in the Chair and the
following also in attendance:
TRUSTEE MEMBERS: Trustees Chambers and Graham
ASSOCIATION
REPRESENTATIVES: Jane Berman, Association for Bright Children
Gregory Bonnah, Integration Action Group
Shirley Deschamps, Learning Disabilities Association of Ottawa- Carleton,
Colleen Hendrick, VIEWS for the Visually Impaired
Jon Kidd, Capital Region Centre for the Hearing 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
Casey van der Grient, Autism Society of Ontario
Marian Waldie, Down Syndrome Association
STAFF: Judy Turriff, Superintendent of Special Education and Student Services
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: Linda Preston, Ottawa - Carleton Elementary Teachers' Federation
Pauline Seller, Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation
Sara Wegner, Professional Student Services Personnel
ALSO PRESENT: Elizabeth Hare, Autism Society of Ontario, Alternate
Kathleen Saunders, VOICE for Hearing Impaired Children, Alternate
Judy Smith, Association for Bright Children, Alternate
Steve Ardanaz, Sign Language Interpreter
Abigail Fenn, Sign Language Interpreter
Call to Order
Trustee Hill called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. A membership list was circulated and
members were asked to note any changes or corrections in order to ensure that the information is current.
Special Education Advisory Committee 1 5 MarM 1998
5-5.
2. A}ivro�f Agenda
A revised agenda was distributed. On a motion by Nora Ann McKibbon, the agenda was
approved as presented.
3. Public Question Period
There were no questions from the public.
4. Review of Report No. 2.3 March 1998
The minutes of the 3 March 1998 meeting were distributed and reviewed.
In response to query by Casey van der Grient, Laura McAlister explained the practice used in
the former Carleton Board to introduce parents to the Identification, Placement and Review Committee
process. She commented that while IPRCs are not being deferred, staff are being very frank with
parents with respect to the uncertainty of the future of special education programs. She requested that
any cases where an IPRC has been deferred be brought to her attention.
With respect to the exercise conducted at the last meeting to begin considering the guiding
principles and philosophy for the development of special education programs and services, staff noted
that the information will be compiled and a report presented at the next meeting.
Nancy Myers noted that her comment with regard to the Education Accountability and Quality
Testing results for special education students should indicate that it appears that the education for
these students is on the right track.
Laura McAlister advised that the Ottawa- Carleton Catholic School Board is interested in
conducting a joint orientation session and suggested that the last two weeks of March may be
appropriate. Lynn Ziraldo, the Chair of the provincial Special Education Advisory Committee, has
indicated that she can conduct the session. Once a date has been finalized, a memorandum will be sent
to all members.
Gregory Bonnah inquired as to whether funds for babysitting would be available as this is the
third night this month that SEAC will be required to meet. The Chair noted that this issue will be
addressed if it becomes a problem.
The Committee agreed that 24 March would be suitable and that 25 March would be the
alternate date. Laura McAlister will consult with the Catholic Board on the date and will advise
members as soon as possible.
5. Department Report
As a full report wasprovided at the 3 March 1998 meeting, there was no additional information
to report.
6. Presentations by Associations re Development of Special Education Programs
a ) Association for Bright Children - Jane Berman
Jane Berman described the characteristics of a gifted child and the problems facing
these children. She noted that a program for gifted children must set aside prejudices
and recognize that gifted students have special education needs. Students should be
identified as early as possible and a better way of identifying poor performers should
Special Education Advisory committee 2 5 March 1998
be developed. Progran„n,ing needs to be structured and systematic allowing students to
delve deeper into the regular curriculum. Approaches other than enrichment should be
considered as students have differing learning styles. Interaction with peers must be a
part of the educational experience. The Board should provide a range of placements
using the best practices.
In response to a query, Judy Smith, alternate representative for the Association of
Bright Children, noted that approximately 10% of gifted children have been
diagnosed with a form of attention deficit disorder.
It was also noted that gifted students have one of the highest drop -out rates.
b) Autism Society Ontario - Casey van der Grient
Casey van der Grient provided a definition of autism noting that it is the most common
neurological disorder appearing in approximately 1 in 500 people. Early identification
and intervention can produce spectacular results, however, intervention strategies are
not supported by the current health system. Support outside the health system is very
expensive, and as a result, school boards are required to educate and treat children with
autism. Currently there are three programs in the area which support autistic students.
A continuum of services should be provided including congregated settings and
integration into the regular classroom if appropriate. To assist these students, teachers
must be well qualified and properly trained. Teachers receiving an autistic child into
their regular classroom should receive appropriate training; those working in a
congregated setting should receive extensive training. He noted that reasonable
expectations must be developed for the autistic child as is done for other students.
In response to a query, Mr. van der Grient noted that training is available for teachers
through the Geneva Centre in Toronto. Autism Society Ontario also conducts
workshops.
The Chair commented that the autistic units are severely impacted as a result of
downsizing as these teachers are usually quite new. The Board and the federations
should consider this in their bumping practices.
C) Capital Region Centre for the Hearing Impaired - Jon Kidd
Jon Kidd commented that the Capital Region Centre for the Hearing Impaired believes
that services for the hearing impaired are quite adequate at this time, however, the
services for the deaf population need to be addressed. The CRCHI recommends that
qualified American Sign Language interpreters be provided for students whose
preferred first language is ASL, a suitable screening system.be established to ensure
that interpreters hold the required qualifications, and that a review of the programs
provided for deaf students be conducted to ensure that adequate support services are
provided for students wishing to remain in and complete their education in their local
school. Approximately half of the school boards in Ontario use trained interpreters
and the remainder use teacher assistants with some sign language training. While
teacher assistants are less expensive, they do not provide the same level of support
that certified sign language interpreters provide for deaf students. The support staff in
the OCDSB are excellent and do their best, however, deaf students require the services
of interpreters and a full range of support services in order to be successfully integrated.
In response to a query, staff noted that hearing impaired students are successfully
integrated into the classroom with the assistance of the Board's Itinerant Teachers of
Special Education Advisory Corninittee 3 5 March 1998
the Hearing Impaired.
d) Down Syndrome Association - Marian Waldie
Marian Waldie noted that one of the major goals of the Down Syndrome Association is
to enhance the quality of life for individuals with Down Syndrome. The primary
choice of the association is the integration of Down Syndrome students into age -
appropriate community -based classroom environments. The Association also supports
segregated or semi - segregated special education programs if it is the parents' wish.
She reviewed the benefits of integration for Down Syndrome students, the critical need
for an Individual Education Plan, and the importance of peer relationships. With
regard to the development of programs and services, she noted that processes and
services must be available to assist parents in choosing an appropriate placement for
their child; suitable support services must be provided for students who are integrated
into the regular classroom; segregated and /or semi- segregated programs must continue
to be an option for those wishing them; and programs such as the Adaptive
Learning /Post -21 program should be continued to ensure the continued education of
adults with Down Syndrome.
Ms. Waldie circulated a copy of a resource manual for teachers of students with Down
Syndrome which was written by the Down Syndrome Association.
e) Easter Seals Society - Jean Traynor
Jean Traynor provided a brief history of the work of the Easter Seal Society in assisting
children with physical disabilities. These children may have a wide range of needs
which require a variety of programming, both multi- leveled in academic abilities and
inclusiveness. The individual needs of the child must be recognized and services
provided to address these needs. Parents should be included as education partners
assisting to determine the most appropriate placement for the child. Academics are
equally important for the physically challenged child as they are for the average
child. While placement in a fully inclusive program may be possible, modifications
may be necessary to meet the individual's needs. Exceptional students can also
participate in extra - curricular activities. The development of the child to his /her
fullest potential by whatever means necessary is the primary concern in making
decisions.
f) Epilepsy Ottawa- Carleton - Nora Ann McKibbon
Nora Ann McKibbon explained that epilepsy is a neurological disorder caused by
sudden, brief changes in how the brain works and that approximately 2% of the
population is living with epilepsy. She commented that the primary goal of Epilepsy
Ottawa - Carleton is to support people living with epilepsy and promote awareness and
understanding within the community. In developing programs and services, Epilepsy
Ottawa - Carleton recommends early education; providing a better understanding for
teachers and staff in recognizing different seizure types and the effects of
anticonvulsive medications; facilitating support with teacher assistants,
transportation and psychological services; encouraging flexibility within special
education to meet the needs of epileptic students through classroom education; and
advising students living with epilepsy of their representation on the SEAC to address
their concerns. Parents must work in partnership with the schools to ensure the best
education for their children.
Special Education Advisory Committee 4 5 March 1998
o
g) Head Injury Association - Jack Ruyter
Jack Ruyter provided the history of the Head Injury Association which is dedicated to
preventing traumatic brain injury and improving the quality of life for survivors of
acquired brain injury. He outlined the effects of primary and secondary brain injury and
noted that the majority of childhood brain injuries occur in the afternoon hours after
school has been dismissed on roads or at home. In educating the brain injured child, he
noted the need to recognize the individual's needs and to provide a co- ordinated, multi-
disciplinary approach to address a multitude of deficiencies.
In response to a query, Mr. Ruyter provided statistics on the accident rate involving
brain injuries among children and commented that, unfortunately, most of these injuries
are preventable.
* ** *The Committee took a short recess * * **
h ) Integration Action Group - Greg= Bonnah
Gregory Bonnah advised that the purpose of the Integration Action Group is to support
parents of special needs students who would like an inclusive placement in the school
system and the community. A Supreme Court decision states that inclusive placements
should be the norm and that segregation may be discriminatory. A service delivery
model to meet the needs of special education students must be securely based upon the
concepts of equality and equal access. Appropriate supports and services including an
Individual Education Plan, adapted curriculum, resource withdrawal and peer support
are required to ensure success for inclusive placements. The model should not be
decentralized to the point where assistance is not available to teachers in the
individual schools when difficulties arise.
i ) Leaming Disabilities Association of Ottawa- Carleton - Shirley Deschamps
Shirley Deschamps commented that many learning disabled students have an average
to above - average assessment in cognitive ability, however, their achievement may not
reflect this ability. She reviewed the problems that students with learning
disabilities experience and the difficulties that result. Early identification is
important as well as a strong phonetically based approach to language. A tailored
Individual Education Plan, including the type of teaching method that will work for
the individual child, is essential as well as the willingness to adjust the plan as
required. Many students have other concerns and the students' needs must determine
teaching methods, materials and technology required. Students must be assisted to
develop organization, self - advocacy and social skills. Teachers must actively pursue
professional development in the field of learning disabilities including the newest
technological developments.
In response to a query, it was noted that there are three demonstration schools which
provide a residential special education program to address the most severe learning
disabilities.
j) Ontario Association of Families of Children with Communication Disorders - Nancy
Myers
Nancy Myers described the history and purpose of the Ontario Association of Families
(W of Children with Communications Disorders. The goal of OAFCCD is the mandatory
provision of speech and language services. She highlighted the difference between
Special Education Advisory Conunittee 5 5 March 1998
speech and language noting that communication is essential to education. Services to
support students with communication disorders should be available at the local
schools, curriculum -based and delivered by qualified professionals in a multi-
disciplinarian approach. Intervention should be early, on- going, of excellent quality
providing a full range of services and delivery models to meet the needs of the child,
and smoothly transitioned between developmental stages.
k) Ottawa- Carleton Assembly of School Councils - Linda Turner
Linda Turner noted that the Ottawa - Carleton Assembly of School Councils is comprised
of parents from school councils in all of the Ottawa - Carleton District School Board
schools and is concerned with the needs of all students including those identified as
exceptional. The predecessor boards had different delivery models and parents feel
the amalgamation provides a good opportunity to build a better system for exceptional
students. OCASC believes that a continuum of programs ranging from full integration to
congregated classes should be available; students with special needs who are
integrated into a regular classroom require additional and appropriate support
services; regular classroom teachers need special education training to properly serve
the needs of all students; early screening and identification is essential; the delivery
model must be equitable and accessible for all exceptional students which may require a
separate transportation policy; and basic vocational programming must be maintained.
1) Ottawa - Carleton Association for Persons with Developmental Disabilities - Myrna
Laurenceson
Myrna Laurenceson outlined the history, purpose and mission statement of the Ottawa -
Carleton Association for Persons with Developmental Disabilities. She reviewed the
role of the OCAPDD which is to serve the needs of persons with developmental
disabilities by advocating for a continuum of services appropriate to their needs,
whether in integrated or specialized settings. The need to provide a variety of
placement options is essential as students have a range of needs from those requiring
intensive support in a specialized school, to those who learn best in a congregated
setting and those who will benefit from a fully integrated setting. She commented on
the need to continue the education for these students in the summer through the summer
school program and the necessity to provide transportation for this program.
In response to a query, it was noted that the summer school program is available only to
students who are currently enrolled in a program offered through the Two-Board
Agreement for the Education of Pupils with Development Disabilities.
M) VIEWS for the Visually Impaired - Colleen Hendrick
Colleen Hendrick outlined the purpose of VIEWS for the Visually Impaired noting
that 100 students in the Ottawa- Carleton District School Board have a visual
impairment or are blind. Many may have multiple handicaps requiring a range of
services to allow them to be fully integrated into the regular program. The specialized
program for students with visual impairment brings together teaching staff with
knowledge, experience and expertise to provide a continuum of services to recognize the
needs of the individual students. An identification process is critical as well as early
intervention, diagnosis and information for parents. VIEWS has been lobbying for the
development of a pre - school program to prepare students for integration into the
education system. Physical tools and teaching resources are also critical for the success
of these students as well as professional development opportunities for parents and
students. A supportive environment with dedicated teaching and support staff is
Special Education Advisory Conunittee 6 5 March 19997
1�
important for success.
n) VOICE for Hearing Impaired Children - Kathleen Saunders
Kathleen Saunders provided a brief description of the work of VOICE for Hearing
Impaired Children noting that there are approximately-200 hearing impaired students
integrated into the regular classroom within the Ottawa - Carleton District School
Board. These students have needs which range from mild to profound hearing loss
necessitating many types of equipment and services. A program to address these needs
is provided by highly trained, dedicated teachers. She reviewed the work of the
itinerant teachers with these students to help them become independent and to teach
them skills they will need to reach their full potential.
In response to a query, it was noted that most hearing impaired children are integrated,
however, there are segregated programs at Centennial P.S. and Laurentian H.S.
The Chair thanked all of the association representatives for their presentations which have
provided a great deal of insight for staff on the needs of exceptional students.
7. Additional Community Representative for SEAC
Your Committee had before it Report No. 98 -74, Additional Community Representative for the
Special Education Advisory Committee, recommending that the composition of the SEAC be increased
to include three (3) community representatives.
On a motion by Jane Berman, your Committee unanimously recommends:
THAT the composition of the Special Education Advisory Committee be revised to include an
additional community representative for a total of three.
* This recommendation was approved at the 9 March 1998 Board meeting.
8. Non - Voting Revresentative_to_ the _Budtet Committee
It was noted that the Special Education Advisory Committee must appoint a non - voting
representative and alternate to the Budget committee. Trustee Graham noted the need to have a strong
voice from SEAC during the budget deliberations.
Jane Berman and Nancy Myers volunteered to be the non - voting representative and alternate
respectively.
New Business
a ) Meeting Night and Room for SEAC
While some members expressed difficulties with the scheduled meeting night for
SEAC, it was agreed that the meeting dates will remain for 1998 and the issue will be
addressed for next year. It was agreed that the meetings will continue to be held in the
Trustees' Lounge.
b) Conference for Parents. Teachers and Caregivers
Information was distributed regarding the Annual Spring Conference for Parents,
Teachers and Caregivers on 28 March 1998.
Special ucation Advisory Conuniftee 7 5 March 1998
t3q .
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Patty Anne Hill
Chair
Special Education Advisory Committee
980310/sc
Special Education Advisory Corrunittee 8 5 March 1998