REPORT NO. 7 SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

(1)

Special Education Advisory Committee 1 24 June 2015 Report No. 7

REPORT NO. 7

SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

TO: The Committee of the Whole (Public) DATE: 24 June 2015 A meeting of the Special Education Advisory Committee was held this evening in the Trustees’ Committee Room, 133 Greenbank Road, Ottawa, commencing at 7:09 p.m. with Rob Kirwan in the Chair and the following in attendance:

ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVES: Michelle Campbell, Association for Bright Children of Ontario (ABC); Mark Wylie, Down Syndrome Association; Cathy Lambert Tocchi, Easter Seals Ontario; John Downing, Autism Ontario; Sean Popal, Ontario Association for Families of Children with Communication Disorders (OAFCCD); Beth Doubt and Bob Fraser, Learning Disabilities Association of Ottawa-Carleton (LDAO-C); and Terry Warner, VOICE for Hearing Impaired Children.

TRUSTEE MEMBER: Donna Blackburn, Christine Boothby, and Chris Ellis COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES: Rob Kirwan

NON-VOTING REPRESENTATIVES: Jean Trant, OSSTF (SSP); and Tom Bickford, OSSTF (PSSP).

STAFF: Olga Grigoriev, Superintendent of Learning Support Services; Brett Reynolds and Susan MacDonald, Superintendent of Instruction; Christine Kessler, System Vice Principal of Learning Support Services; Stacey Kay, Manager of Learning Support Services; Joan Oracheski, Manager of Quality Assurance; Eleanor Heap, Manager of Early Years; Maya Rattray, Supervisor of Speech and Language Pathology; and Kelly Sullivan, Board/Committee Coordinator.

Call to Order

1.

Chair Kirwan called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. Chair Kirwan thanked all members for their participation in the Committee throughout the year. He noted that the Chair’s Working Group meetings continue in July and August. Chair Kirwan added that SEAC meetings next year will be scheduled for the third Wednesday of the month rather than the fourth.

Approval of Agenda

2.

Moved by Beth Doubt,

THAT the agenda be approved.

An amendment moved by Trustee Ellis,

THAT agenda item 8, Memo 15-081, Update of Intermediate Language Learning Disability (Year 2), be moved to agenda item 7.

(2)

Moved by Beth Doubt,

THAT the agenda be approved, as amended.

- Carried -

Chair Kirwan noted that, given the number of items on the agenda, speaking times may be limited.

Delegations

3.

a. Sarah Croll

As a parent of the a student in the Intermediate Language Learning Disabilty (ILLD) program, Ms. Croll thanked Learning Support Services (LSS) and SEAC for acting on their concerns regarding students with language learning disabilities. She requested further information on the following aspects of Memo 15-081, Update of Intermediate Language Learning Disability (Year 2) be

described during the presentation of the memo: parent communications, number of visits of LSS staff with teachers and ILLD students, measurement of academic advancement, and student modules for home.

b. Raquella Tejada

Ms. Tejada also thanked LSS and SEAC for their support for students with language learning disabilities. She requested further information on the following aspects of Memo 15-081, Update of Intermediate Language Learning Disability (Year 2) be described during the presentation of the memo: how do the results of the pilot project demonstrate student success without taking a baseline

measurement of academic grades, how can future online delivery models ensure accountability of teachers and staff, and how can implementation of strategies by teachers be ensured by LSS.

Members’ Information

4.

Mr. Fraser provided the Committee with the following update from the Individual Education Plan (IEP) Sub-Committee:

● SEAC decided that the IEP development and implementation process would be a focus for one of the sub-committees for the 2014-2015 school year; ● The following motion was passed by SEAC, and subsequently the Board, to

further direct this work:

A) Direction for the IEP Review process to include a component for investigating Parent and Student perception of the effectiveness of the IEP; and

B) Methodology be developed and implemented to determine correlation between scores for critical IEP elements of the IEP Review and parental satisfaction as to the effectiveness of the IEP; ● Priority topics included the use of accommodations, learning support teacher

(3)

(LST) IEP briefings, student responsibility/self-advocacy, and general knowledge regarding exceptionalities;

● For each priority, the following points were identified:

o Ensuring all accommodations outlined in the IEP are being implemented in the classroom;

o LST and teacher communication and collaboration was identified an area of improvement;

o Training specific to IEP development and implementation should be provided to principals and vice-principals;

o Increased use of assistive technology has enabled students to advocate for themselves;

o Teachers have been working with senior students to promote self-advocacy in practice sessions;

o Several workshops on early identification techniques as well

knowledge of exceptionalities are being initiated going forward in the 2015/16 year;

● The sub-committee met with Peter Symmonds, System Principal, Christine Kessler, System Vice-Principal, and Rob Kirwan, Chair SEAC in June 2015 to discuss how to move the work of the sub-committee forward;

● Looking forward, the sub-committee will request the following in the fall: o An update on the motion regarding the review of the IEP process; o An update on the additional training for principals, vice-principals, LSTs

and teachers regarding IEP development and implementation; o Measurement tools to ensure effectiveness of IEPs and how well

accommodations are implemented; and

● The sub-committee will meet in November to develop a plan for the 2015-2016 school year.

a. Chair’s Correspondence

Chair Kirwan advised that Regulation 274 will be discussed at the Chair’s Working Group meeting in July. This discussion, along with input from the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board and Superintendent Grigoriev, will inform SEAC’s position on this issue.

In response to a question from Trustee Ellis regarding EQAO testing and Learning For All, Superintendent Grigoriev advised that while Learning For All supports differentiation to allow students to express their knowledge using their strongest modality, the EQAO test is prescriptive.

b. Committee of the Whole, Budget update

Mr. Warner advised that the Committee of the Whole, Budget

recommended the budget to the Board, which was approved at the 22 June 2015 Board meeting. He noted that there was little debate and few amendments, suggesting that next year’s budget may be more divisive as substantive

(4)

that SEAC will be monitoring the budget with respect to special education and will inform staff and the Board of any concerns, if required.

Chair Kirwan noted that SEAC’s preparation for the 2016-2017 budget process will begin in September. He suggested that a sub-committee may be formed in order to ensure a fulsome review of the budget from a special education lens, emphasizing that this is one of the main responsibilities of the Committee.

c. Department update

Superintendent Grigoriev expressed her appreciation for the work of the Committee, adding that the rich conversations and variety of opinions has improved the work of LSS. Superintendent Grigoriev provided the Committee with the following update on the work of LSS during the 2014-2015 school year:

 The learning disabilities (LD) review is ongoing;

 As part of the review, a focus group for students, both in the regular class and specialized programs, and parents without staff present so there was no pressure to monitor thoughts;

 Superintendent Grigoriev shared a video of students sharing their thoughts on the LD program;

 The Reader Leader program, which trains older students to read with kindergarten and grade 1 students, continues;

 The Reader Leader program includes a parent component to assist parents to facilitate and encourage reading and support executive functioning at home;

 Four new Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) classes were approved as part of the 2015-2016 budget, as per the geographic model. The education assistants (EA) to support these classes came from the existing EA complement;

 Schools have been using the revised referral and tiered intervention forms, as part of the superintendency based identification, placement, review committee (SB-IPRC);

 The Dual Support Program (DSP) and ASD programs use the SB-IPRC model and the meetings have included school teams and parents, who have reported feeling like active participants in the process;

 The training process included LSTs, principals and vice-principals, and support staff who share their knowledge with their school teams using a ‘train the trainer’ model;

 The mental health focus for 2015-2016 will be supporting students to cope with anxiety and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD);  The Ottawa Table has submitted their first proposal as part of the

Special Needs Strategy. More information will be available throughout the summer and shared with the Committee in the fall;

 The four signatory ministries working in collaboration on the joint project are the Ministry of Child and Youth Services, Ministry of Health

(5)

and Long-Term Care, Ministry of Community and Social Services, and Ministry of Education. The first proposal is for coordinated service delivery between these agencies with the expectation that the current level of service is maintained but not necessarily by the same provider. If the OCDSB no longer provided specific services the associated funding would be transferred to the appropriate agency;

 The development and implementation of IEPs have not been considered struck work as part of the current labour action;  Students will receive a summary of their grades and any further

information as submitted by their teacher. If students or parents have specific concerns they are encouraged to contact their teacher to discuss their progress;

 The IEP review is expected in the fall and the revised model will increase engagement of principals and vice-principals. Reviewing the IEPs during the school year will maximize participation;

 The referrals for specialized classes has decreased, with a number of families choosing an inclusive environment with EA support;

 The referrals for ASD classes is relatively high and most specialized program classes are full or nearly full; and

 Updated parent guides outlining criteria sheets and tiered intervention strategies are now available.

d. Transitions Sub-Committee

Ms. Mortimer provided the Committee with the following update from the Transitions Sub-Committee:

 The goal of the Sub-Committee was to develop a practical tools to assist parents and students when managing transitions;

 The Sub-Committee reviewed the current tools available to determine any gaps in support for families, with a focus on transitioning from intermediate to secondary school;

 Working with Vice-Principal Kessler, the Sub-Committee suggests a three pronged document: overview of transition supports, a one page case study as a practical example, and ‘tips and tricks’ for families;  The Sub-Committee will look to gather this information and finalize it

for presentation to SEAC in October;

 One challenge that has been identified is how to make the information readily available to families;

 The intermediate to secondary document could be a model to create guides for a variety of transition points; and

 The Ministry of Child and Youth Services has a transitions document that could be another useful guide to share with families.

(6)

Inclusive, Safe, and Caring Programs

5.

a. Memo 15-049, 2013-2014 Student Suspensions

Your Committee had before it Memo providing an overview of student suspensions for the period of 01 September 2013 to 30 June 2014.

Manager Oracheski advised that the data is presented in a way that allows for trend comparison with previous years and graphs are used to present the data visually. Committee members are encouraged to provide feedback on the presentation of data and suggestions may be incorporated into future reports, when possible. She added that The ‘no exceptionality’ category will be updated next year to better reflect that this category refers to students who have not been through the IPRC process but receive supports as per an IEP;

Superintendent Reynolds provided the Committee with the following information:

 The OCDSB average suspension rate is lower than the provincial average suspension rate;

 There has been a decrease in suspensions from the previous year;  The 24 percent reduction in suspensions at the secondary level may

represent an anomaly rather than a trend;

 There is a five percent increase in suspensions at the elementary level;  Boys continue to be suspended more than girls at the elementary level;  The Trillium database only recognizes the specific reasons for

suspension that are categorized in the Education Act. The “other”

category represents reasons for suspension specific to the OCDSB;  The Trillium database is being revised to better align with school

boards’ policies and procedures regarding suspension which will allow for more sophisticated disaggregation of the data;

 Most suspensions continue to be for one day in length;

 Students identified as exceptional, particularly students identified as behavior or mild intellectual disability, continue to be suspended at a higher rate, as compared to the rest of the student population; and  School staff continue to implement preventative programs to reduce

the frequency of incidents that cause a student to be suspended,

including restorative practices, WITS, LINK, and Rideauwood Addiction and Family Servces.

During discussion, and in response to questions, the following points were noted:

 Ms. Doubt and Mr. Warner noted that the information is improved from previous years. Ms. Doubt requested that the trend of number of suspensions per exceptionality would be useful for next year’s report;  It is not possible to categorize students using tiered intervention

categories as they are not listed in Trillium and a student may be receiving a variety of supports at different tiers, as per their needs;

(7)

 Mr. Wylie expressed concern that a large proportion of suspensions happen in the classroom with a trained professional. Superintendent Reynolds noted that the stress of the classroom with their peers could trigger specific behaviours that result in a suspension;

 Mr. Downing noted that including gifted students, who are suspended at the same rate as non-exceptional students, in the total suspension rate of exceptional students may artificially lower the perceived proportion of suspensions in that category given the substantial

weighting. Manager Oracheski advised that historically all exceptional students are in one category but that reporting could be revised in future reports;

 Mitigating circumstances are always considered before a student is suspended. The new teacher induction program provides training in how to recognize these circumstances, including a student with a behavior exceptionality;

 Vice-Principal Kessler expressed the view that the increased use of restorative practices and the support and capacity building for teachers to recognize and support students before their behavior escalates may contribute to lowered suspensions;

 Research suggests that a lower suspension rate and higher graduation rate are correlated;

 Trustee Ellis suggested that tracking attendance per exceptionality may be useful information moving forward; and

 The ‘other’ category with respect to locations is also limited by the Trillium database. These may be incidents offsite or online, among others.

In response to a question from Chair Kirwan, Manager Oracheski advised that she would confirm the number of students suspended versus the number of times a specific student was suspended.

Chair Kirwan thanked staff for the report, expressing the view that it is significantly improved from previous years.

Extended Day and Child Care Programs

6.

Superintendent MacDonald and Manager Heap advised that, while the extended day program (EDP) and core school day complement each other, there are differences in expectations, funding, staffing, and organization. They provided SEAC with the following information regarding extended day and child care programs:

 EDPs operate on a cost recovery basis; the fees paid by parents cover all costs of the program, including support for students with special needs;  The number of EDPs in the OCDSB has expanded with the roll out of

full-day kindergarten (FDK);

 School boards may run their own EDP or may partner with a third party operator (TPO) to provide the service;

(8)

 The Ministry of Education provided funding to support renovations and additional space requirements to support these programs;

 There are also two new employee groups as a result of these programs, Early Childhood Educators (ECE) and Early Learning Assistants (ELA); and

 In the last five years, 805 ECE and 115 ELA have been hired, District-run EDPs have grown from 4 to 61, TPOs offer EDP in 30 schools, and the total number of students in EDPs has grown from 100 to 4,500 students, with a total of 6,000 students expected next year.

Superintendent MacDonald and Manager Heap provided the following information specific to students with special needs in EDPs:

 Students who require additional supported are provided an ELA;

 ECEs in the EDP are also supporting students during the core school day to ensure continuity in service delivery of additional supports that are required;

 Safety plans or specific supports that are required are shared between EDP and core day staff;

 An education assistant (EA) assists students with special needs with the transition between programs;

 Students who attend a specialized program outside of their home school are bused to their home school in order to attend EDP in their

neighbourhood;

 An individual education plan (IEP) is not required in the EDP, but

successful strategies used in the core school day are carried over to the EDP; and

 A recent survey of EDP parents included a question specific to special education requirements: 70 percent replied not applicable, 20 percent replied extremely satisfied, 8 percent replied neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, and 2 percent replied dissatisfied.

During discussion, and in response to questions, the following points were noted:

 Families that take advantage of the flexibility in scheduling are generally families

that can adjust their work schedules and not necessarily specific to students with special needs;

 Students with special needs typically attend the program five days per week;

 There are times when the specialized program schedule and EDP schedule are

misaligned, but staff in LSS work to ensure busing is available for students;

 Legislation requires EDP be offered to kindergarten students only, but the

OCDSB offers programming up to grade six;

 There has not been a request for specialized equipment or therapy programs to

be provided in the EDP at this time;

 The focus on inquiry and interest based learning that is focused on in the EDP

and kindergarten classes should continue into primary grades;

 Teachers and ECE structure a play situation that is rich enough to answer

questions that students have asked and allow them opportunities to discover those answers;

(9)

 It was suggested that future surveys include parents who do not use the EDP to

determine why they are not accessing this service;

 There is no certification required to be an ELA and they do not replace an EA or

an ECE. The ELA enhances the ratio of students to adults to allow the ECE to focus on providing service to students who may require additional supports.

Memo 15-081, Update of Intermediate Language Learning Disability

7. (Year 2)

Your Committee had before it Memo 15-081 providing an update on the

implementation of the Intermediate Language Learning Disability (ILLD) support model, including the formal evaluation results following two years of implementation.

Supervisor of Speech and Language Pathology Maya Rattray provided the Committee with the following update:

 The program was created in September 2013 to address the gap in

service provision who leave the junior language learning disability program into one of three intermediate pathways (the regular classroom, learning disability program, or general learning program);

 The ILLD support model was subsequently developed based on information obtained during the formative stages of the evaluation,

including stakeholder feedback from students, parents, school-based staff, ILLD team members, SEAC representatives and OCDSB senior staff;  Input from a variety of stakeholders was critical for developing the support

structure and appropriate outcome measures;

 The model is well aligned with Learning For All, emphasizing that strategies that are required for some students are beneficial for all students;

 30 students were supported in this program this year and received approximately two visits per month each in the form of two hours to one half day in direct support time. Supports in between visits include corresponding via email and creating resources and programming;

 Assessments and goal settings were aligned with strategies on the report card and used as a baseline for measuring success;

 Students received a pre-assessment in the fall, assessed at 55 measuring points throughout the intervention, then their results were compared post-program;

 Results demonstrate a significant improvement for students. The most significant improvements were in self-regulation and self-awareness;  A variety of services were available to build the capacity of teachers, including online training modules and direct supports from a team of professionals;

 Training modules are available online. Of the teachers who participated in the training, 96 percent agreed that the modules met their needs in the classroom;

 The online training modules are only available to intermediate students at this time, but the Business and Learning Technology (B&LT) department

(10)

is investigating how best to provide this training to more teachers. When this information is available it can be shared with SEAC.

During discussion, and in response to questions, the following points were noted:  Mr. Popal and Trustee Ellis suggested that the original request from

parents of students in the junior LLD class to create a specialized class be considered, as it provides an alternative with respect to how to best meet students’ needs;

 Superintendent Grigoriev advised that OCSDB and independent research suggests that in classroom strategies for students with language learning disabilities have positive results;

 Trustee Ellis expressed the view that a more robust conversation of the pros and cons of a system class versus in class supports is required by SEAC to ensure the needs of students are met;

 Expressive and receptive language skills are embedded into the

curriculum, as the focus at the intermediate level shifts from remediation to maximizing skills through compensatory strategies;

 All graduating junior LLD students were supported in the ILLD program in either the regular class, LD class, or GLP class. The results of the

evaluation suggest that the strategies were helpful in all environments;  The threshold for statistical significance was one percent. In other words,

there is a 99 percent probability that the results of the evaluation are a result of the ILLD strategies and not some other phenomena;

 When students exit the ILLD program they attend their respective streams into secondary school; and

 The ILLD directly supports intermediate students, but staff is investigating how best to support students as they transition to grade 9.

Notice of Motion re Implementation of the Geographic Model

8.

Notice of motion having been given, Ms. Doubt moved as follows:

Whereas The Special Education Policy Ad Hoc Committee report recommended equitable and more transparent program placement for students who attend special education congregated/specialized classes, with like services to other students who:

 Attend a designated school within a zone of access close to their home and have this as their home school;

 Have access to programs without a wait list;

 Have access to transfer possibilities as per policies of the Board;

Whereas the recommendations of the committee were accepted by the Board and were incorporated into a renewed Policy P.096.SES on Special Education Programs and Services, but with no guarantee regarding wait lists for specialized classes;

(11)

Whereas the OCDSB began implementation of the Geographic Model using a phase-in by exceptionality approach in 2012, which is based on the above principles;

Whereas demand for some specialized classes has exceeded the existing wait lists due, in part, to additional applications from within the OCDSB population and requests from external students from coterminous boards or not previously

residing; and

Whereas the demand for specialized classes has added to the financial

challenges to the Board’s budget, historically the Board has supported a level of funding that is somewhat greater than that specifically allocated to Special Education, as have many other Boards.

Therefore, be it resolved:

THAT the Special Education Advisory Committee supports the continued implementation of the Geographic Model with particular focus on the following elements the Committee considers as essential:

 A continuum of placement options up to and including specialized classes and schools is required to meet the needs of exceptional children. These specialized program class services should be

delivered at a designated school within a geographic catchment area which is in a zone of easy access, in equity with other children; and  Wait lists for specialized classes, if required for financial purposes,

should be managed in an equitable fashion across all types of

specialized classes to avoid students waiting for access to specialized programs for multiple years.

Introducing the motion, Ms. Doubt noted that there has been some concern regarding the implementation of the geographic model, including the budget implications, policy requirements, and existence of the waitlist. She expressed the view that SEAC should acknowledge the realities of the situation, while confirming the commitment to placing students in specialized classes using the geographic model, as part of a continuum of placement options. Ms. Doubt added that more clarity is required with respect to how best to manage a waitlist, if required.

During discussion the following points were noted:

 The motion is not specific to individual exceptionalities;

 Mr. Wylie suggested that this motion endorses the current status quo;  Mr. Downing expressed the view that more discussion regarding the

geographic model is required to determine if it is the best service delivery model;

(12)

 Trustee Ellis expressed his support for the motion, emphasizing the importance of placing students in all specialized programs using the geographic model; and

 Mr. Warner expressed his appreciation for the work of the Special Education Policy Ad Hoc Committee that made the recommendation of implementing the geographic model.

Ms. Doubt emphasized the importance of offering a continuum of

placements and a range of options to students. She expressed the view that if a specialized program is the appropriate pathway for students they should be placed in the specialized class using the geographic model.

Moved by Beth Doubt,

THAT the Special Education Advisory Committee supports the continued implementation of the Geographic Model with

particular focus on the following elements the Committee considers as essential:

 A continuum of placement options up to and including

specialized classes and schools is required to meet the needs of exceptional children. These specialized program class services should be delivered at a designated school within a geographic catchment area which is in a zone of easy access, in equity with other children; and

 Wait lists for specialized classes, if required for financial

purposes, should be managed in an equitable fashion across all types of specialized classes to avoid students waiting for access to specialized programs for multiple years.

- Carried -

New Business

9.

Chair Kirwan noted the estimated time indicated beside each agenda item. He requested that members consider and provide feedback whether they would prefer strict adherence to the time allocation by limiting discussion or more flexible discussions with a risk of not completing agenda items.

Adjournment

10.

The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.

At the time of adjournment a number of items were outstanding. Chair Kirwan advised that these would be added to the September agenda, if required.

Rob Kirwan Chair,

Special Education Advisory Committee