Special education - People for Education

3 downloads 239 Views 451KB Size Report
caPs on waiTing lisTs limiT sTudEnTs' accEss To. aPProPriaTE suPPorT. Psycho-educational assessments can be a vital part
Special Education The proportion of children and youth who receive special education services in Ontario schools continues to grow. This year, an average per school of 18% of elementary students and 24% of secondary students are receiving some form of special education assistance.

The special education pipeline: waiting lists Over the last decade, waiting lists for special education services have been on the decline – from approximately 46,000 in 2000/2001 to approximately 35,000 this year. There are a number of possible reasons for the drop. First, the budget for special education has increased by 86% since 2000/01, to over $2.5 billion this year.1 But new data from this year’s survey suggests another reason: many schools report that there are restrictions on the number of students they are allowed to place on waiting lists. In 47% of secondary schools and 50% of elementary schools, principals told us there is a cap on the number of students they can recommend for assessment.

Caps on waiting lists limit students’ access to appropriate support Psycho-educational assessments can be a vital part of the special education process. They help to clearly identify a student’s learning needs and guide the programming and accommodations that will help the child succeed in school. They are also a requirement for IPRC’s, which are a prerequisite for recognizing a child’s right to special education services. To find out more about these caps, People for Education emailed 400 principals asking for more information about caps at their school. We offered to withhold board’s names. Their responses show there is a wide variety of practices across the province. Generally, where they exist, caps are set at the board level, and in most cases relate to the availability of psychologists.

The Board decides on the cap on number of assessments. Each school gets two assessments each year. The number two is the same no matter the size of your school (ranging from 80 to 800 students). We do get the odd emergency assessment for students going into Section classes or in the case of a serious mental health situation.

Quick Facts For 2011/12 • 18% of elementary students receive some special education assistance, an increase from 11% in 2000/01. • 24% of secondary students receive some special education assistance, up from 14% in 2000/01. • 47% of secondary schools and 50% of elementary schools report there is a cap on the number of students who can be recommended for special education assessments. • In elementary schools, the average ratio of special education students to special education teachers is 36:1, up from 22:1 in 2000/01 • In secondary schools, the average ratio of special education students to special education teachers is 69:1, up from 48:1 in 2000/01.

I would not call it a cap but rather an allocation. As a school of [over 600] students K-8, we are allocated 3 psycho-ed assessments for the year. We decide who the “lucky ones” will be through discussion through School Based Team. The need far exceeds the availability. In other schools or boards, principals talked more about assessments being limited by the availability of psychologists, regardless of whether ‘caps’ were a part of board policy. For some of these boards, there may be room for advocacy for extra assessments where there is an emergency.

If you were to query the board they would respond by saying there are no caps. However the reality is that there is a limited number of assessments available and schools, in most cases, are only able to submit one request at a time. Occasionally there seems to be an ‘opening’ and schools are told that they can submit an additional one or two requests. Also in emergency situations or in cases where something has escalated very quickly it is usually possible to get an assessment in a relatively short timeframe.

People for Education © 2012 1

Percentage of elementary schools reporting no psychologist available, by region 40%

37%

Regional variations are most likely the result of three factors: lower student populations, which make the delivery of special education more expensive, availability of specialists (37% of northern schools report no access to a psychologist), and different policies for the delivery of special education services.

30% 17%

20% 10%

Ontario reported a cap on waiting lists, compared to 32% of schools in the GTA. In addition, several principals said that while there is no cap in their school, more students have special needs than are being put forward for assessment.

10%

13% 4%

ut h

er n rth

So

No

we st er n

A GT

l ra Ce nt

Ea st e

rn

0%

Requests for assessments are vetted through a multidisciplinary team (School Principal and spec ed staff, Board spec ed consultant, psychologist, social worker and speech and language pathologist). We (the school) could make a request to this team for “additional” assessments, but we will almost always be told that we have reached our quota and will have to wait until the following year... I say “almost always” because there is a small chance every year that our Board psychologist may have the time to do additional assessments for some schools, if he/she has “extra” time because some schools do not request an assessment or due to other workload factors.

Wide variation in the number of assessments per year Principals face vastly different resources in terms of the ability to get their students assessed. At one school, a principal reported “Caps are determined by Special Education and lately they seem to be dependent on personnel available to complete assessments. We have been told that there will be no assessments for this school year since they are trying to catch up on last year’s referrals. We will not be processing any referrals for the 2011-2012 year”. At the other end of the spectrum, some schools appeared to have fifteen-to-twenty assessments in a year. Results from People for Education’s provincial survey show there is considerable regional variation about where principals report caps: 80% of elementary schools in Eastern

In at least one school, there is policy explicitly to limit waiting lists: “In our Board we are told there are not to be official waiting lists for psycho educational assessments. We are allowed to have an assessment ongoing and a referral in process but there is not to be an official wait list beyond that.  This is expressed in our procedures with the Board.”

Who is left out? Where principals face pressure to prioritize, there are groups of children who may have special learning needs that are not getting met. These groups include the youngest children, (despite decades of evidence showing the importance of early intervention) and students at the end of high school. They may also include a significant number of children with less acute special education needs, but who would benefit from extra assistance.

The lists are arranged according to need and age. Age because unless a student is two years behind they do not qualify for intensive support placements and they need to have been attending an equivalent of two years of school. We are dissuaded from assessing student before grade 3. Often their learning skills are still developing and it is difficult to differentiate between an LD and other learning gaps. It is not so much that there is a cap, but we have to follow a protocol… There is a general budget and once the budget is done there are no more assessments for that year. Student has to be grade 3 or above and the teacher has had to put numerous interventions in place first.

People for Education © 2012 2

The caps for our assessments are set by the Board of Education. At the school level, we have to prioritize very carefully in order to ensure that our kids’ needs are met. We pay particular attention to those in the intermediate grades to ensure that they are assessed before going to the high school. … if a student has had an assessment at any point in elementary school it is highly unlikely that they will be able to receive an additional current assessment prior to graduation. Post-secondary institutions are asking for recent assessments before considering accommodation requests. Some assessments are quite old but to update them would require an army of psychologists. Apart from specific groups, there is always a concern that in a context of shortage, the squeaky wheel – that is, the children of the parents who advocate most effectively – will be better served. Frequently, those are parents who have more education and familiarity with the system.

Two tier system: assessment cap pushes parents to “go private” One result of caps is an increasing pressure for families who have the resources – extended medical plans or higher incomes – to pay to have their child assessed by a psychologist in private practice. The Ontario Psychologists’ Association recommends an hourly rate of $220, and an assessment might take between 4 and 12 hours. As a result, assessments can cost as much as $2,500.

Because the number of assessments is so limited, we encourage families to pursue assessments (outside of the school) if they have coverage / can afford to do so. It is not unusual for children to wait a year or even longer to be assessed. Often, parents understand the need to act quickly, and seek private assessments, knowing that this is an essential part of proceeding to receive the needed interventions. The cap is determined by the board and often it is associated with school size. There is a growing number of assessments that are being done privately at our school. Families are able to access funding through their benefits package.

Special education services thinner After declining fairly steadily for a number of years, there was an increase this year in the percentage of schools reporting that not all identified students are receiving recommended support: 34% of elementary schools, up from 23% last year, and 23% of secondary schools, up from 21% last year. While the percentage of students receiving special education services continues to climb, the availability of specialized staffing is not keeping pace. The average number per school of special education students for each special education teacher has risen over the past five years from 53 to 69 in secondary, and from 30 to 36 in elementary schools. Again, these numbers vary widely by region: In Eastern Ontario, the ratio of elementary special education students to special education teachers is 52:1; in the GTA it is 26:1.

Educational Assistants provide crucial support Many principals also commented on the challenges of coping with fewer Educational Assistants (EAs). Educational assistants are often assigned either to individual students with significant special needs, or to classes for students who may have substantial behavioural or medical issues. In secondary schools, there are an average of 51 special education students for each EA, up from 42 five years ago, although there has not been much change in elementary schools, where there are an average of 22 students for each EA, down from 23 five years ago. Worryingly, EAs were the largest group among the 9,700 “non-teaching” staff recommended for cuts by the Drummond Commission. As funding cuts begin to affect school board budgets, they may be among the first to go. Nonteaching staff include not only EAs, but also psychologists and social workers – all of whom play important roles in the delivery of special education services.

Each year we experience a decline in the number of Educational Assistants on our staff. Only students who could be a danger to themselves or others seem to receive EA support, or those who are medically fragile. We are left juggling support for needy students and those with learning disabilities are never even considered in the mix of individuals who should receive this support.

People for Education © 2012 3

WHAT COUNTS AS EXCEPTIONAL?

What is the right thing to do?

In 2006, the province released Special Education Transformation, a policy document which encourages boards to allow students to receive special education services without going through the often time-consuming and resourceintensive Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) process.2 This recommendation made sense because requiring an IPRC in every case before providing services could create a bottleneck and a barrier to services. But when students go through an IPRC and are identified as “exceptional” under the Education Act, they acquire a legal right to services and supports. And if students are receiving services or accommodations without full assessment it is hard to know whether their actual learning needs are being met.

Families and economists agree on one thing: there is a lack of good information about the quality and effectiveness of special education services overall.5

In 2009/2010, 37% of students receiving special education services had not been formally identified through the IPRC process.3 In December 2011, the Ministry also added a greater degree of flexibility to the basis on which a student can be identified as exceptional. This change may allow many more children to qualify for an IPRC.4 A memo from the provincial government explained to school boards that special education guidelines are to be “interpreted broadly,” and students whose medical conditions previously did not qualify them to be identified as exceptional, may now qualify. These include conditions “such as (but not limited to) Attention Deficit Disorder/ Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADD/ADHD), Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS), Tourette Syndrome” and more. These new guidelines could represent a sea change in special education. Until now, it often took strenuous advocacy to get a child services if their diagnosis – however serious – was not on the list in the Ministry guidelines.

… information that school boards currently collect about students with special education needs, how early they are identified, the educational programs provided to them, and the results achieved was not yet sufficient to support effective planning and service delivery, program oversight, and the identification of effective practices. Auditor General of Ontario, 2008 From parents’ point of view it is stressful and burdensome not only to get the services but also to be sure that they are the best available.6 Major reviews of special education over the past several years – in Ontario and beyond – emphasize the need for this information in order to improve services, ensure equity and control costs.

Average ratio of special education students to teachers in elementary schools 40 30 20 10 0

People for Education © 2012 4

Recommendations All students can learn and all students can succeed, but some students require different kinds of support. People for Education recommends:

• the province embark on a full public review of special education services in order to:

◦◦ develop an equitable and needs-based process for determining who gets psychoeducational assessments

◦◦ evaluate the quality of Ontario’s special education services

◦◦ create a framework of best practices for devel-

◦◦ develop consistent definitions about “what counts” as special education services to ensure that there are some common standards and practices among boards and to ensure that IPRC and IEP recommendations are transferable across boards

◦◦ Develop a funding model for special education that is both accountable and responsive to the actual needs of students in Ontario’s school boards.

• the province create a position for a special education ombudsman office to provide support to parents and families navigating the special education system.

oping and implementing Individual Education Plans

Methodology people for Education annual survey of ontario’s publicly funded schools This is People for Education’s fifteenth annual survey of resources in Ontario elementary schools, and twelfth in secondary schools. The survey acts as an information tool for parents and Ontario citizens. It focuses on quantifiable resources available in schools across the province, tracking any changes which occur. The resulting data provides an annual picture of the effects of education policy and funding shifts. Surveys were mailed to every Ontario elementary and secondary school principal in October 2011, with an explanatory letter requesting that they complete it. Translated surveys were sent to French-language schools. Reminders were faxed and emailed in December and January. Surveys could be completed online.

Confidentiality of all individual school responses is guaranteed. Where direct quotes are used that might identify a school, permission has been obtained. Only aggregated data is released. This year’s sample of 1108 elementary and secondary schools equals 22% of the province’s schools and 23% of its 1,890,698 students. Schools in the province’s 72 school boards participated. 57% per cent of the elementary schools in the sample also participated in 2010/11. From time to time we follow up with respondents by email to get more information on particular issues.

People for Education © 2012 5

Notes

1

Ontario Ministry of Education (2011). Education Funding Technical Paper. Toronto: author, p.8; Parents Guide to student-focused funding 2000-2001, http://www.ontla. on.ca/library/repository/mon/1000/10287103.pdf p.6. 1.35 billion.

2

See e.g., Bennett, S. and K. Wynne (2006). Special education transformation: The report of the co-chairs with the recommendations of the Working Table on Special Education. Toronto, Government of Ontario: 43.

3

Government of Ontario. (March 2012) Overview: Students receiving special education programs and services. Unpublished powerpoint on file with People for Education.

4

Government of Ontario. (2011) Memorandum to Directors of Education, available at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/ general/elemsec/speced/2011CategoryException.pdf. The wide range of conditions that the Ministry’s categories cover can be seen from the sample Individual Education Plans (IEPs) on the website of the Council of Ontario Directors of Education, retrieved from http://www.ontariodirectors.ca/ IEP-PEI/en.html.

5

Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services. (2012) Public services for Ontarians: A path to sustainability and excellence. Toronto: Government of Ontario, retrieved from http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/reformcommission/; OFSTED (2010). The special needs and disability review: A statement is not enough. London: Government of England retrieved http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/special-educationalneeds-and-disability-review, Auditor General of Ontario (2010). Annual Report 2010, c.4.14.

6

41% of the calls to People for Education’s Parent Support Phone Line are about special education.

People for Education is a registered charity that works to support public education in Ontario’s English, French and Catholic schools. For more information, contact us: phone: 416-534-0100 email: [email protected] web: http://www.peopleforeducation.ca

People for Education © 2012 6