On the Legislative Front
Investing in Public Education: Advancing the Goal of Continuous
Improvement in Student Learning sand Achievement:
a response to the report of the Education Equality Task Force
The Report of the Education Equality Task Force, entitled Investing in Public Education: Advancing the Goal of Continuous Improvement in Student Learning and Achievement, was released on December 10, 2002. The Government responded immediately to the first three recommendations made by Dr. Rozanski by allocating a large amount of new money, some of which was for special education. This was welcomed by school boards and others who have been concerned about the funding formula and its impact on the educational system. A sum of 130 million dollars was distributed to 58 school boards with an additional 120 million promised for next year. Unfortunately, from the point of view of those of us who are concerned about the education of students with specific learning disabilities, these funds were all directed exclusively towards ISA funding. At the same time, there were no matching or complimentary funds allocated to the Special Education Per Pupil Portion (SEPPA) of the special education funding formula, in spite of the fact that this allocation is expected to support the provision of special education programs and services for the vast majority of special education students, including most students with learning disabilities.
In spite of the fact that we do not as yet know the Government’s intent regarding the full report and the recommendations contained within it, as has been its usual practice, LDAO has already communicated its observations and recommendations to the Minister of Education and others about the report and its contents.
In considering the report, it is important to remember that LDAO and most of the other special education focussed Provincial parent organizations believe that the funding formula for special education in Ontario is flawed and requires significant changes. It was these organizations’ collective hope that the Education Equality Task Force would listen to and consider with careful attention the concerns and recommendations of the special education related parent organizations, when it determined how to deal with the funding formula for special education.
The Education Equality Task Force was mandated to review the Province’s education funding formula and to make recommendations on ways to improve equity, fairness, certainty and stability in the funding of Ontario’s students and schools. Regarding the special education funding formula, the one of particular interest to LDAO and its membership, the Task Force was asked to determine whether the current approach to funding is the most responsive way to meet students’ needs. Regrettably, Dr. Rozanski did not directly answer this very important question.
LDAO put forward a series of detailed and specific recommendations to the Task Force, which may be summarized as follows:
- The Education Equality Task Force should not endorse the current funding formulae.
- Instead, it should recommend a series of significant changes, especially in the special education funding formula area, that will lead to fair and equitable funding ensuring that all students, including exceptional students, will have their needs met and will receive an appropriate education, in accordance with Ontario’s educational and human rights legislation. This, in LDAO’s opinion, is dependent on the elimination of the ISA process, as currently carried out, although the funding of equipment (as in ISA level one) and of care and treatment programs (as funded through ISA level four) should be retained.
- The funding of special education must be retained as a separate and fully accountable funding envelope, with targeted special education funding spent on providing special education programs, services and supports to students in accordance with their strengths and needs and as they are set out in the student’s IEP.
- The Education Equality Task Force should reflect in its recommendations that equality is not the goal of education funding and that equity must include the Section 15 entitlements of students with disabilities, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Ontario Human Rights Code. This must include access to a full range of special education placements, including self-contained congregated special education classes, established to ameliorate the innate disadvantages faced by exceptional students within the educational system.
- All exceptional students should have access to being taught by appropriately qualified special education teachers in the most enabling learning environment, as their primary special education programme component. This must include access to a full range of special education placement options, including self-contained congregated special education classes in accordance with Section 31 of Regulation 298.
- School boards should be held accountable for meeting the needs of their exceptional students and for delivering to them the programs, services and accommodations contained in their IEP. Further, school boards should also be held accountable for providing to their exceptional students programs and services in accordance with their special education plan.
Dr Rozanski’s report stated that the process for funding public education should be guided by the following interrelated and interdependent principles:
-
adequacy
-
affordability
-
equity
-
stability
-
flexibility
-
accountability
One cannot disagree with these principles. However, the specific recommendations contained within this report will not, in my opinion, assure that all students will receive an education that is appropriate for their needs and that will enable them to reach their potential. Nor do I see any anticipatable progress towards enhanced equity or accountability for students with specific learning disabilities.
Dr. Rozanski generally appeared to support the current funding formula, since most of his recommendations focussed on adjusting the base amounts and the benchmarks related to the funding allocations rather than the actual formulae. Extra funds, allocated on the basis of faulty formulae, will not achieve the stated laudable goals of the Task Force. Nor will they necessarily benefit students who have very real but currently unmet needs.
Of course, extra funds are very important to enable school boards to carry on their day to day business. But as far as I see it, the required changes in special education do not simply rely on the provision of extra dollars. The report also contained some positive recommendations related to special education. For example, the recommendation, ignored so far by the Ministry, that the SEPPA allocation be increased for secondary school students could be very helpful. I was also pleased to see the references to the importance of the IEP and ensuring that students receive the programming set out in their IEP. However, I had hoped for more than a generic statement that “school boards should be held accountable for meeting the needs of students and for delivering the programs, services and accommodations set out in the students’ IEPs”. Without any accompanying references to incentives or penalties, I feel sure that such a statement will not result in any meaningful changes.
I was also extremely disappointed that Dr. Rozanski had chosen to ignore LDAO’s very detailed and specific recommendations as well as the alternative funding model that we presented to it. Given that LDAO represents 50% of all exceptional students whose needs are met through the utilization of special education funding, it would have been appropriate to acknowledge, even if not approve, these very specific comments and recommendations.
So what is likely to happen now? The ISA funding has gone “live” and an additional 250 million dollars have been put into the pot. Reading about school board reactions in the media we are already told that this is not enough. And it is not clear how much would be deemed enough, such that school boards will turn their attention from trying to generate more dollars to providing an education to their students. The requisite changes to meeting the needs of students will not be made until such time that the Ministry of Education:
-
implements meaningful changes to the SEPPA funding and the whole special education funding formula;
-
releases and implements the long awaited exceptionality specific program standards;
-
takes some real steps towards holding school boards accountable for meeting the needs of their exceptional students and for delivering to them the programs, services and accommodations contained in their IEP.
Since the introduction of the student focussed funding formula in 1998, much has been said about the Ministry of Education’s plans for enhanced school board accountability. In spite of that, school boards are not held accountable for compliance with the Education Act, with the relevant regulations, with their obligations under the Human Rights Code, with the standards for school board special education plans and IEPs and even with the directions of the funding formula. The time has come for the Ministry of Education to undertake the development and enforcement of an accountability process which is meaningful and which sets out clearly the incentives for compliance as well as the penalties for non-compliance. Anything less is simply unacceptable!
Eva Nichols, Legislation Policy Consultant
|
