SPECIAL EDUCATION POLICY AND PROGRAMS OVERVIEW October, 2006 Ministry of Education.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Horizon School Division #205 First Nations and Métis Education Plan

Advertisements

Growing Success Overview

SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS Helping children achieve their best. In school. At home. In life. National Association of School Psychologists.

STANISLAUS COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION/ CENTRAL CALIFORNIA MIGRANT HEAD START CHILD OUTCOMES SYSTEM CHILD OUTCOMES SYSTEMS Training Plan * Outcomes Awareness.

1 Our priorities for the next three years Close Critical Service Gaps Increase availability of culturally appropriate services and serve more children.

1 Ministry of Education, 2009 Individual Education Plans (IEPs) 101 Slide Deck No. 2.

PUT TITLE HERE Collaborating for Better IEPs Slide Deck No.4 Ministry of Education, 2009.

Individual Education Plan Overview Presented By: Pamela Cameron Winter 2013.

SEN/Disability Strategy Group May 2011

Learning and Teaching Using ICT Conferences Summer 2004.

RTI … What do the regs say?. What is “it?” Response To Intervention is a systematic process for providing preventive, supplementary, and interventional.

1 Visions of Community 2011 March 12, 2011 The Massachusetts Tiered System of Support Madeline Levine - Shawn Connelly.

SEM Planning Model.

HENRICO COUNTY AND AUTISM CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE PARTNERSHIP.

School-Based Psychological Services

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIVERSE LEARNERS Susan Brody Hasazi Katharine S. Furney National Institute of Leadership, Disability, and Students Placed.

1 PUT TITLE HERE Closing the Gap for Students with Special Education Needs in Ontario: Research Trends and Capacity Building Barry Finlay Director Special.

By: Andrew Ball. What do school psychologists do? School psychologists work to find the best solution for each child and situation. They use many different.

The Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat Le Secrétariat de la littératie et de la numératie October – octobre 2007 The School Effectiveness Framework A Collegial.

CECV Intervention Framework Module 1 Introduction & Philosophy

Using the T-9 Net This resource describes how schools use the T-9 Net to monitor the literacy and numeracy skills of students in Transition, Year 1 and.

NTIP Nov 10, 2009 Judi Kochanka Kim Slomka Special Education: Secondary Panel.

Ontario’s Special Needs Strategy Spring The Vision “An Ontario where children and youth with special needs get the timely and effective services.

Principal Evaluation in Massachusetts: Where we are now National Summit on Educator Effectiveness Principal Evaluation Breakout Session #2 Claudia Bach,

Kesgrave High School SEN Information Report Mission Statement As a school we value all our pupils and work hard to ensure that SEN pupils have access to.

. Ministry of Children and Youth Services Ontario’s Three Year Child and Youth Mental Health Plan.

Miyo Wahkohtowin Community Education Authority Maskwacis Student Success Program Presented by Ahmad Jawad March 8, 2011.

The Role of an Elementary Student Program Support Teacher SPST Building Inclusive Catholic Communities Revised July 2010.

Ontario Psychological Association (OPA) Student Assessment Project “Designing a Project for Success” Date: February 6, 2009 Presented by: Marg Peppler,

Learning Support Services October 5, START WITH WHY It’s not what you do, it’s why you do it that matters. Simon Sinek.

Strategic Success We are RACING to the Top. Appoquinimink by the Numbers… Total Population: 9,866 Receiving Services: 1, % We ARE growing… Beyond.

Creating a New Vision for Kentucky’s Youth Kentucky Youth Policy Assessment How can we Improve Services for Kentucky’s Youth? September 2005.

Improve Achievement for EACH PreK-12 Student Areas of Focus Preview GREENWICH PUBLIC SCHOOLS October 11, 2007.

Today’s Outcomes understand the importance of evidence-based decision making in improving student learning learn more about EQAO as a source of information.

Individual Education Plan Overview Presented By: Pamela Cameron Fall 2014.

Maryland’s Journey— Focus Schools Where We’ve Been, Where We Are, and Where We’re Going Presented by: Maria E. Lamb, Director Nola Cromer, Specialist Program.

1. 2 Roots of Ontario Legislation and Policy Bill 82 (1980), An Amendment to the Education Act: –Universal access: right of all children, condition notwithstanding,

February 9, 2012  Partner with the community  Provide an effective educational experience  Prepare every student to find success in our complex society.

Overview of Title I Part A Farwell ISD. The Intent of Title I Part A The intent is to help all children to have the opportunity to obtain a high quality.

Page 1 Fall, 2010 Regional Cross Sector Meeting Elements of an Effective Protocol.

The Education Response to HIV and AIDS- Progress Presentation to Education Portfolio Committee 19th August 2003 Kgobati Magome, Ministry of Education.

IMPORTANCE OF QUALITY AND HIGH STANDARDS? degree of public investment in education economic competitiveness social equity personal self-esteem place on.

Overview of Title I Part A Prepared by: Title I Staff - Office of Superintendent of Instruction OSPI Dr. Bill Wadlington, Superintendent/Principal and.

1 RESPONSE TO INSTRUCTION ________________________________ RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION New Opportunities for Students and Reading Professionals.

Strengthening Student Outcomes in Small Schools There’s been enough research done to know what to do – now we have to start doing it! Douglas Reeves.

Operating Standards Overview July Capacity Committee Meeting.

CONTEXT AND RESPONSIBILITIES Special Education. Legislation for the education of children with Special Needs US: Federal legislation (IDEA) Canada: Provincial.

By Billye Darlene Jones EDLD 5362 Section ET8004-1B February, 2010.

ESEA FOR LEAs Cycle 6 Monitoring Arizona Department of Education Revised October 2015.

Bradford’s SEN Strategy May A Strategic Framework Vision and intent –What do we want Strategic Foci (Delivery Areas) –How will we get there Strategic.

Students with Exceptionalities

1 Strategic Plan Review. 2 Process Planning and Evaluation Committee will be discussing 2 directions per meeting. October meeting- Finance and Governance.

Interrelationships: Plans + Funding = Student Proficiency Ingham ISD Curriculum Director’s Meeting November 4, 2015.

The Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat Le Secrétariat de la littératie et de la numératie October – octobre 2007 The School Effectiveness Framework A Collegial.

Special Education Module #1 : Legislative Overview.

Loudoun Autism Summit October 19, YearNumber , , ,136 3.

Response to Intervention: What is it?. RtI is… … a process for providing high quality instruction, assessment, and intervention that allows schools to.

Presented at the OSPA Summit 2012 January 9, 2012.

Individual Education Plans.

Sept. 16, Session #2 PED3106 : Agenda - Housekeeping: Hardcopy course outlines, Assignment 1 (8:30AM-8:45AM) - Complimen-tree, Inclusion in I/S Schools.

Updated Section 31a Information LITERACY, CAREER/COLLEGE READINESS, MTSS.

What IS RtI?. National RtI Model “Response to Intervention” –Born out of Reauthorization of Special Ed Law (IDEA 2004) Two Models of RtI: –Problem-Solving.

The Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat Le Secrétariat de la littératie et de la numératie October – octobre 2007 The School Effectiveness Framework A Collegial.

Regional Implementation of the Proposed Specific Learning Difficulties (SpLD) Support Model For Primary and Post Primary Schools 07/06/20161.

Including all Students in FSL FSL educators, Special Education teachers, school administrators.

Interboro School District Keystones to Opportunity Grant Four Year Overview School Years.

Education & Skills Authority (ESA) 4 March 2010 National Association of Head Teachers Dr Clare Mangan Director (Designate) Children and Young People’s.

Special Education BUDGET for Stimulus Funds ARRA (American Recovery & Reinvestment Act) Presented to Rockingham County School Board September 22, 2009.

Presenter: Ministry of Children and Youth Services Date: Autumn 2011

Presentation transcript:

SPECIAL EDUCATION POLICY AND PROGRAMS OVERVIEW October, 2006 Ministry of Education

2 Special Education Demographics In the 2004/05 school boards reported: –13.65% of the total student population was receiving special education programs and services. 8.96% was identified “exceptional” by an Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) and 4.70% was not formally identified as exceptional. –100,872 (7.08%) elementary and 89,400 (12.87%) secondary students were formally identified as exceptional by an IPRC. –78,343 (5.49%) elementary and 21,390 (3.06%) secondary students were not formally identified as exceptional, but were reported to be receiving special education programs and services. Approximately 82% of students receiving special education are placed in regular classrooms.

3 Current Ministry of Education Strategic Directions Goals: High levels of student achievement: - literacy and numeracy initiatives – 75% target by student success/learning to age 18 strategy – 85% graduation target by 2010 Reduced gaps in student achievement Increased public confidence and support for public education Activities: Identifying and supporting effective teaching, learning and assessment practices Identifying and supporting effective gap-reducing practices Engaging students, families and communities in building a supportive learning environment Increasing system effectiveness, efficiency, transparency and responsiveness

4 Strategic Goals for Special Education Improved outcomes for range of students receiving special education. Programming that is linked to the Ontario Curriculum and the Provincial Report Card. Increased capacity of schools to effectively meet the needs of a wide range of learners in regular classrooms Cooperative connections between schools and families of children facing learning challenges; promoting a positive environment Improved balance between a focus on teaching and learning, and the need for appropriate process, documentation and accountability

5 What will be different? Changing Paradigms in Special Education Focus on Administrative Process Focus on Compliance Model of Reaction Focus on Access to Special Education Focus on Access to Special Education Focus on Student Learning and Assessing Progress Focus on Accountability for Results Focus on Accountability for Results Model of Prevention Focus on Access to Education Increasing Emphasis on Research-Based Instructional Practices

6 Ministry Response to Working Table Recommendations – June 2006 ACTIONOBJECTIVES Streamlined Identification and Review Committee (IPRC) process. Removal of barriers that delay special education programs and services. Increased efficiency of human resources by redirecting focus from administrative process to improved student outcomes. Reinforce Ministry’s IEP Policy - Review of IEPs  Enhanced focus on student achievement  Increased the capacity of teachers to measure improvement in student outcomes.  Improved communication of programming and student progress for parents. Revise school boards’ Special Education Plans  Focus on target setting for improved student learning and program outcomes.  Increased school board efficiency through fewer Ministry reporting mechanism. Informal Dispute Resolution and Pilot Mediation Process Satisfactory resolution of disputes regarding provision of special education programs and services.  Improved communication between schools and parents regarding student progress. Establish a reference group on Autism Spectrum Disorders  Identification of effective practices and opportunities for knowledge transfer Establish a Special Education Program and Financial Pilot Review to determine program effectiveness and efficient use of resources.  Evidence of special education program effectiveness, and human resource and financial efficiency in school boards related to: - measures of student achievement; - efficient practices/effectiveness of system delivery (administrative); - parent engagement; - efficient practices/effectiveness of programming; - teacher capacity; and - efficient practices/effectiveness of system delivery (financial). Establish a new funding model for special education.  Continuation of the Special Education per pupil Amount (SEPPA).  Conversion of each board’s current High Needs Amount into a board-specific per pupil amount that would be multiplied by board enrolment.  Conversion of the current Special Incidence Portion (SIP) process to SIP Plus.  Use of high needs proxy amounts by

7 What Will Be Different? Reduced waiting time for programs and services where the labelling process is used as barrier. (Streamlined IPRC) Less time spent by schools on paper work and meetings. More time on assessing needs and developing appropriate programming. (Streamlined IPRC) Reduced waiting times for student assessments and enhanced teacher capacity to provide effective programs for students. (Ontario Psychological Association Assessment Project) Measurable performance indicators for schools to monitor student achievement. (IEP) Aggregate student performance data to inform school boards’ programming decisions. (IEP) Clearer information for parents on student outcomes and related programs/services. (IEP) Public reporting by school boards on target setting and results regarding improved student achievement. (School Board Improvement Plans) Access for parents to informal dispute resolution processes at the school/school board level to resolve disagreements regarding programs and services. (Informal Dispute Resolution/Mediation) Fewer complaints made by parents to the courts and Ontario Human Rights Commission. (Informal Dispute Resolution/Mediation) Better evidence-based information for school/school boards on effective practices. (Autism Reference Group, CODE Special Education Projects, and Geneva Centre for Autism Project) Better information for the Ministry and school boards on decision making practices that relate to program delivery and funding allocations. (Review/Audit) Discontinuation of Net New Needs Claims Process to generate the High Needs Amount of the Special Education Grant. (GSN Announcement) Conversion of current SIP Funding Model to SIP Plus process. (GSN Announcement)

8 CODE Special Education Projects Support the implementation of Education of All. Council of Ontario Directors of Education (CODE) received $25M from the Ministry of Education to support school board innovative projects in 2005/06 that improve instruction and assessment practices for a diverse range of learners, particularly in the areas of numeracy and literacy. 85 projects addressed areas such as early identification and intervention, instructional strategies, curriculum-based assessment, progress reporting based on measurable achievement, Universal Design, differentiated instruction, effective professional learning communities, web-based instruction and assistive technology. For 2006/07 CODE has been provided with an additional $25M to support professional development that enhances the capacity of teachers and others to effectively improve outcomes for students with special education needs.

9 Other Special Education Funded Projects $20M for the Ontario Psychological Association (OPA) to work with school boards to reduce waiting times for students (K-4) requiring assessments and to enhance the capacity of teachers to provide effective programs for students. $5M for the Geneva Centre for Autism to deliver training for teacher assistants working with students who have Autism Spectrum Disorder.