wednesday, march 21, 2018 public session agenda agendas and minutes/bdagenda... · the external...

1

HALTON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Meeting will be livestreamed from www.hdsb.ca J.W. Singleton Education Centre, 2050 Guelph Line, Burlington, ON

Public Session Agenda – Wednesday, March 21, 2018 Public Session: 7 p.m. (Private Session precedes Public Session)

PUBLIC SESSION AGENDA -- REVISED

1.0 Opening 1.1 Welcome, Call to Order and Attendance 1.2 Motion to Move into Private Session 1.3 Rise into Public Session 1.4 Acknowledgement of Traditional Lands 1.5 Declarations of Possible Conflict of Interest 1.6 Approval of the Agenda

2.0 Delegations/Presentations to the Board 2.1 Inspire Award Presentations (presentations at first Board meeting each month) 2.2 Delegations

2.2.1 Danielle Manton, Halton Area Municipal Clerks – School Year Calendar distributed to Trustees 2.3 Presentations

2.3.1 OSTA/AECO Student Trustee Platform (D. Metropolitansky, M. Muqtasid) 2.4 Acknowledgement by the Chair of Delegations and Presentations

3.0 Consent Agenda Items 3.1 Approval of Consent Agenda Action Items

3.2.1 Minutes of the Halton District School Board Meeting, March 7, 2018 page 2 3.2 Receipt of Consent Agenda Information Items

3.2.2 Order Paper page 5 3.2.3 Board Schedule Update (S. Miller) – Report 18051 page 10 3.2.4 Capital Update (D. Boag) – Report 18052 page 13 3.2.5 Admin Procedure Update (S. Miller) – Report 18053 page 15

4.0 Ratification/Action 4.1 Approval of Business Transacted in Private Session

4.2 For Action: March 21, 2018 4.2.1 Milton #10 School Name (M. Denton) – Report 18041 page 33 4.2.2 School Year Calendar (D. Boag) – Report 18042 page 35 4.2.3 Trustee Distribution and Determination (S. Miller) – Report 18043 (revised) page 41

5.0 Communication to the Board 5.1 Student Trustee Reports

5.2 For Action: April 4, 2018 5.2.1 Education Development Charge Policies on Application of Operating Surpluses

and Alternative Accommodation Arrangements (L. Veerman) – Report 18055 page 59 5.2.2 Special Education Plan (M. Zonneveld) – Report 18050-- For Approval in June page 63 5.2.3 Trustee Professional Development (T. Ehl Harrison) – Report 18057 page 66 5.2.4 Admin Centre Report (S. Miller) – Report 18054 page 67 5.2.5 OSTA/AECO Support Correspondence (K. Amos, D. Danielli R. Papin) Report 18060 p.75

5.3 For Information: March 21, 2018 5.3.1 Special Education Review Update (M. Zonneveld) – Report 18056 page 76

5.4 Notice(s) of Motion 5.5 Director’s Report 5.6 Communication from the Chair 5.7 Committee Reports 5.8 Trustee Questions and Comments

6.0 Adjournment 6.1 Motion to Adjourn

http://www.hdsb.ca/

2

Halton District School Board Public Session: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 – 7 p.m.

Present: K. Amos, A. Collard, T. Ehl Harrison, A. Grebenc, K. Graves, J. Gray (phone), A. Harvey Hope, J. Oliver, R. Papin, L. Reynolds, M. Mansoor, D. Metropolitansky

Regrets: D. Danielli

1 Opening

1.1 Call to Order A. Grebenc called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m.

M18-0042 K. Amos / A. Collard Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board move into Private Session. Carried Unanimously.

The Board rose from Private Session at 7 p.m.

The Chair called the Public Session to order at 7:12 p.m.

A. Grebenc recognized Halton’s rich history and modern traditions of many First Nations and Métis. On behalf of the Board, the Chair acknowledged and thanked the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation for sharing their traditional territory.

M18-0043 L. Reynolds / J. Oliver Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve the agenda as amended and revised. Carried Unanimously.

1.2 Declarations of Possible Conflict of Interest The Chair reminded Trustees of the requirement to declare any potential conflicts of interest.

2 Delegations/Presentations to the Board

2.1 Inspire Awards The Chair spoke to the Inspire Awards. There were no awards presented at this meeting, but one award presentation was made to at Pine Grove Public School.

2.2 Delegationsi There were no delegations.

2.3 Presentations The Chair welcomed T. Blackwell to speak to the PAR Implementation strategies and efforts. She introduced students from MM Robinson and LB Pearson who represented the “student voice”.

The Chair welcomed D. Boag who provided an update on the Operational Plan.

2.4 Acknowledgement by the Chair The Chair thanked both presenters.

3 Consent Agenda Items

3.1 Approval and Receipt of the Consent Agenda Items M18-0044 A. Collard / K. Amos

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve the Consent Agenda Action items and receive the Consent Agenda Information Items as revised, for March 7, 2018. Carried Unanimously.

4 Ratification / Action

4.1 Approval of Business Transacted in Private Session M18-0045 T. Ehl Harrison / J. Gray

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board accept the tender from Tri-Green Construction Ltd. in the amount of $573,000.00 as contained in Tender No. RFT 18-20 for the retrofit facilitating a community hub at Harrison Public School, Georgetown, Ontario with the budget as outlined in Report 18045.

. Carried Unanimously.

3

4.2 For Action: March 7, 2018 4.2.1 Audit Committee Recommendations

J. Gray spoke to Report 18037, and responded to trustee questions.

M18-0046 A. Harvey Hope / A. Collard Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board authorize the appointment of the external audit firm, Deloitte LLP, to perform the annual financial statement audit of the 2017/2018 fiscal year. Carried Unanimously.

4.2.2 Aldershot High School Focus Exploration T. Blackwell and G. Truffen spoke to Report 18032, and responded to trustee questions.

M18-0047 L. Reynolds / J. Oliver Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board develop and implement an Innovation-STEM (I-STEM) program option at Aldershot High School effective September 2019 beginning with students entering Grade 9. Carried Unanimously.

4.2.3 Student Trustee Policy D. Metropolitansky and M. Mansoor spoke to Report 18048 and responded to trustee questions and comments. Trustees commented on the issue of equal weighting and the process to post revised policies for public feedback.

J. Oliver asked that student well-being be represented in the policy, and that the email codes expire when the student votes have been cast.

M18-0048 K. Amos / R. Papin Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve the Student Trustee Policy as appended to Report 18048. Carried.

Because unanimous support was not achieved, a recorded vote was taken. Dissenting votes were cast by J. Gray, K. Graves, A. Harvey Hope, A. Collard.

5 Communication to the Board

5.1 Student Trustee Reports M. Mansoor and D. Metropolitansky spoke briefly to their next meeting date and upcoming matters.

5.2 For Action: March 21, 2018 5.2.1 Milton #10 School Name

M. Denton spoke to Report 18041, and responded to trustee questions.

5.2.2 Trustee Correspondence re Pupil Accommodation Review Guidelines J. Oliver spoke to Report 18049, and responded to trustee questions.

M18-0049 A. Collard / J. Oliver Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board waive the rules to deal with this matter immediately. Carried Unanimously.

M18-0050 J. Oliver / A. Harvey Hope Be it resolved that the Board of Trustees authorize the Chair to write a letter to the Minister of Education with their feedback on the Draft Ministry of Education Pupil Accommodation Review Guideline. Carried Unanimously.

5.2.3 School Year Calendar D. Boag spoke to Report 18042, and responded to trustee questions.

5.2.4 Trustee Determination and Distribution S. Miller spoke to Report 18043, and responded to trustee questions.

5.3 For Information: February 21, 2018 5.3.2 Operational Plan Update

D. Boag had presented this information earlier.

5.3.3 Oodenawi Enrolment C. Ruddock spoke to Report 18046 and responded to trustee questions.

4

M18-0051 R. Papin/ K. Amos Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board extend the meeting beyond 10 p.m. Carried Unanimously.

5.4 Notice(s) of Motion There were no Notices of Motion

5.5 Director’s Report S. Miller spoke to the response from educators in Glasgow, Scotland regarding the Halton District School Board’s Have your Say Survey. He asked Scott Podrebarac to speak to the fundraising success at Stewarttown Public School, the top Canadian fundraiser ($27,100) for the Spread the Net charitable campaign hosted by CBC personality Rick Mercer. D. McFadden spoke to Halton’s Respectful Workplace survey and how the concept has been taken up by the Ottawa Carleton Board.

5.6 Communications from the Chair There was no report from the Chair.

5.7 Committee Reports R. Papin spoke to last night’s SEAC meeting where topics included the gifted survey, a PAR implementation update and an overview of the Special Education review.

T. Ehl Harrison spoke to the mental health focus at the February 28 meeting of Committee of the Whole. She indicated the next meeting will be March 28. She also highlighted the recent environmental management committee conversation about parking lot safety.

K. Amos provided an update regarding the transportation committee, encouraging trustees to provide feedback to the online document by Friday.

J. Gray left the meeting at 10:20 p,m,

D. Danielli joined the meeting at 10:20 p.m.

5.8 Trustee Questions and Comments A. Harvey Hope requested the four year old report on Trustee Distribution and Determination. She also spoke to parking and pedestrian crosswalks at JW Hill Public School.

K. Amos referenced a recent Toronto Star article citing a widening gap for funding for students in this province.

L. Reynolds asked about the availability of nasal Naloxone kits for secondary students. S. Miller indicated there is a mixed approach among school boards. C. Ruddock and S. Podrebarac also spoke to the issue, suggesting a broader community issue, currently being debated amongst provincial committees.

J. Oliver spoke to mental health presentation prepared with Michelle Bates, and encouraged others to view the presentation and share with their school communities. She invited all to attend a presentation at Abbey Park High School on March 20 (7-9 p.m.).

6 Adjournment

M18-0052 K. Amos / L. Reynolds Be it resolved that the Board adjourn at 10:23 p.m. Carried Unanimously.

Recorder’s Signature: Chair’s Signature:

5

Halton District School Board

ORDER PAPER – PUBLIC SESSION

Wednesday, March 21, 2018 (Items shaded/in bold have been completed and will be deleted from the list prior to the next edition.)

Motion # Resolution Responsibility

M12-0204 Be it resolved that…the Board develop a governance process to monitor School Generated Funds including School Council Funds and school businesses, and refer this item to the Policy, By-law & Governance Committee.

Policy, By-law & Governance Committee

M13-0073 Be it resolved that in recognition of the role of SEAC and the motions passed at the SEAC Meeting of April 2, 2013 and conversations at the table this evening, that the HDSB defer the Assessment of Gifted Entry/Gifted Screening Process Review, and that the Board direct the Director to:

1. develop and implement a consultation plan to seek input from SEAC, parents of gifted students, teachers and school staff on improving our gifted assessment process.

Director of Education

M13-0171 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve a structure for Board policy that includes governance policies and framework policies as per the appendices to Report 13083.


M13-0172 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve a structure for admin procedures and supporting guidelines, implementation handbooks, and protocols as contemplated in Report 13083.


M14-0158 Be it resolved that the HDSB consider the following option related to the establishment of a second entry point (Grade 5) for French Immersion: Option C (Defer the decision on second FI entry point): Defer the decision regarding a second FI entry point until we have implemented Primary Core French.


M15-0071 Be it resolved that HDSB support HSTS utilizing a third-party consultant to undertake a bell time analysis study for elementary and secondary schools, in order to find route efficiencies and determine the financial impacts or cost savings, and;

THAT prior to the analysis being undertaken, study parameters will be established jointly by the Halton DSB and the Halton Catholic DSB; and

THAT the cost of undertaking a bell time analysis study be provided to trustees for approval.

SO/Business

M15-0139 Whereas the work of the National Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) regarding residential schools in Canada concluded its work in June 2015, resulting in 94 far reaching Calls to Action, including a number specifically focused on education; Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board: i) Commit that all students graduate with knowledge of residential

schools and their effects on Aboriginal communities in Canada and see themselves as contributors to reconciliation.

ii) (At least) Annually during a Board meeting recognize the history of our area and give respect and honour to its First Peoples, by including in the Chair’s welcome, "We would like to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of First Peoples."

Director of Education / School Operations

M16-0045 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board authorize staff to work with the City of Burlington and Nelson User Group to develop a fundraising plan as outlined in the HDSB Community Funding of Facility Enhancements Administrative Procedure regarding proposed enhancements to the sports facilities at Nelson High School.

SO/ Facility Services

6


M16-0097 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board create an ad hoc committee to create a public awareness campaign, “Fix the Finances”, to raise awareness about how the HDSB is financed and repercussions of funding reductions and create an action plan to return to the Board for approval by the October 19 Board meeting.

Chair, Trustees Deferred to November 2016

M16-0099 Be it resolved that Halton District School Board refer to the Policy, By-law and Governance Committee, the creation of a policy that incorporates the concepts regarding internal processes and public concerns identified in the administrative procedure.


M16-0111 1. Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board adopt Option 6,

Grade 2 Entry to the French Immersion program at 100% intensity in existing single & dual track schools, as outlined in Report 16096.

2. Be it resolved that this model begin in Grade 2 of school year 2018/19. Entry into Grade 1 of our current FI model will cease after the 2016/17 school year and the 2017/18 Grade 1 cohort will be English program only.

3. Be it resolved that students enrolled in our current FI model be grand-parented and allowed to complete elementary school in the current model.


M16-0132 Be it resolved that the HDSB appoint the architectural firm of Hossack and Associates Architects Inc. to prepare the design and tender documents for the proposed new elementary school, ERA 118 (Oakville NE #2 PS) to be built in the Oakville area for September 2018. In the event Ministry approval is not received for this project all expenses incurred for design and development of tender documents be funded through Close the Gap.

Facility Services

M16-0133 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board appoint the architectural firm of Hossack and Associates Architects Inc. to prepare the design and tender documents for the proposed new secondary school, SRA 104 (Milton SW #1 HS) to be built in Milton area for September 2019. In the event Ministry approval is not received for this project, all expenses incurred for design and development of tender documents be funded through Close the Gap.

Facility Services

M17-0021 Be it resolved that the HDSB undertake a review of the existing Executive Limitations, Governance Process and Board-Director Relationship policies with a view to rescinding or revising them under the current governance structure, and THAT the HDSB reformat and direct the Board’s existing policies under either the “Framework” or “Governance” categories of the current governance structure.

Chair/Trustees

M17-0059 Be it resolved that the Board of Trustees obtain a written legal opinion from Miller Thomson regarding the proposed changes to the Director’s Job Description, and Executive Limitations and Delegation of Authority Policies and that Miller Thomson be provided with copies of the current and proposed Director’s Job Description, and Executive Limitations and Delegation of Authority Policies, and the Director of Education's Contract, and be given the opportunity to confer with the Board of Trustees to discuss their findings. Be it further resolved that the decision regarding the changes to the Director’s Job Description, and Executive Limitations and Delegation of Authority Policies be deferred until such time as the legal opinion has been obtained and any recommendations resulting from it have been discussed by the Board of Trustees and the Director of Education.

Chair of the Board

M17-0088 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board close Robert Bateman High School, effective June 30, 2020. a) Effective September 1, 2019, the Halton District School Board

revise the existing catchment area for Robert Bateman HS to redirect English program students entering Grade 9 to Nelson HS;


7


b) Effective September 1, 2020, the HDSB revise the existing catchment area for Robert Bateman HS to redirect the Grade 10, 11 and 12 English program students to Nelson HS.

M17-0091 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board close Lester B. Pearson High School, effective June 30, 2018. a) Effective September 1, 2018, the Halton District School Board revise

the existing catchment area for Lester B. Pearson High School to redirect students to M.M. Robinson High School.


M17-0092 Be it resolved that, effective September 1, 2018, the HDSB revise the existing Dr. Frank J. Hayden Secondary School French Immersion program boundary, to redirect students entering Grade 9 French Immersion to MM Robinson HS. Grade 10, 11, and12 FI students will be grandparented at Dr. Frank J. Hayden Secondary School until graduation.


M17-0094 Be it resolved that, effective September 1, 2018, the Halton District School Board designate the English and French Immersion catchment areas for the “Evergreen Community” to M.M. Robinson High School.


M17-0097 Be it resolved that, as part of implementation of any PAR-related changes,

the Board direct the Director that the responsible Superintendent develop

and deliver a consultation and communications plan to engage with affected and interested stakeholders in an early and ongoing way


M17-0103 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board authorize staff to proceed with the selection process for an architectural firm(s) to prepare the design details and project manage the facility modifications needed to address the Burlington Secondary Program and Accommodation Review (PAR) outcomes for MM Robinson and Nelson High Schools.

Facility Services

M17-0133 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board appoint the firm of Snyder Architects Inc. as the architect for the transition of educational programs project into Nelson High School and MM Robinson High School as per their response to RFP-17-258

Facility Services

M17-0169 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board use a portion of the "Reserve Account for Trustee Professional Development" to cover the registration costs for the Trustees to attend the Ontario Public School Board Association Public Education Symposium (including the pre-symposium) to be held January 25-27, 2018 (maximum of $7,700). Upon return from this symposium, trustees who attended will share the highlights of the symposium with all trustees.

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board use a portion of the "Reserve Account for Trustee Professional Development" to cover the registration costs for the Trustees to attend the Ontario Public School Board Association Labour Relations Symposium (including the pre-symposium) to be held in Toronto from April 26-27, 2018 (maximum of $5,500). Upon return from this symposium, trustees who attended will share the highlights of the symposium with all trustees.

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board use a portion of the “Board Leadership and Team Development” account to cover the registration and accommodation costs for the OPSBA HDSB Director(s) and the OPSBA Central West Regional VP/Chair to attend the 2018 OPSBA AGM in Niagara Falls from May 31 - June 3, 2018, at a cost up to a maximum of $1,600 per participant. Upon return from the AGM the OPSBA Director(s) and/or OPSBA Central West Regional VP/Chair will share the highlights of the AGM with all trustees.

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board use a portion of the “Board Leadership and Team Development” account to cover the accommodation

8


and transportation costs for one Student Trustee Co-Mentor to accompany the Student Trustees to the OSTA/AECO conference in Ottawa from February 15-18, 2018, at a cost up to a maximum of $1,600. Upon return from the conference, the Student Trustee Co-Mentor that attended will share the highlights of the conference with all trustees.

M17-0181 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board authorize staff to tender and award the 2017-2018 Facility Services Projects, Operations and Maintenance, either individually or combined, as outlined in Report 17134.

Superintendent of Facility Services

M17-0184 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve the continuation of the Close the Gap program, as outlined and THAT specific projects be undertaken as follows, funded subject to these cost estimates and budget availability: air conditioning and electrical upgrades to second and third floor area of schools,

$5,180,000

Support for installation of elevators to address building accessibility, $6,000,000

Support the development and installation of a turf field at White Oaks SS, $1,200,000


M18-0007 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board accept the tender from Golden Gate Contracting Inc. in the amount of $689,861 as contained in Tender No. RFT 17-286 for the construction and renovation of a parent and child centre at Oakwood Public School in Oakville, Ontario; and that the budget be approved as presented in Private Session Report 18010.


M18-0009 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board authorize the Director to proceed with hiring a parliamentarian to review the Board’s revised by-laws, and to coordinate with legal counsel for a similar review of the by-laws with an expenditure of approximately $5,000.


M18-0010 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board authorize the Director to proceed with a review of the draft Fundraising Policy by legal counsel, no later than mid-February with an expenditure of approximately $2,000.


M18-0034 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board employ Miller Thomson as legal counsel to undertake a review of its governance policies, with a view to developing a compendium of documents that reflect best practices and provide a sound, concise and consistent reference for its Board of Trustees. The project, not to exceed $5,000 will commence in February 2018 with anticipated completion by April 2018 for presentation to the Board.


M18-0034 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board adjust the boundaries for the elementary schools in Milton as outlined in Scenario 10c and detailed in Report 18020, effective September 2018.

DOE

M18-0038 Be it resolved that the Board of Trustees authorize the Chair to write a letter to the Minister of Education in support of Bill 191 The Education Amendment Act (Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder), 2017, copying all Ontario MPPs and school boards.

Chair

M18-0045 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board accept the tender from Tri-Green Construction Ltd. in the amount of $573,000.00 as contained in Tender No. RFT 18-20 for the retrofit facilitating a community hub at Harrison Public School, Georgetown, Ontario with the budget as outlined in Report 18045.

M18-0046 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board authorize the appointment of the external audit firm, Deloitte LLP, to perform the annual financial statement audit of the 2017/2018 fiscal year.

M18-0047 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board develop and implement an Innovation-STEM (I-STEM) program option at Aldershot High School

effective September 2019 beginning with students entering Grade 9..

9


M18-0048 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve the Student Trustee Policy as appended to Report 18048.

M18-0050 Be it resolved that the Board of Trustees authorize the Chair to write a letter to the Minister of Education with their feedback on the Draft Ministry of Education Pupil Accommodation Review Guideline.

PENDING REPORTS – March 21, 2018

Motion & Date Resolution Presentation Date

M12-0088 Be it resolved that the HSDB direct the Director to provide a full and complete list of all policies and admin procedures noting : a) whether or not the policy/admin procedure has been adopted by board motion, b) the date that the policy/admin procedure was last reviewed, c) the date that the policy/admin procedure is next scheduled to be reviewed and d) whether or not the policy/admin procedure suggests an impact to roles and/or responsibilities of trustees or board of trustees (directly or through referenced policy/admin procedure).

June / Sept. 2012 Review of policies undertaken (on-going)

M16-0112 Be it resolved that an annual report be added to the report schedule (starting in 2018), outlining the percentage/number of Gr.1 students in each elementary school registered for French Immersion or English programs for the following year, and that this report highlight any schools where fewer than 20 students have registered for the Gr.2 English program and any schools where registration percentages for FI have increased from prior years, and provide an action plan to address the enrolment in those schools. This report will be brought to the Board of Trustees prior to staffing deadlines.

2018

Interim report proposed February/March 2017

M17-0096 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board investigate and explore a range of opportunities for Aldershot High School, including but not limited to, a magnet school, a themed school, an alternative school, and/or an incubator school with a report brought back to the Board of Trustees no later than February 2018.

February 2018

M17-0171 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board refer the Student Trustee draft policy for discussion at a future Standing Committee re: Policy, By-law & Governance at Committee of the Whole.

January/February 2018


10

Report Number: 18051 Date: March 14, 2018

FOR INFORMATION

TO: The Chair and Members of the Halton District School Board

FROM: S. Miller, Director of Education

RE: Board Report Update

Background: First introduced in September 2014, this monthly report outlines reports scheduled to come to the Board during the current school year.

The report schedule outlines the planned dates for 2018, and will be updated at regular intervals to keep Trustees apprised of what reports have been presented, completed, and/or have had to have timelines revised.

Respectfully submitted,

S. Miller Director of Education

STAFF INITIATED BOARD REPORTS – 2017-18 (March 2, 2018)

REPORT SUBJECT DATE: RESPONSIBILITY COMMENTS

Admin Procedure Update ongoing Stuart Miller Info

SEAC Membership as required Mark Zonneveld Info

Admin Centre Update as required Gerry Cullen Info

Capital Update – Summer 2017 September 6 Gerry Cullen completed Info

Banking Resolutions September 6 Lucy Veerman completed Action

“Technology and You” September 6 Gord Truffen completed Info

PAR Update September 6 Terri Blackwell completed Info

Director’s Summer Authority September 6 Stuart Miller completed Info

High Performance Programs September 20 David Boag/Tina Salmini completed Info

Capital Update (with financials) September 20 Gerry Cullen completed Info

Ombudsman Report September 20 David Boag completed Info

PAR Architect Appointment September 20 Gerry Cullen completed Action

EQAO September 20 David Boag, Program completed Info

Summer Learning Initiatives September 20 David Boag completed Info

Boundary Review (Boyne) September 20 Jacquie Newton/Dom Renzella completed Action

Gap Analysis re: PAR Implementation October 4 Stuart Miller completed Info

Award of Tender (New Elem./Milton) October 4 Gerry Cullen completed Action

September Staffing Adjustments October 18 Debra McFadden completed Info

Community Planning and Partnerships October 18 Lucy Veerman completed Info

Capital Update October 18 Gerry Cullen completed Info

Operational Plan Progress Report October 18 David Boag completed Info

PAR Update November 1 Terri Blackwell completed Info

Annual Water Testing November 1 Gerry Cullen completed Info

School Ground Enhancement Report November 1 Gerry Cullen completed Inco

Capital Update November 15 Gerry Cullen completed Info

P/VP Placements/Transfer November 15 Jacquie Newton completed Info

Financial Statements November 15 Lucy Veerman completed Action

Trustee Honoraria (Sched.1) November 15 Lucy Veerman completed Action

Renewal/School Condition Index November 15 Gerry Cullen completed Info

Indigenous Flags November 15 Rob Eatough completed Info

Special Education Review November 15 Mark Zonneveld completed Info

Banking Resolutions December 6 Lucy Veerman completed Action

Annual Report: Food & Beverage Sales December 6 Gerry Cullen completed Info

Disposition of Property/Acquisitions as required Lucy Veerman -- Action

Cmty Funding Facility Enhancements as required G. Cullen, L. Veerman -- Info

Capital Update December 6 Lucy Veerman completed Info

Director’s Annual Report December 6 Stuart Miller completed Info

Close the Gap Update December 6 G. Cullen, L. Veerman completed Info

Milton Secondary School Tender January Facilities Action

PAR Update January 10 Terri Blackwell completed Info

Striking Committee/ Appointments January 10 Striking Committee completed Action

Revised Estimates January 24 Lucy Veerman completed Action

HLF Fundraising Plan January 31 Stuart Miller completed (@ Committee) Info

Milton Boundaries (Boyne) February 7 Jacquie Newton completed Action

REPORT SUBJECT DATE: RESPONSIBILITY COMMENTS

Budget Schedule February 21 Lucy Veerman completed Info

Welcome Centre Update February 21 Gord Truffen completed Info

Capital Update February 21 Facilities completed Info

EDC By-law Timelines February 21 Lucy Veerman completed Info

PAR Update: Aldershot Exploration February 21 Terri Blackwell presentation Info

Primary Core French Update February 21 D. Boag, T. Salmini completed Info

PVC Implementation Update February 21 David Boag completed Info

School Generated Funds March 7 S. Miller, L. Veerman Deferred to March 7 (by Bd, motion) Info

Annual Portable Inspection Update March 7 Facilities completed Info

Operational Plan Update March 7 David Boag completed Info

School Year Calendar March 7 David Boag Info

Innovation Update March 7 Jacquie Newton Info

PAR Update March 7 Terri Blackwell completed Info

Trustee Distribution/Representation March 7 Stuart Miller submission to Ministry by April 3 Action

Spec Ed Review Report March 21 Stuart Miller/Mark Zonneveld Info

Draft Special Education Plan March 21 Mark Zonneveld Info

Capital Update March 21 Facilities Info

Admin Centre March 21 Stuart Miller Info

Draft Op Plan Targets/Strategies April 4 Stuart Miller reflects new critical path timelines Action

Gifted Screening April 4 Mark Zonneveld Info

Gifted Placement Locations April 4 Mark Zonneveld Info

Rental Rates April 4 Facilities Info

Centre for Skills Dev. & Training Report April 4 Stuart Miller Info

P/VP Placements/Transfer April 18 Jacquie Newton Info

Capital Update April 18 Facilities Info

HLF Annual Report April 18 Stuart Miller Info

EDC By-law Background Study April 18 Lucy Veerman Info

LTAP May 2 Lucy Veerman Action

School Bell Time Change Requests May 2 Lucy Veerman Info

Community Partnership Report (LTAP) May 2 Lucy Veerman Action

Cmty Funding - Facility Enhancements May 2 Facilities / L. Veerman Info

Transportation/Policy Exemptions May 16 Lucy Veerman Info

Capital Update May 16 Facilities with financials Info

EDC By-law May 16 Lucy Veerman Action

PAR Update May 16 Terri Blackwell Info

Budget June 6 Lucy Veerman Action

Teachers Redundant to Board if required Debra McFadden Info

Truth & Reconciliation/FNMI Update June 6 Rob Eatough Info

Special Education Plan June 6 Mark Zonneveld Action

Operational Plan Targets/Strategies June 6 Stuart Miller Action

Community Partnership Report June 6 Lucy Veerman Info

Capital Update June 6 Facilities Info

Capital Plans / Priorities June 6 Facilities Action

LTAP June 20 Lucy Veerman Action


13


FOR INFORMATION


FROM: David Boag, Associate Director Stuart Miller, Director of Education

RE: Capital Update – for period ending March 5, 2018

Background: As per the monthly schedule to report on capital projects, please find attached the chart showing recent activities for the period ending March 5, 2018.


David Boag Associate Director

Stuart Miller Director of Education

Updated: March 6, 2018

Submt'd Rec'd Submt'd Rec'd Issue Closing

Milton SW #1 HS (Hossack

& Assoc. Arch)1200 Own

March 2018

(tentative)

Sept. 2018

(tentative)

June 2018

(tentative)

Oct. 2019

(tentative)

June 2018

(tentative)

September

2018 (tentative)TBA

Sept 2020

(tentative)

Rezoning underway. Finalizing building & site layout

our Architect.

Milton SW #10 PS includes

Child Care & Community

Hub (Hossack & Assoc.

Arch.)

776 OwnMarch 20,

2017Oct 31, 2017 July 17, 2017

November 3,

2017Sept 12, 2017 Oct 3, 2017

October,

2017Aug 31, 2018

Foundations 95% complete. Underground plumbing 90%

complete. Block masonry 60% complete. Site

services 80% complete. School includes Child Care.

Milton SW #11 PS. School

includes Child Careno

September

2020

(tentative)

Received Ministry approval. Finalizing location. School

includes Child Care.

NE Oakville #2 PS includes

Child Care (Hossack &

Assoc. Arch.)

776 noMarch 2018

(tentative)

September

2018

(tentative)

April 2018

(tentative)

September

2018

(tentative)

August 2018

(tentative)

August 2018

(tentative)

October

2018August 2019

Received Ministry approval. School is a repeat of Milton

SW #10. School includes Child Care. Space Loading

Template & site drawings have been sent for Ministry

Approval.

Administrative Building

Accommodation Study

(Snyder Architects Inc.)

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Consultant evaluating location of potential building sites.

Brant Hill PS (Snyder &

Assoc. Arch)

2 Preschool

RoomsOwn NA NA

April 2018

(tentative)

June 2018

(tentative)

May 2018

(tentative)

June 2018

(tentative )

June 30,

2018Aug 31, 2018

Design is complete and working drawings are

underway.

Craig Kielburger SS (CS&P

Architects)

231pp incl.

Greenhouse Own July 9, 2016

December 20,

2016

October 18,

2016February 2017 Oct 15, 2016 Nov 1, 2016 Feb 1, 2017 April 2018

Interior finishing work is underway. Revised completion

date is April 2018.

Frontenac PS

1 Toddler + 1

Preschool

rooms

Own

September

2019

(tentative)

Received Ministry approval & funding.

GDHS Additions & Reno's

2010 (Snyder & Assoc.) 150 Own

Jan 29, 2010

Phase 2Sept 9, 2010

Dec 6, 2010

Phase 2Mar 9, 2016 Jun 9, 2009 Jul 9, 2009 Aug 10, 2015

All as-built drawings submitted to the Town. Phase 3

complete. Waiting for easement letter from HCDSB.

Harrison PS

(NGA Architects)

Woodview

ProgramOwn NA NA Dec 20, 2017

February

2018

January 25,

2018

February 13,

2018

March Break

2018June 2018

Tender closed. Awaiting Board approval. Abatement

of renovation area scheduled to be completed over

March break. Renovations to follow.

Oakwood PS

(Grguric Architects)

2 Child Care

roomsOwn NA NA

January 30,

2018Sept 18, 2017

October 4,

2017Feb 12, 2018 June 2018 Abatement & demo complete. Plumbing underway.

PAR - M.M. Robinson HS

(Snyder Architects)NA Own

April 2018

(tentative)

June 2018

(tentative)

June 2018

(tentative)

July 2018

(tentative)

September

2018

(tentative)

September

2018 (tentative)

October

2018

(tentative)

August 2019Received Ministry approvals & funding. Working with

Architect on design layouts.

PAR - Nelson HS

(Snyder Architects)NA Own

April 2018

(tentative)

June 2018

(tentative)

June 2018

(tentative)

July 2018

(tentative)

July 2018

(tentative)

August 2018

(tentative)

September

2018

(tentative)

Spring 2020Received Ministry approvals & funding. Working with

Architect on design layouts.

Oodenawi 6 NA NA NAFebruary 9,

201824-Aug-18

Proceeding with the building permit application only.

Location on site has been confirmed.

PORTABLES (NEO Architecture Inc.)

Construction Status

Site Plan (SPA)Update Comments

TenderBldg. (BPA)

ADDITION, RENOVATIONS and OTHER

Sta

rt D

ate

(Te

nta

tive

)

NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

Co

mp

letio

n

Da

te

Capital Projects

School & Project Description

Pupil

Pla

ces

Site O

wned Permit Status

Bolded notes indicate changes.


15


FOR INFORMATION


FROM: Stuart Miller, Director of Education

RE: Administrative Procedure Update

Background: This report is the next regular update of Administrative Council’s ongoing review of all administrative procedures.

Admin Procedure Name Revisions / Additional Information

Absence Reporting * “Intended Purpose” revised; date change

Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) Date change

Disability Management Support Program * Date change and minor revisions

Substance Abuse Prevention/Intervention * Date change and minor revisions

Religious Accommodation and Creed * Revised

* designates Admin Procedures appended to this report.



Halton District School Board Administrative Procedure Topic: Absence Reporting

Effective: January 2012

Cross-Reference: Administrative Procedure – Attendance Support Program; Confidentiality of Medical Records; Disability Management – Early Intervention, Accommodations and Return to Work; Attendance Management; Progressive Discipline

Revision Date: February 2018

Review Date: January 2021

Responsibility: Executive Officer, Human Resources

INTENDED PURPOSE: Timely and accurate employee absence reporting is important to ensure timely occasional/supply replacements, accurate payroll processing, pension reporting and recording of employee absence balances. This administrative procedure applies to all employees. Employees are responsible for reporting absences in an accurate and timely manner, following all administrative procedures and applicable processes.

PROCEDURES: 1. All permanent and long term contract employees must use the Absence Management system to

record absences. a. Upon hiring, employees will be notified of their login identification for use in the Absence

Management system. Employees are responsible for registering with the Absence Management system.

b. Employees are responsible for retaining their pin number to log into the system. Pin numbers must not be shared.

c. Absences must be coded to one of the absence codes listed in the Absence Management system.

2. Employees are responsible for entering all absences into the Absence Management System. If the employee is unable to enter their own absence into the Absence Management System, it is the responsibility of the employee to communicate with their immediate supervisor or the Absence Management Coordinator.

3. In certain circumstances, as applicable, an employee may be required to submit medical documentation as is reasonable and applicable. Such medical documentation must be sent directly to Employee Health and Wellness. Medical documentation received by the immediate supervisor should be immediately forwarded to Employee Health and Wellness. No medical documentation is to be kept by the supervisor.

4. Human Resources (HR) will manage communication with the employee regarding the appropriate absence reporting, available paid sick leave, pay implications and options for disability insurance if applicable. The employee will also receive communication regarding group benefits and pension plan as it relates to their absence(s) if applicable.

Employee Planned Absences 1. Absence request methods:

a) For absences that require prior approval by Human Resources (i.e. compassionate leave, unpaid, religious holy day), employees are responsible for submitting requests through the absence approval process. Information regarding absences that require approval as well as the absence approval form are available on myhdsb.ca. Employees must complete the form with the support of their immediate supervisor and submit it to

https://www.myhdsb.ca/HumanResources/SmartFindExpress/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%7B56E38537-70C2-4FA6-A601-EAA92C03AFBF%7D&file=Smart%20Find%20Reason%20Codes.docx&action=default

Halton District School Board Administrative Procedure the appropriate HR Administrator for approval. Timelines for submission are outlined in employee’s collective agreement.

b) For absences that require prior approval from their immediate supervisor (i.e. vacation, personal day, lieu day, job related absences), employees are responsible for requesting approval prior to the day of the absence. Timelines for requested absences may be outlined in employee’s collective agreement.

2. Once the absence is approved, the employee is responsible for recording their absence in the Absence Management System with the correct date, time, reason code and requesting a substitute, if required, as soon as possible after approval.

Unplanned Absences 1. Employees should notify their immediate supervisor or designate prior to the start of their work

day or as soon as the requirement for an absence is known.

2. The employee is responsible for recording their absence in Absence Management System with correct date, time, reason code and request substitute if required as soon as possible.

Note: Emergency Leave is an unplanned absence. This absence follows the absence approval process after the absence has occurred.

Supervisor/Principal 1. Immediate supervisors are responsible for responding in a timely manner to absence approval

requests. If an absence request is denied, the immediate supervisor is to communicate with the employee the reason for the denial.

2. Ensure that all employees are aware of a designated absence approver if the supervisor is absent.

Absence Approver 1. Absence approvers are to reconcile absences in the Absence Management System and the

Human Resource Information System for employees that report to a specific location on a daily basis to ensure all absences are entered correctly. Verification of the data by the school/department should include a review of the following data for accuracy:

Date of absence; Start and end times of absence; Reason code for absence, and if the absence reason requires approval, that the appropriate

documentation has been completed and sent to Human Resources; The project code; The number of hours for the absence; and The name and hours of work of replacement.

2. The Human Resources Department will be following up with the Superintendent/Executive Officer responsible when a school/department fails to approve absences on a regular basis.

3. Absence approvers are responsible for designating a backup approver for their location.

Project Code Approver 1. Project code approvers are to reconcile project codes used for absences in the Human Resource

Information System on a daily basis to ensure absences can be approved by the school/department in a timely manner.

Halton District School Board Administrative Procedure

Topic: Disability Management Support Program


Cross-References: Administrative Procedure: Attendance Management and Support Program; Confidentiality of Medical Records; Individual Work Accommodation (Medical)


Revision Date: January 2020

Responsibility: Executive Officer of Human Resources

INTENDED PURPOSE: It is the expectation of the Halton District School Board that each employee attends work regularly as scheduled and arrives on time; however, the employer understands employees may be unable to attend work due to personal illness or injury. The employer provides sick leave and short term disability leave days to accommodate employees who are medically unable to attend work.

This procedure outlines the process and expectations for the use of sick leave and short term disability leave days, and reporting absences from work.

The Employee Health and Wellness Department will maintain the confidentiality of medical documents, as defined in the Confidentiality of Medical Records administrative procedure, for the purpose of this Disability Management and Support Program administrative procedure.

PROCEDURE: 1.0 Absences

1. An employee that is unable to attend work due to personal illness or injury must notify their immediate supervisor or designate immediately to allow for appropriate coverage. The employee must indicate, in general terms, the reason for the absence, i.e. due to accident, illness, contractual, etc.

2. Attendance on PA days, on days following and/or preceding holidays (e.g. winter break, March break, long weekends, etc.), and on days marked by significant events (e.g. an international sport event, etc.) is expected. The employer may monitor absences on these specific days, including those that have been booked in advance, and request appropriate medical documentation supporting the absence, if sick leave or short term disability leave days have been accessed.

3. The employer may request an employee to provide medical documentation for any given absence.

4. When the employer directly requests medical documentation, the Employer will cover the cost associated with obtaining said documentation upon the provision of an original invoice.

5. Employees are required to enter absences in the Board’s Absence Management system to allow for necessary coverage. The correct absence code and project code, if applicable, must be entered to classify the employee’s absence. For further information refer to the Absence Reporting Administrative Procedure.

Absences of more than ten (10) consecutive working days related to illness or injury: 6. When an employee is aware that they are going to be absent for more than ten (10)

consecutive working days (for the purpose of this Disability Management and Support Program), the employee will notify their immediate supervisor or designate of the absence immediately indicating, in general terms, the reason for the absence, i.e. due to accident, illness, contractual, etc.


7. The immediate supervisor or designate shall remind the employee of their responsibility to

submit an Abilities Form (see 1.9) directly to the Employee Health and Wellness Department to enable early intervention and to facilitate a safe and timely return to work as necessary.

8. The immediate supervisor or designate must send all medical documentation received directly to Employee Health and Wellness Department Human Resources.

9. A member of the Employee Health and Wellness Department or designate may require the employee to provide documentation completed by the appropriate treating medical practitioner that may include the following information:

i. An *Abilities Form, Surgery Form or Pregnancy Form that describes the objective medically-supported restrictions and/or limitations in relation to the essential duties of their position;

ii. Confirmation that the employee is participating in appropriate treatment to expedite the employee’s safe and timely return to work;

iii. Expected date employee could participate in the Individual Work Accommodation (Medical) process;

iv. Expected return-to-work date at regular hours and duties and any other information required to safely return the employee to work in a timely manner;

v. Treating medical practitioner’s name, address, phone number and fax number;

vi. Treating medical practitioner’s signature and office stamp.

10. Unless otherwise arranged, this medical documentation must be submitted by the employee or appropriate treating medical practitioner to a member of the Employee Health and Wellness Department or designate within ten (10) working days of the date of the request. If the employee is having difficulty obtaining the appropriate documentation within this timeframe, the employee will discuss the matter directly with a member of the Employee Health and Wellness Department.

11. The Employer must exercise discretion in each case in determining whether to ask for a medical Form in accordance with 1.9 of this administrative procedure.

12. In the event that the immediate supervisor or designate believes that medical documentation is required for any absence less than ten (10) consecutive days, they will contact the respective Human Resources Manager prior to making the request to the employee.

2.0 Sick Leave and Short Term Disability Leave Days : 1. As outlined below, an employee may access sick leave or short term disability leave days if

they become injured or ill and have unused sick leave or short term disability leave days.

2. An employee may access sick leave or short term disability leave days if they are ill, injured and incapacitated from working or disabled, which is defined as a state of incapacity due to bodily injury, illness or sickness, preventing the employee from working for the Employer for remuneration.

3. The Employer encourages employees to schedule preventative medical and dental appointments outside of the employee’s regular working hours. However, if the appointment cannot reasonably be scheduled outside of the employee’s regular working hours, then the employee may access their sick leave or short term disability leave days to attend the appointment.

3.0 Sick leave and short term disability leave days are not payable: i. In cases which are compensable by the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board,


ii. For 12-month employees during scheduled vacation unless the illness requires

hospitalization;

iii. In place of vacation or lieu days or to tend to other personal issues related to family, such as a dependent that is ill or injured, except in the case of approved Personal Business or Emergency Family Illness absences or any other ESA Leaves as defined in the employee’s Collective Agreement/Terms and Conditions of Employment;

iv. When an employee is on an authorized unpaid leave of absence;

v. When an employee does not have available sick leave days or short term disability leave days

vi. While in receipt of full Long Term Disability Benefits;

vii. When medical documentation sufficient to the Board, has been requested and has not been received. In the event that the employee refuses to provide appropriate medical documentation, the Employer may take appropriate disciplinary action; or

viii. When a reasonable offer of accommodation has been provided and refused by the Employee.

3.1 To be eligible for sick leave or short term disability leave days, the employee must follow the Employer’s procedures for reporting absences related to illness or injury and for returning to work.

3.2 The Employer will endeavour to accommodate the return to work and placement of employees with a temporary, permanent, and/or partial disability in accordance with the Individual Work Accommodation (Medical) administrative procedure, as well as any applicable statutory obligations.

3.3 Access to sick leave or short term disability leave days may be denied for failure to provide all appropriate medical documentation requested. Appropriate medical documentation refers to, but is not limited to, medically supported restrictions and/or limitations as they relate to the employee’s ability to meet the essential duties of their position. It is the employee’s responsibility to submit appropriate documentation to a member of the Employee Health and Wellness Department or designate, as applicable.

3.4 In order to maintain access to sick leave or short term disability leave days, a member of the Employee Health and Wellness Department or designate may request the employee to attend a Functional Abilities Evaluation (FAE), completed to determine the employee’s restrictions and/or limitations related to the employee’s position and/or to attend an Independent Medical Examination (IME). This will assist in providing return-to-work and/or accommodation options. In requesting the IME, the following protocol will apply:

i. If a member of the Employee Health and Wellness Department or designate reasonably requires medical information to determine whether an employee is able to return to work or should properly remain off of work a member of the Employee Health and Wellness Department or designate shall so advise the employee in writing and request that such information be provided;

ii. The employee is required to provide the requested medical documentation to a member of the Employee Health and Wellness Department or designate in response to the request;

iii. A member of the Employee Health and Wellness Department or designate will review the documentation provided by the employee. If the member of the Employee Health and Wellness Department or designate is not satisfied with the adequacy of the medical information provided, they will clearly identify in writing to the employee why the information is not adequate;


iv. The employee will be given an opportunity to provide the member of the Employee

Health and Wellness Department or designate with further medical information;

v. The member of the Employee Health and Wellness Department or designate will review any further documentation provided by the employee. If the entirety of the medical documentation provided does not reasonably permit the member of the Employee Health and Wellness Department or designate to determine whether the employee should return to work or remain off of work, the employee may be requested to attend an IME and/or FAE; and

vi. If the employee fails to attend the IME and/or FAE or does not, prior to the IME and/or FAE, provide the member of the Employee Health and Wellness Department or designate with further medical information to reasonably permit the member of the Employee Health and Wellness Department or designate to determine whether the employee should return to work or remain off of work, the employee’s access to sick leave or short term disability leave days may be discontinued.

4.0 Responsibilities: 4.1 Employee:

i. To report absences to the Board's Absence Management system, unless the employee is incapacitated and unable to do so. Failure to report absences at the first opportunity in accordance with these procedures may result in denial of pay sick leave or short term disability leave days.

ii. To indicate, in general terms, the reason for the absence, i.e. due to accident, illness, contractual, etc.

iii. To notify their immediate supervisor or designate of all absences by phone call, preferably; however, email is acceptable. If not immediately available, the immediate supervisor may return the call. The immediate supervisor will make the decision of whom the direct contact for absences will be. Unless previously discussed with the immediate supervisor prior to the absence(s), the employee is to report (call or email) each day of absence.

iv.In cases where the Employer is not directly requesting medical documentation but the employee is providing it to obtain a leave, the employee is to assume responsibility for the costs associated with the initial documentation from the appropriate treating medical practitioner in relation to the absence. (Refer to section 1.9 above for appropriate medical forms for medical leave). Costs associated with subsequent request(s) for medical documentation by a member of the Employee Health and Wellness Department or designate, will be borne by the Employer, upon submission of an original invoice in accordance with current Board approved procedures for Travel and Expense Procedures see link: https://www.hdsb.ca/our-board/Policy/TravelandExpenseReimbursement.pdf

v.To be eligible for sick leave or short term disability leave days, employees may be required to provide satisfactory medical documentation completed by the appropriate treating medical practitioner, in accordance with 1.9 of this procedure.

vi. To maintain regular contact with the immediate supervisor during their absence when they are unable to perform the essential duties of the position due to disability.

vii. To participate in appropriate treatment, as determined by the treating medical practitioner(s), to ensure a safe and timely return to work.

viii. To participate in the development of their return-to-work plan, including taking the proposed return-to-work plan (including accommodations and/or modifications) to the appropriate treating medical practitioner(s) for approval, if necessary.

4.2 Immediate Supervisor :

https://www.hdsb.ca/our-board/Policy/TravelandExpenseReimbursement.pdf


i. To communicate the Disability Support Program and Individual Work Accommodation

(Medical) procedures and guidelines to the employee.

ii. To ensure the daily maintenance of accurate, up-to-date records regarding employees’ absences as designated by Human Resources.

iii. To monitor individual employee absenteeism records as designated by Human Resources.

iv. To receive call-ins or return employees’ calls, when necessary, should a message be received from employees, and determine the reason for absence.

v. To ensure employee confidentiality in relation to absences and medical information.

vi. To contact a member of the Employee Health and Wellness Department or designate for assistance when restrictions and /or limitations have been identified.

vii. To forward all medical documentation (if received) directly to the Employee Health and Wellness Department or designate in a secure and confidential manner.

viii. To advise employees of their obligation to provide satisfactory written proof of disability, as required, confirming disability and ensuring continued payment of sick leave or short term disability leave days. Immediate supervisors shall not require an employee to sign a release to authorize collection of medical information.

ix. To participate in the development of the employee’s return-to-work plan, including providing accommodations and/or modifications to the employee’s duties and/or hours, based on recommendations from a member of the Employee Health and Wellness Department or designate.

4.3 Disability Management Coordinator or Designate: i. To request proof of continuing disability from the employee in the case of absences

exceeding ten (10) consecutive working days, at reasonable intervals, in order to maintain sick leave or short term disability leave days or determine if participation in a return to work plan or Individual Work Accommodation (Medical) is appropriate and/or as deemed necessary.

ii. To receive all medical documentation required and provide support to the employee during their time of disability.

iii. To assist the immediate supervisor by maintaining contact with employees with a disability for more than ten (10) consecutive working days, verifying that the employee is under the active care of the appropriate medical practitioner and following an appropriate treatment plan, and advise the immediate supervisor of the expected return-to-work date, when known.

iv. To develop an appropriate return to work plan (including appropriate accommodation and/or modification recommendations) based on the employee’s restrictions and/or limitations.

4.4 Superintendent(s)/ Executive Officer of Human Resources i. It is the responsibility of the appropriate Superintendent/Executive Officer of Human

Resources to administer this procedure and program guidelines.

ii. The appropriate Superintendent/Executive Officer of Human Resources shall review this procedure on a regular basis or as required by legislative change.

For further direction beyond this procedure, refer to the Individual Work Accommodation (Medical) Procedure.

*Note: Refer to specific Collective Agreement language regarding sick day access and appropriate medical forms to be used if applicable.


Topic: Substance Abuse Intervention/Prevention


Cross Reference: Administrative Procedures: Disability Management and Support Program – Early Intervention, Individual Work Accommodation (Medical) and Return to Work; Attendance Management and Support Program; Attendance Management, Occupational Health and Safety, Progressive Discipline; Respectful Workplaces Free of Discrimination and Harassment; Confidentiality of Medical Records; Policy: Privacy and Information Management Review



Responsibility: Executive Officer of Human Resources

INTENDED PURPOSE: The Halton District School Board recognizes that substance abuse can negatively affect job productivity, the psychosocial work environment, and the health, safety and wellbeing of employees. The Board is committed to assisting employees with the prevention of substance use, the early identification of substance abuse, and referrals to rehabilitative and supportive programs within and outside of the Employer. This administrative procedure serves to ensure a healthy and safe work environment and to ensure consistency when addressing substance use issues.

PROCEDURES:

Definitions Impairment – the inability of an employee to work safely, competently or with reasonable effectiveness and safety due to the use of drugs or alcohol or due to exhaustion arising out of the use of drugs or alcohol.

Substance Abuse – the use of illegal drugs, inappropriate use of alcohol or non-medicinal cannabis, or the misuse of prescription or over-the-counter drugs that causes physical and/or mental harm.

1. This procedure applies to all employees of the Halton District School Board, all persons carrying out business on or off Employer property, on behalf of the Employer, and all persons carrying out duties or activities on or off Employer property.

2. The Halton District School Board holds that each employee has a responsibility for their own safety, as well as those around them. This includes reporting any behaviour that may jeopardize the safety of co-workers and/or students to the appropriate Manager of Human Resources. This does not supersede the employee’s “Duty to Report” as defined in the Child Abuse administrative procedure.

3. While on Halton District School Board business or premises, the following acts are prohibited: i. Using, possessing, trafficking, or offering alcohol, illicit drugs (including cannabis) or drug

paraphernalia; ii. Deliberately misusing prescribed or over-the-counter medications; iii. Possessing prescribed medications without a prescription; iv. Trafficking or offering prescription medications; and v. Reporting to work while impaired due to alcohol or drug use.

4. In cases where an employee has been given a prescription for medication and this medication may affect their ability to work skillfully and safely, it is the responsibility of the employee to discuss the matter with their Principal/Supervisor/Manager or a member of the Health and Wellness Services Department in order to obtain modified work accommodations, if necessary.


5. Where prescribed medications are on Employer property due to an employee’s needs, said

medication must be monitored vigilantly and kept in a secure place that is out of harm’s reach and inaccessible to students (e.g., the employee’s pocket or a locked cabinet, etc).

6. In the event that an employee has violated this administrative procedure, is suspected to be under the influence, is displaying impaired behaviour, and/or impaired behaviour has been reported, these steps shall be followed by the Employer, while maintaining the employee’s confidentiality and dignity:

i. Intervene with employee and escort to a confidential area to confront suspicions and/or document evidence of impairment/use;

ii. Investigate if suspicions are correct and discuss the decline of performance and/or ability to perform duties;

iii. Obtain second opinion of impairment, if necessary;

iv. If deemed unfit to work, escort employee off of Employer property. Provide transportation for employee to hospital, if medical attention is required, or to place of residence;

v. Advise employee of their right to contact a union representative;

vi. Inform the appropriate Manager of Human Resources or designate; and

vii. In consultation with Human Resources, send written documentation to employee of steps taken and what next steps to expect, making reference to the Employee and Family Assistance Program (EFAP).

7. Identifying Impaired Behaviour Impairment may negatively impact employee performance and compromise an employee’s health and safety. Examples of behaviour that may give rise to reasonable cause to believe than an employee is impaired/unfit for work and may be unable to perform their job safely include but are not limited to:

Slurred speech; Glassy eyes; Flushed face or neck; Disorientation, unsteadiness, or lack of coordination; Smell of alcohol or drugs (on breath, or clothing, or in the air surrounding the

employee); Uncharacteristic or abnormal behavior (e.g., frequent or rapid mood swings,

excitement, confusion, irritability, aggressiveness, remoteness, euphoria) Diminished performance (e.g., sporadic work pace, neglect of duty, increase in

mistakes, difficulty communicating or recalling instructions); and/or Memory problems.

8. Where necessary, as determined by the Executive Officer of Human Resources or designate, the Employer may further investigate the allegations of impairment or substance abuse. This may involve the assignment of the employee home with pay until completion of the investigation. Such assignment will be made at the sole discretion of Human Resources.

9. When an employee has been sent home due to substance use, a suspicion thereof, or for further investigation, the Employer may request that medical documentation be provided deeming the individual drug and/or alcohol free prior to their return to work.\

10. If an employee is seeking rehabilitative services outside of the Employer for substance abuse issues, they may wish to inform their Principal/Supervisor/Manager.

i. If an employee is uncomfortable or does not wish to approach their Principal/Supervisor/Manager, they may contact the appropriate Employee Health and Wellness Disability Management Coordinator or, or Manager of Human Resources, directly.


11. If the Employer determines that an employee is fit to return to work and/or medical documentation

has been received to this effect, a return-to-work meeting will be held with a member of Employee Health and Wellness the Disability Management Coordinator or designate to review and determine appropriate accommodations and/or supports, if required. The employee will be advised of their right to have union representation attend the meeting. At the meeting:

i. The Employer may require the employee to enter an agreement that will govern their continued employment;

ii. Restrictions, modifications and timeframes will be addressed;

iii. The schedule of follow-up meetings will be determined; and

iv. A return-to-work plan, outlining the issues that were addressed in the meeting, will be supplied to the employee for their own records.

12. In accordance with Human Rights legislation, rehabilitative services will be provided to employees who require it. Assistance for employees is provided through the Employer’s confidential Employee and Family Assistance Program, as well as referrals to outside agencies.

13. Any violation of this procedure or the return-to-work agreement may result in discipline including suspension without pay and/or termination of employment.

14. In all cases governed by this administrative procedure, those responsible for the case will hold an employee’s information, health issues, and assessments in confidence. Furthermore, the identity of any staff member who reports impaired behaviour or suspicions shall be kept confidential.

15. Any breach to confidentiality may result in disciplinary action up to and including termination.

Responsibilities Employer

i. Monitor employees for impaired behaviour and determine appropriate action.

ii. Ensure safety of all employees and students.

iii. Refer employees to EFAP, if required.

iv. Promote and maintain an alcohol and drug-free workplace.

Employee i. Arrive to work capable, fit for duty, and conduct self in safe manner.

ii. Report any awareness or suspicion of impaired conduct by another employee.

iii. Abstain from the inappropriate use of drugs or alcohol.

iv. Comply with this administrative procedure.

v. Seek treatment when necessary.

vi. Co-operate with any investigation related to this administrative procedure, including participating in testing, if requested, to ensure the safety of self and others’ in performance of the employee’s job requirements.

vii. Maintain safety for self and others.


Topic: Religious and Creed Accommodations

Effective: September 2017

Cross Reference: Ontario Human Rights Code; Ontario Human Rights Code Policies -- Competing Rights; Preventing Discrimination Based on Creed; and Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identify and Gender Expression (Ontario Human Rights Commission); “The Shadow of the Law: Key Legal Principles for Competing Rights Claims” – Ontario Human Rights Commission; Occupational Health & Safety Act and Regulations; Ministry of Education Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy; Policy/Program Memorandum No. 108: Opening or Closing Exercises in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools; Policy/Program Memorandum No. 119: Developing and Implementing Equity and Inclusive Education Policies in Ontario Schools; HDSB Equity and Inclusive Education Policy: HDSB Employment Equity Policy



Responsibility: Superintendent of Education

DEFINITIONS:

Accommodation The Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policy on preventing discrimination based on Creed (p. 4) states that employers, service providers, unions and housing providers have a legal duty to accommodate people’s beliefs and practices to the point of undue hardship where these are:

Adversely affected by a standard, rule or requirement of the organization Sincerely (honestly) held Connected to a creed

The duty to accommodate is an obligation that arises when requirements, factors, or qualifications, which are imposed in good faith, have an adverse impact on, or provide an unfair preference for, a group of persons based on a protected ground under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The duty to accommodate must be provided to the point of undue hardship. In determining whether there is undue hardship, section 24(2) of the Ontario Human Rights Code provides that reference should be made to the cost of accommodation, outside sources of funding, if any, and health and safety requirements.

Fulfilling the duty to accommodate requires that the most appropriate accommodation be determined and provided short of undue hardship. The most appropriate accommodation is the one that most:

Respects dignity (including autonomy, comfort, and confidentiality) Responds to a person’s individualized needs Allows for integration and full participation

Creed (Religion) Under the Ontario Human Rights Code, creed includes, but is not necessarily limited to “religious creed” or “religion”. The following characteristics are relevant when considering if a belief system is a creed under the Ontario Human Rights Code.


A creed:

is sincerely, freely and deeply held; is integrally linked to a person’s self-definition and spiritual fulfillment; is a particular, comprehensive and overarching system of belief that governs one’s conduct and

practices; addresses ultimate questions of human existence, including ideas about life, purpose, death, and

the existence or non-existence of a creator and/or a higher or different order of existence; has some “nexus” or connection to an organization or community that professes a shared system

of belief.

Religion is typical of the kinds of beliefs and practices that are protected under the Ontario Human Rights Code ground of creed.

To be recognized as a religion or creed under the Ontario Human Rights Code, a belief in God or gods or a single supreme being or deity in not required. Religion or creed includes the spiritual beliefs and practices of Indigenous cultures.

Not every belief, opinion, expression, practice or matter of conscience is a creed under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Ontario Human Rights Code does not include a ground for political belief or conviction.

Atheists and agnostics are also protected under the Ontario Human Rights Code ground of creed.

Undue Hardship Accommodation will be provided to the point of undue hardship, as defined by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. A determination regarding undue hardship will be based on an assessment of costs, outside sources of funding, and health and safety. It will be based on objective evidence.

Where a determination is made that an accommodation would create undue hardship, the person requesting accommodation will be given written notice, including the reasons for the decision and the objective evidence relied upon. The accommodation seeker shall be informed of his or her recourse under the Board’s Equity and Inclusive Education Administrative Procedure, Anti-Discrimination Policy and Procedure, and under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Where a determination has been made that an accommodation would cause undue hardship, the Board will proceed to implement the next best accommodation short of undue hardship, or will consider phasing in the requested accommodation.

INTENDED PURPOSE: The Halton District School Board recognizes and values the religious and creed based diversity within its community and is committed to providing a safe, respectful and equitable learning and working environment, free from all forms of discriminatory or harassing behaviours based on religion or creed. The Religious and Creed based Accommodation Administrative Procedure supports the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Halton District School Board intends to uphold the principles embodied by the Charter and the Human Rights Code, and is committed to not allow practices which infringe on the rights protected by the Charter and Code.

Freedom of religion and creed is an individual right which the board, as a public institution must not infringe. There is diversity within religious and creed groups and individuals have varying levels of observance. The Board appreciates the value this diversity, and will make efforts to facilitate opportunities to engage in community consultation. While the Board and its staff will take all reasonable steps to ensure freedom of religious and creed based practices consistent with the Ontario Human Rights Code, it is expected that students and their families, and HDSB employees will help the Board to understand their religious or creed based needs and will work with the Board and its schools to determine appropriate and reasonable accommodations.


People’s experiences of discrimination based on creed often intersect with discrimination based on other Ontario Human Rights Code grounds, such as race, ethnic origin, citizenship, ancestry, place of origin and sex. This includes Indigenous peoples in Ontario who face barriers practicing religious and spiritual traditions.

Legislative and Policy Context All school boards exist within a broader context of law and public policy that protect and defend human rights. At the Board, a number of policy statements have been developed that reinforce both federal and provincial legislation, and also help ensure that the freedoms they set out are protected within the school system.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Section 15) protects freedom of religion. The Ontario Human Rights Code (The Code) protects an individual's freedom from discriminatory or harassing behaviours based on religion and creed. In addition to and consistent with this legislation, The Education Act, its regulations and policies govern equity and inclusion in schools.

The Board recognizes, and is committed to, the values of freedom of religion and creed and freedom from discriminatory or harassing behaviour based on religion or creed through its human rights policies including: HDSB Equity and Inclusive Education Policy; HDSB Employment Equity Policy; HDSB Harassment and Discrimination Policy, HDSB Safe and Inclusive Schools Policy; and, curriculum documents. All of these will be informed by, and interpreted in accordance with, the principles of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

General guidelines for religious and creed based accommodation The purpose of this administrative procedure is to set out the responsibilities of each of the parties to the accommodation process. In accordance with the Ontario Ministry of Education’s Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy, the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policy on preventing discrimination based on Creed, and Ontario Human Rights Code’s Guidelines on Developing Human Rights Policies and Procedures, it is intended that the religious and creed based accommodation process, as well as the religious and creed based accommodation itself, be effective and respectful of the dignity of accommodation seekers.

Areas of Accommodation The Board is committed to providing a learning and working environment that is inclusive and will take all reasonable steps to accommodate creed-based beliefs. Religious and creed based accommodations will be provided in accordance with the principles of dignity, individualization, and inclusion. The Board will work cooperatively, and in a spirit of respect, with all partners in the accommodation process (e.g. creed based holidays, leaves and other ritual observances; dietary requirements and food restrictions; and, prayer /meditation).The HDSB has the duty to balance competing rights under the Code, taking into account individual circumstances.

Students, families and employees are requested to submit request in September, or as early as possible in the school year, in writing or in person using the appropriate forms (Appendix A and B).

Procedures for requesting an accommodation for religious and creed based reasons will be made available on the HDSB Board websites, and upon request the Board shall provide accessible formats.

The duty to accommodate religious or creed based requests involves both:

1) the provision of a reasonable accommodation, qualified by the responsibility to take all circumstances into account, including any other rights (substantive), and

2) engaging in a meaningful, good-faith process to assess needs and find appropriate solutions (procedural).


All religious and creed accommodation requests will be taken seriously. No person will be penalized for making an accommodation request in good faith.

School administrators, and corporate supervisors in consultation with Human Resources, will make a decision with respect to the request for accommodation by applying the Ontario Human Rights Code’s criteria of undue hardship with the Board’s ability to fulfill its duties under Board policies and the Education Act. The System Principal and/or Superintendent of Equity and Inclusive Education are available for support and guidance.

It is the role of the Board and its employees to demonstrate respect for the diverse religious and creed beliefs and inclusive practices of employees, students and their families.

Specific Guidelines for religious and creed based accommodation The Ontario Ministry of Education directs school boards to consider possible accommodations, on an individual case by case basis.

The requests for accommodation should be specific and include details of the area of the Board practice about which the request is being made. Emphasis will be placed by administrators and supervisors on understanding the situation, context and practices that guide the request and the process of regular reviews of the accommodation, and learning impacts on students. The specific context of the request being made should be included on Appendix A – Parent/Guardian or Student Religious and Creed Based Accommodation Request Form, or the Appendix B – Employee Religious and Creed Based Accommodation Request Form.

Discussion between families, school and board employees about religious and creed based accommodations should be entered into with a sense of mutual respect, building trust and understanding.

Procedures for religious and creed based accommodation requests

Employees If possible, the employee requesting accommodation should advise the supervisor at the beginning of the school year, using Appendix B – Employee Religious and Creed Based Accommodation Request Form. If September notice is not feasible, the person should make the request as early as possible.

Upon receiving the request, school administrator/ corporate supervisor and the employee will arrange to meet to discuss and understand the specific accommodations requested. The Ontario Ministry of Education directs school boards to consider possible accommodations on an individual case by case basis.

Please note: Employee requests for use of their days for religious observation continue to be sent to Human Resources via the absence form on myHDSB.ca using the code for religious day and emailed to their employee group administrator.

The absence of employees due to religious and creed based observances will be determined by Human Resources department members on a case by case basis, taking into account the provisions of the collective agreement.

Students Students and/or parents/guardians must present verbal or written notice specifying their accommodation requests relating to religious or creed observances. School administrators will ask for the requests to be outlined in detail using Appendix A – Parent/Guardian or Student Religious and Creed Based Accommodation Request Form. Requests can include absence for observance of holy days. Giving notification in advance, preferably at the beginning of each school year, will assist with the scheduling of major evaluations, such as tests, assignment due dates or examinations, taking the religious and creed observances into consideration.


Upon receiving the request, school administrators and parent/guardian and/or student will arrange to meet to discuss and understand the specific accommodations requested. The Ontario Ministry of Education directs school boards to consider possible accommodations on an individual case by case basis.

School administrators and school staff shall not be placed in the position of monitoring a child’s compliance with a religious or creed based obligation, and enforcing such practices (e.g., performing daily prayers or wearing a head covering is not the responsibility of the school or the Board).

Unresolved Requests Notwithstanding the Board’s commitment to accommodate, an individual may feel that discrimination based on faith has occurred. The Board will, through its human rights policies, take reasonable and timely steps to address the unresolved issues raised by the affected person, which could include a dispute resolution mechanism. Parents/guardians can refer to the HDSB Administrative Procedure for Dealing with Public Concerns. Staff can consult with their Supervisor/Manager, Human Resources Department, or Union/Federation representative for support.

Limitations to Faith Accommodation The Board supports freedom of religion and an individual's right to manifest their faith beliefs and observances. The right to freedom of religion, however, is not absolute.

Human rights protections, and the HDSB Administrative Procedure for Religious and Creed Based Accommodations does not extend to practices and observations that are hateful, or incite hatred or violence against other individuals or groups, or contravene international human rights standards or criminal law.

The Board will not engage in practices or behaviour in its schools, which may put public safety, health, or the human rights and freedoms of others at risk. As well, the Board will limit practices or behaviours in its schools that are in violation of other Board policies. These decisions will be made in accordance with the principles of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The HDSB cannot accommodate religious and creed based values and beliefs that clearly conflict with the human rights of others as prescribed in the Ontario Human Rights Code. Where the learning in the classroom or school program promotes inclusion on any of the protected grounds in the Ontario Human Rights Code, the HDSB will not provide religious, creed based or any other accommodation.

https://www.hdsb.ca/schools/Pages/Who%20to%20Contact/How-to-Resolve-Issues-and-Concerns.aspx


Appendix A

Parent/Guardian or Student Religious and Creed Based Accommodation Request Form

The Halton District School Board values diversity and inclusion. It has policies and procedures to accommodate the diverse religious needs of students in schools. This form provides a mechanism by which parents/guardians can request a particular accommodation, which the Board will receive and consider on a case-by-case basis. This form should be completed by parents/guardians and/or students over the age of 18.

Please complete the form at the start of the school year or as soon after as possible.

The completed form should be submitted to the school office.

Name of person submitting:___________________(first) _____________________________(last)

Contact Information: Tel: _____________________ Email: _____________________

Date of submission: _______________________ (Day/Month/Year)

I am: Student Parent Guardian

Name of student(s) and grade(s) for whom request is being submitted:

Name Grade School Name

Select all accommodation areas that apply:

Religious Practice _Curriculum Expectations

Co-curricular activity Classroom Learning

Clothing Field Trip

Prayer Other __________________

Diet

Absence/Leave

Other _____________________________

Religious Practice Accommodation: Describe the religious or creed based accommodation request(s) for each student on the form: __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

Curriculum Expectations Accommodation: Subject / Course ___________________ Grade_______ Unit ________________________________ Please state your specific religious or creed based concerns connected to the curriculum:

___________________________________________________________________________________

Please submit this form to the school office staff. The school will contact you to follow up on your request.

Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act: Personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E-2, and regulations as amended. This information will be used for administrative purposes for providing religious accommodation for the student. Questions regarding this collection should be directed to the Records Manager at the Halton District School Board, 2050 Guelph Line, Burlington, Ontario, L7P 5A8. Tel: 905-335-3663

https://maps.google.com/?q=2050+Guelph+Line,+Burlington,+Ontario,+L7P+5A8&entry=gmail&source=g

tel:(905)%20335-3663


Appendix B

Employee Religious and Creed Based Accommodation Request Form

The Halton District School Board values diversity and inclusion. It has policies and procedures to accommodate the diverse religious and creed based needs of members of the organization. This form provides a mechanism by which employees can request a particular accommodation to their supervisor, which the Board will receive and consider on a case-by-case basis. This form should be completed by the employee making the request.

Please complete the form at the start of the school year or as soon after as possible.

The completed form should be submitted to the employee’s supervisor.

Name of person submitting (print): ________________________ (first) ___________________(last)

Contact Information: Tel: ___________________________ Email:________________

Date of submission: ______________________________ (Day/Month/Year)

School or work location: _______________________________________________

Supervisor’s Name: _______________________________________________________

Select all accommodation areas that apply:

eligious Practice Clothing

Prayer

Diet

Absence/Leave

Other ________________________________________________________________

Describe the religious or creed based accommodation request(s):

Submit this form to your supervisor.

Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act: Personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E-2, and regulations as amended. This information will be used for administrative purposes for providing religious accommodation for the student. Questions regarding this collection should be directed to the Records Manager at the Halton District School Board, 2050 Guelph Line, Burlington, Ontario, L7P 5A8. Tel: 905-335-3663

https://maps.google.com/?q=2050+Guelph+Line,+Burlington,+Ontario,+L7P+5A8&entry=gmail&source=g

tel:(905)%20335-3663


33


FOR DECISION


FROM: M. Denton, Manager, Communication Services S. Miller Director of Education

RE: Names for Milton SW #10 Public School

RECOMMENDATION:

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board name the new elementary school (Milton SW #10) located at 1450 Leger Way in Milton, ______________________.

Background: The guidelines outlined in the Halton District School Board Administrative Procedure: Naming Schools states the process in which potential names for a new school are submitted to the Board.

The Administrative Procedure calls for suggestion boxes to be distributed to area schools and public libraries in the community. The timeline for gathering suggestions for the new elementary school was January 8 to February 9, 2018. A media release was issued and an advertisement was placed in the Milton Canadian Champion newspaper to encourage participation in the school community. Posters were displayed in all Milton schools and information was shared in school newsletters/websites. An online suggestion form was shared on the HDSB website and through social media.

All suggested names were reviewed by a committee and a shortlist of names was developed for trustees. More than 200 unique names were submitted by the community.

On the committee to review names for the Milton SW #10 elementary school was:

Kim Graves (Trustee Milton Ward 1,6,7,8), Ann Harvey Hope, Chair’s designate (Trustee Oakville Ward 3), Gavin Robertson (principal of Milton #10), Superintendent Jacqueline Newton, Kelly McMillan (parent from Anne J. MacArthur Public School), Mary Kadric (parent from Boyne Public School) and Marnie Denton, Manager, Communications and Print Services

The committee puts forward the following two names for your consideration for this school:

Viola Desmond Public School -- (born 6 July 1914 in Halifax, Nova Scotia, died 7 February 1965 in New York, NY). Viola Desmond (née Davis) initially trained as a teacher but soon joined her husband in a joint barbershop and hair dressing salon. She expanded her business, the Desmond School of Beauty Culture, across the province and became a mentor to young Black women in Nova Scotia. It is however the story of her courageous refusal to accept an act of racial discrimination in a theatre in New Glasgow, NS in 1946 that provided inspiration to a later generation of Black persons in Nova Scotia and in the rest of Canada. In December 2016, it was announced that Viola Desmond would be the first Canadian woman depicted on the face of a Canadian bank note -- the $10 note in a series of bills to be released in 2018.

Submissions from the community described Viola Desmond as a Canadian hero who would be an inspirational figure for elementary school students. Community members said they believe a school with this name symbolizes a growing and increasingly-diverse Halton region.


34

Note: The Communications Department has made contact with Viola Desmond’s family members in Nova Scotia. They have indicated complete support for naming the school after their sister Viola Desmond.

Maamawi Public School – Ojibwe translation “All of Us”/“All together”. The Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation is part of a much larger civilization of people known as the Anishinabe. They are the original people who resided on the traditional territory of what is now known as Halton. Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation speak the language of Ojibwe.

The committee discussed the significance of this name and its alignment to Board’s commitment to acknowledging and honouring Indigenous people.

Note: The meaning and spelling of the word has been confirmed by Tammy Hardwick, the Board’s Instructional Program Leader for First Nations, Métis and Inuit Education.

The lists of all school names submitted, excluding any inappropriate suggestions, is available.


Marnie Denton Manager, Communication Services



35


FOR DECISION


FROM: D. Boag, Associate Director S. Miller, Director of Education

RE: School Year Calendar 2018-2019

RECOMMENDATION

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve the summary of statutory and Board designated holidays and professional activity days for 2018-2019 as recommended through consultation with the School Year Calendar Committee.

Background The Education Act requires each school board to establish a school year calendar, identifying instructional days, professional activity days and holidays for each school year. The Ministry of Education establishes the number of days for the schools of the province and in accordance with Regulation 304, each school board is required to submit a Board-approved calendar to the Ministry of Education by May 1, 2018. If the Board chooses to submit a modified school year calendar they must do so by March 1, 2018.

The School Year Calendar Committee met on January 23, 2018 for the purpose of preparing a draft calendar. The School Year Calendar Committee has taken into account several considerations:

Central Guiding Legislation For 2018-2019 there are 194 possible school days between September 1, 2018 and June 30, 2019. Following Ministry of Education direction, the 2018 - 2019 school year must include a minimum of 194 days. Of these days, school boards are currently required to designate 3 days as professional activity days. In addition to these 3 days, school boards may designate up to an additional 4 days as professional activity days for a total of 7 professional activity days. In accordance with regulation 304 the remaining schools days shall be instructional days, including up to 10 days for secondary examinations.

Alignment between Elementary and Secondary Panels, Transportation Services and the Coterminous Board. Care is taken in the establishment of the school year calendar to align the HDSB elementary and secondary PA days and to integrate transportation services with our coterminous Board. Consultation has occurred with the Halton Catholic District School Board and each of the professional activity days placed within the 2018-19 calendar align with the Halton Catholic District School Board. In addition, both boards will have the same secondary school examination days.

Professional Activity Days The Ministry now mandates three professional activity days to be designated for Ministry priorities, an increase of one as initiated in 2015-2016 by the Ministry, and up to four professional activity days for Board-related initiatives. For the 2018-2019 school year, seven professional activity days are proposed for elementary and secondary schools:

Elementary and Secondary

Three days for professional learning related to Ministry initiatives. This is to include: numeracy, literacy, safe and inclusive schools, student engagement, assessment and evaluation.


36

Elementary only

Two days for assessment and completion of report cards

One day for parent–teacher interviews

One day for professional learning related to Board initiatives. This is to include: school improvement plans, assessment and evaluation, school self-assessment.

Secondary only

Four days for professional learning related to Board initiatives. This is to include: school improvement plans, assessment and evaluation, school self-assessment.

Conclusion The proposed school year calendar for Elementary and Secondary schools for 2018-2019 was developed with the input of the School Year Calendar Committee consisting of representatives from interested and affected groups (Appendix A). The proposed instructional school year includes 187 instructional days for students, as mandated by the Ministry for the 2018-19 school year, and begins on September 4, 2018 (Appendix B).


David Boag, Associate Director

Stuart. Miller, Director of Education


37

Appendix A

School Year Calendar Committee 2018-2019

Name Representing Location

Audrey Conaghan Thomson Parent Elementary

Chris Duncan Management and Administrative

Support Staff

J.W.Singleton

Cindy Bullock Designated Early Childhood

Educators

David Boag Chair J.W.Singleton

Dean Barnes Halton Secondary Principals’

Association

System Principal - International

Student Program & Welcome

Centre

Debbie DeBoer Human Resources J. W. Singleton

Debbie Majka Office Clerical and Technical Unit HEOT Office

Deborah Bachewich Sec Occas. Teachers Ont. Sec. Teachers Office

Gord Donaldson Halton Elementary Principals’

Association

Maple Grove

Heather Duplain Elementary Teachers’ Federation

of Ontario

Federation Office

Jason Bartlett SEAC

Jim Young Ontario Secondary School

Teachers’ Federation

Halton Secondary Teachers Office

Judy Watson Halton District Educational

Assistants Association

HDEAA Office

Julie Hunt Gibbons School Programs New Street Education Centre

Karen Lacroix Transportation Halton Student Transportation

Services

Kevin Schensema Canadian Union of Public

Employees Local 1011

West Maintenance

Liz MacCarthy Human Resources J.W.Singleton

Marnie Denton Director’s Department J.W.Singleton

Mary Marshall Diversity J.W.Singleton

Michael Gallant Information Services J.W.Singleton

Michael Yang Parent Elementary

Richelle Papin Trustees HDSB Board

Sarah Shields Parent Secondary

Stacey Lowery Professional Student Services

Personnel


38

Appendix B

PROPOSED SCHOOL YEAR CALENDAR 2018-2019 Overview

Definition Date

First day of instruction for all students Tuesday September 4, 2018

Last day of instruction for secondary students Thursday June 27, 2019

Last day of instruction for elementary students Friday June 28, 2019

Semester 1 – Secondary Staff September 4, 2018 – January 31, 2019

Semester 2 – Secondary Staff February 1, 2019 – June 28, 2019

Instructional school days 187

Total school days 194

School Breaks and Holidays

Date Holiday

September 3, 2018 Labour Day

October 8, 2018 Thanksgiving Day

December 24, 2018-January 4, 2019 (incl.) Winter Break

February 18, 2019 Family Day

March 11-15, 2019 Spring Break

April 19, 2019 Good Friday

April 22, 2019 Easter Monday

May 20, 2019 Victoria Day

Professional Activity

Date Panel

September 21, 2018 Elementary/Secondary

October 5, 2018 Elementary/Secondary

November 23, 2018 Elementary/Secondary

February 1, 2019 Elementary/Secondary

February 15, 2019 Elementary/Secondary

April 12, 2019 Elementary/Secondary

June 7, 2019 Elementary

June 28, 2019 Secondary

Secondary Instructional

Semester Dates

Semester 1 – 94 instructional days September 4, 2018 – January 31, 2019

Semester 1 - Exams January 24, 2019 – January 30, 2019

Semester 2 – 93 instructional days February 1, 2019 – June 28, 2019

Semester 2 - Exams June 20 – June 26, 2019


41


FOR DECISION



RE: Trustee Determination and Distribution Report

Background Under Ontario Regulation 412/00 of the Education Act, school boards are responsible for trustee determination and distribution (D&D) calculations. Boards are required, by April 3, 2018, to file a “Trustee Determination and Distribution Report” with these decisions. The “determination” portion of the decision ascertains the overall allocation of trustees for the entire region, whereas the “distribution” specifies the geographic areas within the region and the trustee positions to be elected within these regions.

RECOMMENDATION

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board designate no areas within its jurisdiction as low population areas, for the purpose of trustee determination and distribution.

RECOMMENDATION

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve the Trustee Determination (Appendix A) and Trustee Distribution (Appendix B) templates as appended to Report 18043.

RECOMMENDATION

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve the determination of electoral quotient by ward as follows, as described in Report 18043:

Option ____ for Burlington;

Option ____ for Oakville;

Option ____ for Milton;

Option ____ for Halton Hills, and

THAT the Town of Oakville be designated as the lead municipality.

Discussion: In meeting the Board’s obligation under Ontario Regulation 412/00 of the Education Act, trustees must pass motions indicating trustee determination and distribution (D&D) for the upcoming term. There are three components to the D&D calculations:

Ontario Regulation 412/00

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) Population of Electoral Groups (PEG) report

Board resolution re: low population areas

Determination: Ontario Regulation 412/00 determines the number of trustees on a board, based on the principle of representation by population (referred to as “trustee determination”).

The MPAC report establishes the electoral population, as of February 15, 2018, for the Halton District School Board at 338,910.


42

This allocates 11 trustees for the Halton District School Board according to “Table 2” in Ontario Regulation 412/00 (also see Appendix A).

Ontario Regulation 412/00 Table 2

Total Population of Electoral Group Number of Members

Less than 30,000 persons 5

30,000 to 44,999 persons 6

50,000 to 59,999 persons 7

60,000 to 99,999 persons 8

100,000 to 149,999 persons 9

150,000 to 249,999 persons 10

250,000 to 399,999 persons 11

400,000 to 999,999 persons 12

1,000,000 to 1,499,999 persons 17

1,500,000 persons or more 22

Distribution: The regulation also provides the calculation for how those trustees are distributed throughout the specified geographic area (referred to as “trustee distribution”). Attached to Ontario Regulation 412/00 are several tables which contain information used in the D&D calculations. Using the MPAC data and these tables, trustee distribution is established, and a decision made regarding whether a board has a designated low population area.

According to the Regulation, school boards can designate areas within its jurisdiction as low population areas to allow for greater representation to an area than would be accorded by a strict representation-by-population approach. Designating areas as low population areas affects the calculation of trustee distribution; however designating low population areas does not affect the total number of trustees for a board.

A Board resolution is required by boards (by March 31, 2018) stating either that no areas in the Board’s jurisdiction have been designated as low population areas, or alternatively, a resolution identifying which areas have been designated as low population areas.

It is recommended the Halton District School Board not designate any low population areas, thereby basing the determination and distribution of trustees on representation-by-population, and those calculations as outlined in Ontario Regulation 412/00.

This calculation sets out the following trustee allocation by municipality (also see Appendix B):

Municipality Population Electoral Quotient Trustee Allocation

Oakville 120,197 3.901 4

Burlington 119,585 3.881 4

Milton 61,117 1.984 2

Halton Hills 38,011 1.234 1

The intent of the Regulation is outlined in the Ministry of Education’s “Trustee Determination and Distribution Guide” which directs “The sum of the electoral quotients in each geographic area should be as close as possible to a whole number.”

The calculation for the determination of electoral quotient is based upon MPAC data (registered public supporters/constituents). Those results are summarized in Appendix C, outlining the electoral quotients for each ward within its respective municipality. This does not necessarily factor in the number of schools or students, and therefore workload. The calculation is based on the relative number of electors as reported by MPAC in its PEG report.


43

The Ministry of Education’s “Trustee Determination and Distribution Guide” also states: “The number of trustees allocated to a geographic area should be as close as possible to the sum of the electoral quotients for that area.”

For the 2014 Trustee Determination and Distribution Report, the Board’s legal counsel, Miller Thomson, was consulted as to whether school board geographic areas for trustee representation need to have a similar population size, which is still applicable today. The response from legal counsel regarding this matter states:

“…a democratic system, representation is based on representation by population, whereby each person’s should be relatively equal; or, that each elected official should represent a similar number of electors.”

This is confirmed in Ontario Regulation 412/00, subsection 4(4)(4) which states: "Representation should not deviate unduly from the principle of representation by population".¹

Miller Thomson also suggested that “effective representation “allows for differences or variances in the number of electors each trustee represents. The legal opinion states:

“…if variances get too large and no clear, objective reasons support the differences, effective representation is not attained.”

“…if trustee areas vary in population by approximately 10%, effective representation can be typically assured without further consideration. At 15% effective representation is likely, but some explanation is required. At 20%, the margins of effective representation are being strained. At 25% population variance between trustee areas, effective representation is more difficult to assert.”

Staff has prepared options for trustee distribution. These include status quo and various options related to discrepancies in effective representation, where variances are greater than 20% (ie greater than a 1.20 quotient and less than a 0.80 quotient per trustee). More specifically, the objective in these options is to achieve a quotient of 1.00 per trustee. The options are also listed in Appendix D (ward maps are also included).

Burlington: Option 1: Status Quo

The current distribution of trustees in place for Burlington would remain.

The first geographic area would include Wards 1 and 2, where the total quotient would be 1.184.

The second geographic area would include Wards 3 and 6, where the total quotient would be 1.179.

The third geographic area would be Ward 4, where the total quotient would be 0.813.

The fourth geographic area would be Ward 5, where the total quotient would be 0.705.

In this option, only one geographic area exceeds the 20% variance.

Option 2:

This option proposes the redistribution of geographic area. Distribution of four trustees for Burlington would continue.





This option would have two of the four geographic areas exceeding the 20% variance.


44

Option 3:






This option would have three of the four geographic areas exceeding the 20% variance.

Option 4:


The first geographic area would includes Ward 1 where the total quotient would be 0.594.


The third geographic area would be Wards 4 and 6, where the total quotient would be 1.465.


This option would also have three of the four geographic areas exceeding the 20% variance.

Option 5:






This option would also have three of the four geographic areas exceeding the 20% variance.

Option 6

This option proposes the creation of two geographic areas, where two trustees would be elected from each area. Distribution of four trustees for Burlington would continue.

The first geographic area would include Wards 1, 2 and 4, where the total quotient for the area would be 1.997. When divided by 2 (for the total number of trustees representing that area), the quotient per trustee would be 0.998.

The second geographic area would include Wards 3, 5 and 6, with a total quotient of 1.884. When divided by 2 (for the total number of trustees representing the area), the quotient per trustee is 0.942.

In this option, the quotient per trustee approaches the quotient of 1.0, well within the variance of 20%.

This option would also ensure geographic continuity as boundaries for these areas would be contiguous.

Option 7:

This option also proposes the creation of two geographic areas, where two trustees would be elected from each area. Distribution of four trustees for Burlington would continue.

The first geographic area would include Wards 1, 3 and 4 where the total quotient for the area would be 1.935. When divided by 2 (for the total number of trustees representing that area), the quotient per trustee would be 0.967.


45

The second geographic area would include Wards 2, 5 and 6, with a total quotient of 1.947. When divided by 2 (for the total number of trustees representing the area), the quotient per trustee is 0.973.

In this option, the quotient per trustee approaches the quotient of 1.0, well within the variance of 20%.

This option would also ensure geographic continuity as boundaries for these areas would be contiguous.

Oakville A new Ward has been added in Oakville resulting a total of seven Wards for the entire municipality

Option 1:

This option proposes the redistribution of geographic areas. Distribution of four trustees for Oakville would continue.

The first geographic area would include Wards 1 and 2, where the total quotient for this area would be 1.181.



The fourth geographic area would be Wards 5 and 6, where the total quotient would be 1.234.

Three of the four geographic areas exceed the 20% variance, Ward 7 will continue to see significant population growth in the coming years as a result of residential development planned for North Oakville.

Option 2:






In this option, the quotient per trustee is well within the variance of 20%, except Ward 5.

Option 3:






In this option, the quotient per trustee approach is well within the variance of 20%, except Ward 5.

Option 4:





46

Option 4 (cont’d):



In this option, the quotient per trustee is well within the variance of 20% except Ward 4.

Option 5:






In this option, the quotient per trustee is well within the variance of 20% , except Ward 4.

Option 6:

This option proposes the creation of two geographic areas with two trustees elected from each area. Distribution of four trustees for Oakville would continue.

The first geographic area would include Wards 1, 2 and 4. The total quotient for this area would be 1.971, and when divided by 2 (for the total number of trustees representing that area), the quotient per trustee would be 0.985.

The second geographic area would include Wards 3, 5, 6 and 7, where the total quotient would be 1.930. When divided by 2 (for the total number of trustees representing that area), the quotient per trustee would be 0.985.

In this option, the quotient per trustee is well within the variance of 20% for both geographic areas.

Option 7:

This option proposes the creation of two geographic areas with two trustees elected from each area. Distribution of four trustees for Oakville would continue.

The first geographic area would include Wards 1, 2, 4 and 7. The total quotient for this area would be 2.126, and when divided by 2 (for the total number of trustees representing that area), the quotient per trustee would be 1.063.

The second geographic area would include Wards 3, 5 and 6, where the total quotient would be 1.775. When divided by 2 (for the total number of trustees representing that area), the quotient per trustee would be 0.8875.


Milton The Town of Milton has reorganized the wards in the municipality, resulting in the number of wards being reduced from 8 to 4 effective for the 2018 municipal election.

Option 1:

This option proposes the redistribution of geographic areas. Distribution of two trustees for Milton would continue.





47

Option 2:




Both of the geographic areas are within the 20% variance,

Option 3:



The second geographic area would include Wards 3 and 4, where the total quotient would be 0.802. In this option, the quotient per trustee is within the variance of 20%,

Halton Hills Option 1: Status Quo

Retain the current distribution of trustees allocated for Halton Hills (1).

The quotient for the Halton Hills geographic area is 1.234, which exceeds the 20% variance as suggested by legal counsel.

Conclusion Options have been developed for trustee determination and distribution for the 2018-2022 term. These are based on the MPAC data provided in the PEG reports (Appendix D), the calculations as set out by Ontario Regulation 412/00, and the requirement for Boards to submit a Trustee Determination and Distribution Report to the Minister of Education by April 3, 2018.

The presented options attempt to ensure variances (especially as it relates to electoral quotient by geographic areas) do not exceed 20% +/-, and therefore meet the goal to achieve an electoral quotient of 1.00 for each trustee.




48

Appendix A

Trustee Determination Template

DATA SOURCE FIGURE

population of electoral group MPAC report (total population) Box 1: 338,910

board area TABLE 1, O. Reg. 412/00 Box 2: 970

board density total population (Box 1) divided by area (Box 2)

Box 3: 349.4

dispersal factor Refer to TABLE 5, O. Reg. 412/00 Box 4: 0

number of population-based trustees Refer to TABLE 2, O. Reg. 412/00 Box 5: 11

number of density-based trustees refer to TABLE 3, O. Reg. 412/00 using board density figure

Box 6:

0

Box 8

(lesser of Box 6 & Box 7)

0

number of density-based (area adjusted) trustees

refer to TABLE 4, O. Reg. 412/00 using board area figure

Box 7:

0

number of additional trustees based on dispersal

refer to rules set out in O. Reg. 412/00, s.3 using dispersal factor

Box 9:

0

Step 10: Calculation of Number of Trustees:

BOX 5: Population based members + 11

BOX 9Additional members (based on dispersal and density) 0

Total Number of Trustees 11

Appendix B

Trustee Distribution Template

Board’s Electoral Group Population = 329,756 (FIGURE A) Number of Board Trustees = 11 (FIGURE B)

COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3

Name of Municipality/Ward

Electoral Group Population

from MPAC report

Electoral Quotient:

Population (column 1) multiplied by number of trustees (Figure B)

divided by total electoral population (Figure A) ie: 110,607 x 11 = 3.96

307,187………. …

area i: Oakville 120,197 3.901 4

area ii: Burlington 119,585 3.881 4

area iii: Milton 61,117 1.984 2

area iv: Halton Hills 38,011 1.234 1


49

Appendix C

Determination of Electoral Quotient by Ward

Electoral Quotient is calculated according to Ontario Reg 412/00, as follows:

Population of Ward/Municipality X Number of Trustees (Figure B) Total Electoral Population (Figure A)

Burlington: 119,585

Ward Population (English Public) Electoral Quotient

Ward 1 18,311 0.594

Ward 2 18,171 0.590

Ward 3 16,241 0.527

Ward 4 25,059 0.813

Ward 5 21,725 0.705

Ward 6 20,078 0.652

Oakville: 120,197

Ward Population Electoral Quotient

Ward 1 18,301 0.594

Ward 2 18,080 0.587

Ward 3 16,656 0.541

Ward 4 24,341 0.790

Ward 5 20,728 0.673

Ward 6 17,304 0.562

Ward 7 4,787 0.155

Halton Hills: 38,011


Ward 1 7,409 0.240

Ward 2 6,800 0.221

Ward 3 12,039 0.391

Ward 4 11,763 0.382

Milton: 61,117


Ward 1 17,091 0.555

Ward 2 19,310 0.627

Ward 3 13,242 0.430

Ward 4 11,474 0.372

MPAC School Board

Wards Elementary Secondary Total Elementary Secondary Total Elementary Secondary TotalPopulation of Electoral

Group Report (PEG) QuotientBurlington ‐ 1 4 1 5 1,415 634 2,049 1,213 470 1,683 18,311 0.594Burlington ‐ 2 4 1 5 1,311 565 1,876 1,235 594 1,829 18,171 0.590Burlington ‐ 3 6 1 7 1,703 667 2,370 1,988 694 2,682 16,241 0.527Burlington ‐ 4 6 1 7 2,441 1,145 3,586 2,091 1,394 3,485 25,059 0.813Burlington ‐ 5 6 1 7 2,950 1,175 4,125 3,472 740 4,212 21,725 0.705Burlington ‐ 6 4 1 5 3,054 1,236 4,290 2,933 1,586 4,519 20,078 0.652

Burlington Total 30 6 36 12,874 5,422 18,296 12,932 5,478 18,410 119,585 3.881

Halton Hills ‐ 1 2 1 3 1,015 364 1,379 994 421 1,415 7,409 0.240Halton Hills ‐ 2 4 4 539 282 821 910 910 6,800 0.221Halton Hills ‐ 3 3 1 4 1,313 554 1,867 577 1,534 2,111 12,039 0.391Halton Hills ‐ 4 4 4 1,630 703 2,333 2,026 2,026 11,763 0.382Halton Hills Total 13 2 15 4,497 1,903 6,400 4,507 1,955 6,462 38,011 1.234

Milton ‐ 1 5 1 6 2,432 827 3,259 2,731 1,144 3,875 17,091 0.555Milton ‐ 2 5 5 3,407 711 4,118 3,129 3,129 19,310 0.627Milton ‐ 3 3 1 4 3,467 810 4,277 3,310 1,396 4,706 13,242 0.430Milton ‐ 4 4 4 2,920 431 3,351 3,038 3,038 11,474 0.372

Milton Total 17 2 19 12,226 2,779 15,005 12,208 2,540 14,748 61,117 1.984

Oakville ‐ 1 3 3 1,974 803 2,777 1,572 1,572 18,301 0.594Oakville ‐ 2 5 1 6 1,532 770 2,302 2,076 1,008 3,084 18,080 0.587Oakville ‐ 3 4 1 5 2,072 1,225 3,297 2,016 1,303 3,319 16,656 0.541Oakville ‐ 4 6 2 8 4,439 2,355 6,794 4,576 2,606 7,182 24,341 0.790Oakville ‐ 5 5 1 6 2,156 965 3,121 2,621 2,040 4,661 20,728 0.673Oakville ‐ 6 3 1 4 2,245 1,549 3,794 1,602 1,487 3,089 17,304 0.562Oakville ‐ 7 1 1 1,039 338 1,377 999 999 4,787 0.155

Oakville Total 27 6 33 15,457 8,005 23,462 15,462 8,444 23,906 120,197 3.901

Students Living outside of Halton Region 55 308 363

Grand Total 86 17 103 45,109 18,417 63,526 45,109 18,417 63,526 338,910 11.000

2018/2019 Schools Oct. 31, 2017 School Enrolment by WardOct. 31, 2017 Student Location by Ward

FAIRVIEW ST

NO 8 SIDE RD

LAKESHORE RD

PLAINS RD EREBECCA ST

UPPER MIDDLE RD W

NEW ST

NEW ST

BRAN

T ST

KING R

D

BRITANNIA RD

REGIO

NAL R

D 25

GUELP

H LIN

E

WALKE

R'SLIN

E

BURLO

AK DR

NO 2 SIDE RD

N SHORE BLVD E

GREATLAK ES BLV D

MILBUROUGH LINE

MAINWAY

CEDAR

SPRIN

GS R

D

LAKESHORE RD W

APPLE

BY LI

NE

KILBRIDE ST

HARVESTER RD

NO 1 SIDE RD

N SERVICE RD

UPPER MIDDLE RD

MCNIV

EN RD

PL AINS RD W

DUNDAS ST W

TREM

AINE R

D

LOUIS ST LAURENT AVE

DUNDAS ST

DERRY RD

DERRY RD

S SERVICE RD

TREM

AINE

RD LOWER BASE LINE W

BRITANNIA RD

NO 2 SIDE RD

BURNHAMTHORPE RD W

SPEERS RD

COLLING RD

BLIND LINE

NO 4SIDE RD FIR

ST LIN

EMAPLE AVE

BRONTE RD

WATE

RDOWN

RD

EASTPO

RTDR

SSERVICE RD W

TWISS

RD

HWY 6

BE L L S CHOOLL INE Burlington

Wards

The current street netw ork w as provided by the RegionalMunicipality of Halton and the Region assumes no responsibilityor liability for its use or accuracy. Proposed roads are subject to change.It is the intention of the HDSB to provide up-to-date and accurateinformation, and reasonable efforts have been made by the HDSBto verify the information, how ever a degree of error or change isinherent. This information is distributed “as is” w ithout w arranty.HDSB assume no legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information. If you require additional information please contact the Planning Department at 905-335-3663.

0 2 41Kilometers

ÜBurlington- 1 -

Burlington- 2 -

Burlington- 4 -

Burlington- 3 -

Burlington- 5 -

Burlington- 6 -

£¤407

£¤403£¤QEW

£¤QEW

Burlington ‐ Current Trustees

Wards Trustees Burlington 1 & 2 Trustee 1 Leah Reynolds Burlington 3 & 6 Trustee 2 Andréa Grebenc Burlington 4 Trustee 3 Richelle Papin Burlington 5 Trustee 4 Amy Collard

Burlington Option 1 * Status Quo

Wards Trustees Elementary Secondary Total Elementary Secondary Total Elementary Secondary TotalPopulation of Electoral

Group Report (PEG)Quotient

Burlington 1 & 2 Trustee 1 8 2 10 2,726 1,199 3,925 2,448 1,064 3,512 36,482 1.184 Burlington 3 & 6 Trustee 2 10 2 12 4,757 1,903 6,660 4,921 2,280 7,201 36,319 1.179 Burlington 4 Trustee 3 6 1 7 2,441 1,145 3,586 2,091 1,394 3,485 25,059 0.813 Burlington 5 Trustee 4 6 1 7 2,950 1,175 4,125 3,472 740 4,212 21,725 0.705

Burlington Option 2



Burlington 1 & 3 Trustee 1 10 2 12 3,118 1,301 4,419 3,201 1,164 4,365 34,552 1.121 Burlington 2 & 6 Trustee 2 8 2 10 4,365 1,801 6,166 4,168 2,180 6,348 38,249 1.241 Burlington 4 Trustee 3 6 1 7 2,441 1,145 3,586 2,091 1,394 3,485 25,059 0.813 Burlington 5 Trustee 4 6 1 7 2,950 1,175 4,125 3,472 740 4,212 21,725 0.705

Burlington Option 3



Burlington 1 & 3 Trustee 1 10 2 12 3,118 1,301 4,419 3,201 1,164 4,365 34,552 1.121 Burlington 2 & 4 Trustee 2 10 2 12 3,752 1,710 5,462 3,326 1,988 5,314 43,230 1.403 Burlington 5 Trustee 3 6 1 7 2,950 1,175 4,125 3,472 740 4,212 21,725 0.705 Burlington 6 Trustee 4 4 1 5 3,054 1,236 4,290 2,933 1,586 4,519 20,078 0.652

Burlington Option 4



Burlington 1 Trustee 1 4 1 5 1,415 634 2,049 1,213 470 1,683 18,311 0.594 Burlington 2 & 3 Trustee 2 10 2 12 3,014 1,232 4,246 3,223 1,288 4,511 34,412 1.117 Burlington 4 & 6 Trustee 3 10 2 12 5,495 2,381 7,876 5,024 2,980 8,004 45,137 1.465 Burlington 5 Trustee 4 6 1 7 2,950 1,175 4,125 3,472 740 4,212 21,725 0.705

Burlington Option 5



Burlington 1 & 2 Trustee 1 8 2 10 2,726 1,199 3,925 2,448 1,064 3,512 36,482 1.184 Burlington 3 & 4 Trustee 2 12 2 14 4,144 1,812 5,956 4,079 2,088 6,167 41,300 1.340 Burlington 5 Trustee 3 6 1 7 2,950 1,175 4,125 3,472 740 4,212 21,725 0.705 Burlington 6 Trustee 4 4 1 5 3,054 1,236 4,290 2,933 1,586 4,519 20,078 0.652

Burlington Option 6



Burlington 1, 2 & 4 Trustee 1 & 2 14 3 17 5,167 2,344 7,511 4,539 2,458 6,997 61,541 1.997 Burlington 3, 5 & 6 Trustee 3 & 4 16 3 19 7,707 3,078 10,785 8,393 3,020 11,413 58,044 1.884

Burlington Option 7



Burlington 1, 3 & 4 Trustee 1 & 2 16 3 19 5,559 2,446 8,005 5,292 2,558 7,850 59,611 1.935 Burlington 2, 5 & 6 Trustee 3 & 4 14 3 17 7,315 2,976 10,291 7,640 2,920 10,560 59,974 1.947

MPAC School Board

MPAC School Board

MPAC School Board

MPAC School Board

MPAC School Board

MPAC School Board

MPAC School Board

2018/2019 Schools

Oct. 31, 2017 Student Location by

Ward

Oct. 31, 2017 School Enrolment by

Ward

2018/2019 Schools


Ward


Ward

2018/2019 Schools


Ward


Ward

2018/2019 Schools


Ward


Ward

2018/2019 Schools


Ward


Ward

2018/2019 Schools


Ward


Ward

2018/2019 Schools


Ward


Ward

TRAF

ALGAR

RD

REBECCA ST

REBECCA ST

CORNWALL RD

WINS

TON C

HURC

HILL B

LVD

MORR

ISON R

D

REGI O

NALR

D25

SIXTH

LINE

NEW ST

BURLO

AK DR

LAKESHORE RD W

FOUR

TH LIN

E

NOTTINGHI LL GT

LAKESHORE RD E

REYNOLDS ST

KER R ST

GREATLAKES

BLVD

THIRD

LINE

CHAR

TWELL

RD

NEYA

GAWA

BLVD

LEIGHLAND AVE ROYAL WINDSOR DR

UPPER MIDDLE RD W KINGSWAY DR

N

SERVICE RD W

SPEERS RD

DUNDAS ST E

LOWER BASE LINE

WYECROFT RD

DUNDAS ST W

UPPER MIDDLE RD E

N SERVICE

RD

MAINWAY

LAKESHORE RD

BURNHAMTHORPE RD WTREM

AINE

RD

LOWER BASE LINE W

LOWER BASE LINE ELOWER BASELINE W

NO 1 SIDE RD

FOUR

TH LIN

E

NO 2 SIDE RD

FIFTH

LINE

DUNDAS ST

BURNHAMTHORPE RD E

FIRST

LINE

MAPLE

GROV

E DR

CROSS AVE

DORVAL DR

BRONTE RD

FORDDR

EIGHT

H LINE

S SERVICE RD E

S SERVICE RD W

N SERVICE RD E

NINTH

LINE Oakville

Wards


0 2 41Kilometers

ÜOakville- 1 -

Oakville- 2 -

Oakville- 4 -

Oakville- 3 -

Oakville- 5 -

Oakville- 6 -

£¤407

£¤403

£¤QEW

£¤QEW

Oakville- 7 -

Oakville ‐ Current Trustees

Wards TrusteesOakville 1 & 2 Trustee 1 Tracey Ehl HarrisonOakville 3 Trustee 2 Ann Harvey HopeOakville 4 Trustee 3 Joanna OliverOakville 5 & 6 Trustee 4 Kelly AmosOakville 7 ‐ NEW WARD

Oakville Option 1



Oakville 1 & 2 Trustee 1 8 1 9 3,506 1,573 5,079 3,648 1,008 4,656 36,381 1.181Oakville 3 & 7 Trustee 2 5 1 6 3,111 1,563 4,674 3,015 1,303 4,318 21,443 0.696Oakville 4 Trustee 3 6 2 8 4,439 2,355 6,794 4,576 2,606 7,182 24,341 0.790Oakville 5 & 6 Trustee 4 8 2 10 4,401 2,514 6,915 4,223 3,527 7,750 38,032 1.234

Oakville Option 2



Oakville 1 & 3 Trustee 1 7 1 8 4,046 2,028 6,074 3,588 1,303 4,891 34,957 1.135Oakville 2 & 6 Trustee 2 8 2 10 3,777 2,319 6,096 3,678 2,495 6,173 35,384 1.148Oakville 4 & 7 Trustee 3 7 2 9 5,478 2,693 8,171 5,575 2,606 8,181 29,128 0.945Oakville 5 Trustee 4 5 1 6 2,156 965 3,121 2,621 2,040 4,661 20,728 0.673

Oakville Option 3



Oakville 1 & 6 Trustee 1 6 1 7 4,219 2,352 6,571 3,174 1,487 4,661 35,605 1.156Oakville 2 & 3 Trustee 2 9 2 11 3,604 1,995 5,599 4,092 2,311 6,403 34,736 1.127Oakville 4 & 7 Trustee 3 7 2 9 5,478 2,693 8,171 5,575 2,606 8,181 29,128 0.945Oakville 5 Trustee 4 5 1 6 2,156 965 3,121 2,621 2,040 4,661 20,728 0.673

Oakville Option 4




Oakville Option 5




Oakville Option 6



Oakville 1, 2 & 4 Trustee 1 & 2 14 3 17 7,945 3,928 11,873 8,224 3,614 11,838 60,722 1.971Oakville 3, 5, 6 & 7 Trustee 3 & 4 13 3 16 7,512 4,077 11,589 7,238 4,830 12,068 59,475 1.930

Oakville Option 7



Oakville 1, 2, 4 & 7 Trustee 1 & 2 15 3 18 8,984 4,266 13,250 9,223 3,614 12,837 65,509 2.126Oakville 3, 5 & 6 Trustee 3 & 4 12 3 15 6,473 3,739 10,212 6,239 4,830 11,069 54,688 1.775

MPAC School Board

MPAC School Board

MPAC School Board

MPAC School Board

MPAC School Board

MPAC School Board

MPAC School Board

2018/2019 Schools


Ward


Ward

2018/2019 Schools


Ward


Ward

2018/2019 Schools


Ward


Ward

2018/2019 Schools


Ward


Ward

2018/2019 Schools


Ward


Ward

2018/2019 Schools


Ward


Ward

2018/2019 Schools


Ward


Ward

NO 15 SIDE RD

NO 15 SIDE RD

CREW

SONS

LINE

GUELP

H LIN

E

NO 8 SIDE RD

NO 3 SID E RD

BRITANNIA RD

BRITANNIA RD

MILL ST E

DUBLI

N LIN

E

MILBU

ROUG

H LIN

E

TRAFA

LGAR

RD

TRAF

ALGAR

RD

MAIN ST E

NO 22 SIDE RD

SIXTH

LINE

NO 10 SIDE RD

REGIO

NAL R

D 25

MAIN

ST N

HWY 7

FOUR

TH LI

NE

NO 2 SIDE RD

THOM

PSON

RD S

TENTH

LINE

HALL

RD

MILBUROUGH LINE

M ILL

ST W

NO 17 SIDE RD

KILBRIDE ST

GUELPH ST

MAI N

S T

STEELE S AVE W

DERRY RD

FOUR

TH LI

NEFO

URTH

LINE

DARK

WOOD

RD

EIGHT

H LIN

E

STEELES AVE E

NO 1 SIDE RD

GUELP

H LIN

E

NO 5 SIDE RD

HWY 7

APPLE

BY LI

NE

BRON

TE ST

S

WALKE

R'SLIN

E

NO 32 SIDE RD

REGIO

NAL R

D 25

REGIO

NAL R

D 25

M CN IVE NR D

NO 32 SIDE RD

LOUIS ST LAURENT AVE

FIRST

LINE

FIRST

LINE

NASSA

GAWE

YA-ES

QUESI

NG TO

WNLIN

E

CEDAR

HEDG

E RD

BURNHAMTHORPE RD W

FIFTH

LINE

HORN

BY RD

TWISS

RD

DERRY RD

TREM

AINE R

D

LOWER BASE LINE EBRITANNIA RD

CONSERVATION RD

NO 22 SIDE RD

LOWER BASE LINE

SECON

D LIN

ESEC

OND

LINE

LOWER BA SE LINE W

LIMESTONE RDSTEELES AVE

AUBU

RN RD

SIXTH

LINE

FIFTH

LINE

NO 14 SIDE RD

NO 10 SIDE RD

FIFTH

LINE

DUBLI

N LINE

CAMPBELLVILLE RD

NO 2 SIDE RD

TENTH

LINE

BELL

SCHO

OLLIN

E

EIGHT

H LIN

E

SIXTH

LINE

SIXTH

LINE

NO 25 SIDE RD

BURNHAMTHORPE RD E

FOUR

TH LI

NEFO

URTH

LINE

NO 20 SIDE RD

ARKELL RD

COLLING RD

JAMES SNOW PKWYN

NO 20 SIDE RD

NINTH

LINE

NO 30 SIDE RD

PERU R

D

BLIND LINE

KELSO RD

NO 4SIDE

RD

NINTH

LINESIX

TH LI

NE

FIRST

LINE

THIRD

LINE

MAIN

ST S WINS

TON C

HURC

HILL B

LVD

MARTIN ST

MAPLE AVE

CEDARS PR INGS RD

WINS

TON C

HURC

HILL B

LVD

FIFTH

LINE TR

AFALG

AR RD

ONTA

RIO ST

S

THIR DLI N

E

MOUN

TAINV

IEW RD

S

TREM

AINER

D

JAMES

SNOW

PKWY

S

EIGHT

HLINE

FALLBR

OOK

TR

CLAYHILL RD

NINTH

LINE

MiltonWards


0 4 82Kilometers

Ü

Milton- 1 -

Milton- 2 -

Milton- 4 -

Milton- 3 -

£¤407

£¤401

Milton ‐ Current Trustees

Wards TrusteesMilton 1, 6, 7 & 8 Trustee 1 Kim GravesMilton 2, 3, 4 & 5 Trustee 2 Donna DanielliNEW for this year ‐ Milton Wards reduced from 8 to 4

Milton Option 1



Milton 1 & 3 Trustee 1 8 2 10 5,899 1,637 7,536 6,041 2,540 8,581 30,333 0.985Milton 2 & 4 Trustee 2 9 0 9 6,327 1,142 7,469 6,167 0 6,167 30,784 0.999

Milton Option 2



Milton 1 & 4 Trustee 1 9 1 10 5,352 1,258 6,610 5,769 1,144 6,913 28,565 0.927Milton 2 & 3 Trustee 2 8 1 9 6,874 1,521 8,395 6,439 1,396 7,835 32,552 1.057

Milton Option 3



Milton 1 & 2 Trustee 1 10 1 11 5,839 1,538 7,377 5,860 1,144 7,004 36,401 1.181Milton 3 & 4 Trustee 2 7 1 8 6,387 1,241 7,628 6,348 1,396 7,744 24,716 0.802

MPAC School Board

MPAC School Board

MPAC School Board 2018/2019 Schools


Ward


Ward

2018/2019 Schools


Ward


Ward

2018/2019 Schools


Ward


Ward

NO 15 SIDE RD

NO 15 SIDE RD

MILL ST EDU

BLIN

LINE

NO 22 SIDE RD

WINS

TON

CHUR

CHILL

BLVD

SIXTH

LINE

SIXTH

LINE

QUEEN ST

NO 10 SIDE RD

NO 10 SIDE RD

TRAF

ALGAR

RD

MAIN

ST N

HWY 7

TENTH

LINE

HALL

RD

MILL ST W

NO 27 SIDE RD

NO 17 SIDE RD

GUELPH ST

MAIN

ST

MA INST N

NO 17 SIDE RD

FOUR

TH LI

NEFO

URTH

LINE

EIGHT

H LIN

E

STEELES AVE E

NO 5 SIDE RD

NO 5 SIDE RD

MOUN

TAINV

IEW RD

N

HWY 7

FIFTH

LINE

APPLE

BY LIN

E

REGIO

NAL R

D 25

REGIO

NAL R

D 25

NO 32 SIDE RD

NO 32 SIDE RD

MAIN ST E

CANY

ON RD

NO 20 SIDE RD

NASSA

GAWE

YA-ES

QUESI

NG TO

WNLIN

ETR

EMAIN

E RD

FIFTH

LINE

FIFTH

LINE

HORN

BY RD

NO 22 SIDE RD

STEELES AVE

TRAF

ALGAR

RD

CAMPBELLVILLE RD

SIXTH

LINE

NO 22 SIDE RD

FIFTH

LINE

FIFTH

LINE

NO 17 SIDE RD

DUBLI

N LINE TEN

TH LI

NE

NO 25 SIDE RD

FOUR

TH LI

NEFO

URTH

LINE

STEELES AVEW AUBURN RD

JAMES SNOW PKWY N

NO 20 SIDE RD

PERU R

D

SIXTH

LINE

KELSO RD

NINTH

LINE

NINTH

LINE

SIXTH

LINE

THIRD

LINE

MARTIN ST

MAIN

ST S

ESQUE

SING L

INE

MAPLE AVE

CONF

EDER

ATION

ST

WILDWOOD RD

WINS

TON C

HURC

HILL B

LVD

THIRD

LI NE

MOUN

TAINV

IEW RD

S

EIGHT

HLINE

F ALL

BROO

KTR

SIXTH

LINE

CLA

YHILL RD

Halton HillsWards


0 2.5 51.25Kilometers

Ü

Halton Hills- 1 -

Halton Hills- 2 -

Halton Hills- 4 -

Halton Hills- 3 -

£¤401

Halton Hills ‐ Current Trustees

Wards Trustees Halton Hills 1, 2, 3 & 4 Trustee 1 Jeanne Gray

Halton Hills Option 1 * Status Quo



Halton Hills 1, 2, 3 & 4 Trustee 1 13 2 15 4,497 1,903 6,400 4,507 1,955 6,462 38,011 1.234

MPAC School Board 2018/2019 Schools


Ward


Ward


59


FOR DECISION


FROM: L. Veerman, Superintendent of Business S. Miller, Director of Education

RE: Education Development Charge Policies on Application of Operating Surpluses and Alternative Accommodation Arrangements

RECOMMENDATION

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board hereby approves the statement that there is no operating surplus available in the budget that can be applied to reduce growth-related net education land costs; and,

THAT the Board approves the statement that there have been no opportunities to implement alternative accommodation arrangements.

Background The Halton District School Board is currently in the process of replacing its current Education Development Charge By-law. Ontario Regulation 20/98 made under the Education Act, which governs various aspects of Education Development Charges (“EDCs”), requires that a school board evaluate certain EDC related policies as part of the process of adopting a new EDC By-law. The policies in question concern: (i) the application of an operating surplus to capital needs, and (ii) alternative accommodation arrangements.

Discussion:

Statement on Operating Budget Surplus Paragraph 8 of Section 9(1) of Ontario Regulation 20/98 requires that the Board include a statement in the EDC Background Study stating that it has reviewed its operating budget for savings that could be applied to reduce growth-related net education land costs, and the amount of any savings that it proposes to apply, if any.

It is necessary that the review of operating budgets for surpluses be conducted annually as part of the process of establishing the Board’s budget for the following year. A Board policy is in place to accommodate this requirement (refer to Appendix A).

Where there has been, or appears that there will be, a surplus in the estimates in a fiscal year, the Board must determine whether all, part or none of the surplus will be designated for the purpose of acquiring school sites by purchase, lease or otherwise.

A review of the 2017/18 operating budget discloses that there will not be a surplus of operating funds available to allocate to capital needs. Moreover, it is projected that there will not be a surplus of operating funds available in the next year’s forecasted operating budget. Based on the foregoing, the Board is unable to designate surplus funds for the purpose of acquiring school sites. The Board also approves a resolution to this effect when the budget is approved in June each year.

The Board’s reasons for stating that there will be no operating budget surplus available to reduce growth- related net education land costs and the resulting EDC are as follows:

lack of operating surplus;

shortfalls in other areas of the operating budget; and


60

significant backlog of facility renewal.

Alternative Accommodation Arrangements Paragraph 6 of Section 9(1) of Ontario Regulation 20/98 requires that the Board adopt a policy concerning possible arrangements with municipalities, school boards or other persons or bodies in the public or private sector, including arrangements of a long-term or co-operative nature, which would provide accommodation for new elementary school pupils and new secondary school pupils, without imposing EDCs, or with a reduction in such a charge.

The Board has adopted a policy on alternative accommodation arrangements. The policy is attached as Appendix B.

The alternative accommodation arrangements that the Board may wish to consider include purchases, lease/buy backs, site exchanges and joint-venture partnerships. These alternative arrangements, if properly structured, have the potential to reduce site size requirements, improve service delivery, reduce duplication of public facilities and maximize the use of available funds.

Paragraph 7 of Section 9(1) of Ontario Regulation 20/98 requires that the Board include in the EDC Background Study a statement of how the policy concerning alternative accommodation arrangements was implemented, and if it was not implemented, an explanation of why it was not implemented.

To date, there have not been any proposals for alternative accommodation arrangements presented to the Board. It is important to note that neither Ontario Regulation 20/98 nor the policy require the Board to independently pursue such opportunities.

In summary, there were no opportunities or proposals for alternative accommodation arrangements advanced by the development industry, municipalities or the general public; nor did the Board identify any proposals which were considered appropriate having regard to its short term and long term needs.

Conclusion: In concluding, Board approved statements are required under Ontario Regulation 20/98 in regard to the application of an operating budget surplus and alternative accommodation arrangement policy. These Board approved statements must be incorporated into the background study.

As discussed, the Board is unable to designate surplus funds for the purpose of acquiring school sites. Furthermore, there were no opportunities or proposals for alternative accommodation arrangements advanced by the development industry, municipalities or the general public, nor did the Board identify any proposals that were considered appropriate having regard to its short term and long term needs.


L. Veerman, Superintendent of Business and Treasurer

S. Miller, Director of Education


61

APPENDIX A

HALTON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD 7000-30

POLICY STATEMENT

OPERATING BUDGET SURPLUS

WHEREAS the Halton District School Board

recognizes that legislative provisions encourage school boards to review their operating budget for savings that could be applied to reduce growth-related net education land costs, and the amount of any savings which it proposes to apply (if any), and

recognizes that under the General Legislative Grant Regulation, only a surplus from the non- classroom part of the estimates is eligible to be used to acquire school sites, thereby reducing the “growth related net education land cost” and the education development charge that may be levied by the board

THEREFORE

Where there has been or it appears that there will be surplus in the non-classroom part of the estimates of the school board in a fiscal year, the Halton District School Board shall determine whether all, part, or none of the surplus will be designated as available for the purpose of acquiring school sites by purchase, lease or otherwise.

Motion - #M99-0188 May 19, 1999

Review Date: May 2003

Responsibility: - Superintendent of Education (Transportation and Planning)

Administrative Procedures Reference- N/A


62

APPENDIX B

HALTON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD 7000-40

POLICY STATEMENT

ALTERNATE ACCOMMODATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR PUPILS

WHEREAS the Halton District School Board

recognizes that legislative provisions encourage school boards to consider alternate arrangements for the accommodation of elementary and secondary school pupils to the usual arrangement under which a school site is acquired and a stand-alone school is built on it

THEREFORE

The Halton District School Board will consider possible arrangements with municipalities, school boards or other persons or bodies in the public of private sector, including arrangements of a long- term or cooperative nature, which would provide accommodation for the new elementary school pupils and new secondary school pupils who are resident pupils of the board, subject to the following conditions:

1. The arrangement must be cost effective and advantageous for the board compared to other possible arrangements including an acquisition of a school site and the construction of a freestanding building.

2. The arrangement shall comply with any guidelines issued by the Ministry of Education and Training.

3. The Board may enter into lease arrangements respecting school facilities intended to be used to accommodate peak enrolment, but shall not enter into such arrangements respecting school facilities that are necessary to accommodate long-term enrolment unless such arrangements could result in ownership at the board’s discretion.

4. The board shall retain sufficient governance authority over such a facility to ensure that it is able to deliver the appropriate educational program to its pupils, and to ensure that its identity, ambiance and integrity are preserved.

5. Such a facility shall have a separate entrance with the school name on the exterior of the school easily visible from the street.

Motion: - #M99-0188 May 19, 1999

Review Date: May 2003

Responsibility: - Superintendent of Education (Transportation and Planning)

Administrative Procedures Reference -- N/A


63


FOR DECISION (June 2018)


FROM: M. Zonneveld, Superintendent of Education (Student Services) S. Miller, Director of Education

RE: Special Education Plan 2018-19

RECOMMENDATION

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve the Special Education Plan 2018-2019, contingent on approval of the 2018-2019 budget.

Background The Ministry of Education requires boards to annually update, submit to the Ministry, and make available to the public, a report on the programs and services offered in the area of special education. Our Board has continued to refer to this report as the Special Education Plan (referred in this report as “the plan”). Each year a review of the plan is conducted by Student Services Department staff and the Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC), and appropriate areas of the plan are modified to reflect changes made in programs and services. Other areas of the plan are refined to continue to provide more clarity for parents and the public about special education programs and services available in the Halton District School Board. The current Special Education Plan 2017-18 is posted on the Board website.

The updated Special Education Plan 2018-19 is linked here. Below is a summary of the amendments to the plan for 2018-2019:

AMENDMENTS

Table of Contents

Updated once all edits and formatting are complete

REVISION

Various Typos, capitalization, punctuation, date changes and minor wording edits Update various links throughout Plan

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

School Resource Team (SRT) – added “Speech-Language Pathologist, ABA Facilitator

INTRODUCTION

Update the HDSB approval plan date when finalized Update, remove Majority report when finalized

STANDARD 3

The Principal and Vice Principal of Special Education – 6th bullet, removed “Safety and Well Being” replaced with “Safe and Inclusive Schools”. Added “Education” at end of bullet. The Senior Managers of Special Education – 6th bullet, removed “Classes” and replaced with “Centres”. 10th bullet, removed “consultation”. Removed last sentence of bullet “(SSLI Student Support Leadership Initiative, YODA – Youth Overcoming Depression and Anxiety, Suicide, Violence, etc.)”.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GAj9ad99MiNzcDQGU4-c0xVHf7zbgeqLhO0FnMV_nMk/edit?usp=sharing


64

Roles and Responsibilities – The Senior Managers of Special Education – Second

bullet, removed “secondary” replaced with “ elementary”. Third bullet – added “ABA Facilitators”.

Student Services Department chart - updated

STANDARD 4

Student Registration Process – Other – added word “developmental”

Problem Solving Pathway – added “Speech-Language Pathologist” to School Resource Team. Removed “ABA Trainers” and replaced with “ABA Facilitators”, added “”BMS Trainers”

STANDARD 5

Access to Special Education Classes - added language to second paragraph “This location form is not part of the referral process for students in Gifted classes or Community Pathways Programs, where the number of schools offering the classes are limited within each area of the board. It is expected that parents are fully involved in the transition planning process in all cases.”

Identification, Reviews, Waivers – chart updated

STANDARD 6

Identification vs. Diagnosis – re-written to accurately capture the meaning of Diagnosis under RHRA Act.

Specialized Assessments – added “ABA Facilitators”

iv) Child and Youth Counsellors (CYCs) – re-written to accurately capture current practice

Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA Facilitators) – re-written to accurately reflect ABA Facilitator profile and processes.

Dispositions of Assessments and Reports – re-written to accurately capture current process

Speech-Language Assessments – average wait time changed from 6 to 8 months (chart)

STANDARD 7

Specialized Health Support Services – Speech-Language Pathology removed “Halton Peel” and “HPPSLP”

STANDARD 9

Behaviour Resource Centres –BRC (Grade 1-8*) –re-written to accurately reflect current practice

Learning Disabilities (Grade 4-8) – added “suitable for this class” Life Skills (Grades 4-8) – removed “program” and replaced with “class”

Elementary Programs and Placements Chart – updated Communication Program grade range to reflect current placements. Removed “JK-3” replaced with “JK-4”

STANDARD 12

Special Education Staff Chart - updated

Educational Assistants - added “the level of support their child will receive”

Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA) Facilitator – removed “Trainers” added “and utilizes Behavioural Principles. Added sentence “They also support students and schools as a member of Area Multi-Disciplinary Support Teams (MDST)”

Behaviour Management Systems (BMS) Trainer – added descriptor Understanding and Managing Aggressive Behaviour (UMAB) Trainer – added “and Behaviour Management System Trainers” Child and Youth Counsellors (CYCs) – re-written to accurately reflect current practice School Social Workers – re-written to accurately reflect current practice


65

STANDARD 15

Halton District School Board Accessibility Plan – Second paragraph. Removed sentence “The extensive report is posted on the board website” Link removed at end of second paragraph.

Suggestions for Parents/Guardians with Accessibility Concerns – 10th paragraph. Sentenced added at the end “These charts will be updated by the Facilities Department in the near future.”

STANDARD 17

Special Education Advisory Committee Members List – updated

STANDARD 18

Service Coordination in Halton – removed “Halton Children’s Mental Health Advisory Committee” replaced with “Halton Prevention and Intervention Committee”.

Care, Treatment, Custody and Correction Programs Contact Information - updated

APPENDICES

IPRC Waiver Letter - added

SEAC Motions- updated

Appendix J - deleted and added “change in Gifted Screening Assessment Tool”

2017-2018 Budget Development presentation link added

Removed Majority Report, added Minority Report

Added Appendix P - “Autism Class Pilot”

Summary of Amendments - updated

This report is presented to trustees as an initial draft. Any changes that might result from decisions made during the development and approval of the 2018-2019 budget, as well as any program and service developments through the spring, will be reflected in the plan coming to the board for approval in June.

At their meeting on February 6, 2018, SEAC members supported this draft of the Special Education Plan 2018-19. SEAC members are aware that the plan will be revised as necessary to reflect any program and service changes arising before the end of June. The revised plan is expected to be completed and posted on the Board website by July 31, 2018.

Conclusion The proposed amendments to the Special Education Plan provide a clearer and more current description of the special education service delivery model in the Halton District School Board.


Mark Zonneveld Superintendent of Education – Student Services

Stuart Miller, Director of Education


66


FOR DECISION


FROM: T. Ehl Harrison, Vice-Chair Trustee, Oakville Wards1 and 2

RE: Trustee Professional Development: DISC

RECOMMENDATION

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board use a portion of the “Reserve Account for Trustee Professional Development” to cover up to $3500 for expenses incurred through DiSC training for trustees’ professional development.

Background Trustees were recently polled to determine their top training needs for this year. While the list of opportunities of interest was extensive, DiSC, mindfulness and visiting the Board’s Trailhead/Bronte Creek Project were identified as being priorities. Research and organization are moving ahead for each. It is anticipated that the DiSC training is the only one of the three that will require additional funds.

The DiSC program is a personal assessment tool used to improve work productivity, teamwork and communication. This assessment tool involves an individual online component, a 3-hour interactive session with a trained facilitator and follow-up resources and materials specifically geared to the group. The following benefits of the process are noted:

Increase self-knowledge: how you respond to conflict, what motivates you, what causes you stress and how you solve problems

Improve working relationships by recognizing the communication needs of team members

Facilitate better teamwork and teach productive conflict

Manage more effectively by understanding the dispositions and priorities of employees and team members

Become more self-knowledgeable, well-rounded and effective leaders

This recommendation includes the costs for the individual online profiles and follow-up resources. The majority of the expenditure is for the 3-hour interactive DiSC workshop. It also includes a group culture report which will “provide valuable information regarding the culture of the whole group -- the predominant DiSC styles, what to watch out for as a group and how to work more effectively together. The results of this report will be incorporated into the workshop to allow the whole team to reflect on the implications and to learn strategies to maximize group dynamics.” (Italicized and quoted information is utilized from www.discprofile.com/what-is-disc/overview/)

This training will bring value to the group in the form of additional tools to strengthen individual leaders, and the team as we continue to work to meet the goals of the Multi Year Plan in support of students.


Tracey Ehl Harrison Vice-Chair Trustee, Oakville Wards 1 & 2

http://www.discprofile.com/what-is-disc/overview/


67


FOR DECISION



RE: Administration Centre Study – Conclusion of RFP14-77

Recommendation:

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board direct the Director of Education to initiate the construction of a new administrative building on the J.W. Singleton Education Centre property, pending Ministry approval.

Background: The Halton District School Board has grown to 65,000 students, an increase of 35% in student population during the past 10 years. This has resulted in a corresponding increase in staff across the system. There are currently 388 staff assigned to both the J.W. Singleton Centre and New Street Education Centre. This number has increased during the years and will continue to increase, as enrolment grows, in order to provide support and oversight to ensure schools operate effectively. Because of this growth, staff have been engaged in a study of accommodation needs of central administrative Board staff.

Report 15016 was brought to trustees on February 4, 2015. This report initiated a review to determine if the Board offices are adequate to carry out the current and future functions of the Board. This report identified Snyder and Associates Inc. as the consultant to lead this study. Two phases were outlined. Phase one was a comprehensive needs assessment followed by phase two which provided options for consideration to address the needs identified in phase one.

Report 15100 was presented at the June 24, 2015 Board meeting. This report outlined the results of phase one, confirming that the current administrative spaces are inadequate to accommodate the current and growing needs of central staff and the functions they perform.

The second phase, as presented in Board Report 16038 on February 17, 2017, highlighted ideal proximity of departments for optimal synergies and the importance of centralizing all administrative functions of the Board at one site, ideally geographically central in the Board. The report confirmed the current practice of accommodating staff through reorganization and/or minor modifications/ renovations of current space is not a long term solution. Spaces are cramped, lacking privacy, meeting space is inappropriate, building systems are outdated and accessibility remains an issue.

The report identified the need for a facility that: is flexible and adaptable to future needs encourages collaboration and innovation provides a safe and inclusive environment is fully accessible for staff and the public enhances employee well-being to improve employee performance enhances community and board wide engagement

The report also outlined general specifications including square footage, cost and the number of staff to be accommodated.

Report 16130 presented at the October 16, 2016 Board meeting reported staff had been in contact with municipalities and a joint facility was not a likely option. Staff had also investigated available


68

vacant land geographically central to the Board and determined there is no readily available vacant land.

The facility would require approximately eight acres of land. The report also outlined possible concept plans for two currently owned administrative centre lands: Gary Allan High School/New Street Education Centre and M.M. Robinson/J.W. Singleton Centre.

Current Update:

E.C. Drury Campus

During the course of the past 14 months, staff have investigated the potential use of the E.C. Drury site. This site is geographically located centrally within the Board which has some obvious advantages. The E.C. Drury site, however, is owned and operated by Provincial Schools. This is a complicating factor and to date staff have not been able to engage in the necessary discussions with the Province (Infrastructure Ontario) that would result in this piece of property being considered a viable option. Any further discussions would likely be long and arduous making this option less than ideal.

Land Availability The consultants have suggested for a new location, eight acres would be sufficient to accommodate a new administration building. This site size would allow for unknowns such as site configuration, setbacks, easements, and future expansion. The Planning Department, supported by consultants Cushman & Wakefield, has confirmed there is currently very little available land central to the Board, including north Oakville or Milton that would meet the size and configuration requirements of a Board administrative office.

Potential Costs Building a new facility would cost approximately $32 million (tender portion). The Ministry does not fund new administrative centres nor the acquisition of land for a new administrative facility. The Board must finance the construction and, if desired, land acquisition. The acquisition of property for school sites in North Oakville and Milton range in the $1.4 to $2.0 million per acre range. More specific to the Board’s needs for office/employment land, values in north Oakville or Milton are between $700,000 and $1,100,000 per acre, making the cost to purchase the land alone to be approximately $5.6-$8.8 million.

All options presented to the Board will result in a requirement to finance the construction of the new facility. In recognition that funds required to construct a facility would take several years to compile, the following recommendations to allocate funds to the Future Administrative Facility have been approved:

Allocation from Year-end Surplus: Motion M13-0299 (Board Report 13167, Dec. 2013) $ 1,125,291 Motion M15-0218 (Board Report 15153, Nov. 2015) 2,500,000

Transfers within Accumulated Surplus: Motion M16-160 (Board Report 16149, Nov. 2016) 8,919,579

$12,544,870 Motion M16-0186 (Board Report 16159, Nov. 2016) 11,100,000

Total Funds Available for Future Administrative Facility $ 23,644,870

The balance of funds required to construct the new administrative facility would be secured through long-term financing. The principal and interest payments would be budgeted through the Board administration and governance funding envelope.

Ontario Regulation 193/10 restricts the amount of funds that can be used for the purposes of constructing administrative facilities. Under this regulation, the Board can only use proceeds of


69

disposition which have been generated through the sale of a former administrative facility. Therefore, the Board cannot use proceeds of disposition generated from the sale of school sites.

Existing Administrative Office Sites The utilization of existing Board property, either the J.W. Singleton Centre or New St. Education Centre site, would substantially reduce the total cost of the new administrative centre. The Board already owns both potential properties.

Renovating either existing building has been deemed to be problematic for the following reasons: a. cost of retrofitting and updating the existing building b. ongoing maintenance and operating costs of existing building c. accessibility issues within the existing building

The M.M. Robinson H.S. property is approximately 33.6 acres in size, which includes J.W. Singleton Centre (see attachment). Although it is not identified as a separate piece of land, it is estimated the J.W. Singleton Centre site is approximately 5.7 acres in size. The New Street Education Centre/Gary Allan property consists of approximately of 14.67 acres, although the property is fragmented given the previous acquisitions of portions of the site to the City of Burlington (see attachment).

The consultants have prepared schematic facility fit drawings confirming a 95,000 square foot admin centre could be placed on either property (see attachments). If the Board were to move forward with building on either the J.W. Singleton Centre site or the New Street Education Centre site, an Official Plan Amendment and rezoning would be required. The Board’s Planning Department has identified the undertaking of an Official Plan Amendment and zoning amendment for the New Street Education Centre/Gary Allan site would likely be problematic, given the residential nature of the surrounding neighbourhood and the concerns related to a use that may not be compatible with the area.

The location of the new administration centre on the existing J.W. Singleton Centre site would likely be less cause for concern from area residents. Locating a building at the northwest corner of Guelph Line and Upper Middle Road, would be more compatible to the adjacent land uses (i.e., retail malls to the east and southeast) and M.M. Robinson H.S., located to the west. Also, the location of a new administration centre on the current site, would allow for enhanced building exposure and street presence to ensure the Halton District School Board remains visible in the community. The current location also offers better transportation/transit access due to its proximity to a major transportation corridors (Guelph Line/Upper Middle Road) as well as the QEW/403 and Highway 407, as compared to the New Street Education Centre/Gary Allan location. Planning staff believes the potential development of a new administrative centre at this location could provide for other office/retail opportunities that potentially could assist in the reducing the operating costs for the new administration centre. Lastly, the location of the new administration centre at the existing location would ensure the current J.W. Singleton Centre workforce would be minimally impacted.

Conclusion The Halton District School Board is the largest single employer in the entire Halton region. With more than 8000 full and part time employees serving 65,000 students and their families, it is clear the Halton District School Board is a very significant part of the Region of Halton. Moreover, dozens of Halton-based businesses employing a multitude of Halton residents do business with and provide services to the Board, its students and its staff. With a budget of more than $760 million, it is also apparent the Board and its employees contribute greatly to the local economy.

The staff who currently work in the J.W. Singleton Education Centre, New Street Education Centre and the Milton Learning Centre are vital to the work of the schools. Halton students and graduates are served very well by their teachers, educational assistants, school administrators and all school-based support staff. Indeed, Halton District School Board students perform consistently at or near the top when compared to other boards across the province.


70

This cannot occur without the support of those who work in the various Board offices. Vital operations such as information technology, payroll, human resources, purchasing, facility services, library services, academic consulting, student services (special education), financial services, senior management and the functions of the Board of Trustees all occur centrally. Each of these services, and more, provide essential support for both the achievement and well-being of the Halton District School Board’s students. The role of all central support staff is crucial to the continued success of all Halton District School Board students.

The current facilities that accommodate these staff are inadequate. There is insufficient space and the condition of the current buildings are found wanting. To meet the current needs, including AODA compliance, would require a significant investment of millions of dollars. In addition, retrofitting or renovations would result in the displacement of hundreds of personnel and several school operations.

The need for an administrative centre that provides a modern, efficient building that is fully accessible and adaptable to future needs, will have a positive impact on professional relationships, operations and ultimately student learning and well-being.

In the fall of 2017 the Halton Regional Police Services moved into a new headquarters on North Service Road. The building itself cost $54 million and was built on Region-owned land. This new headquarters will serve the police services and ultimately the citizens of Halton well into the future.

A new Halton District School Board education centre will serve the same purpose for the tens of thousands of students we serve, well into the future.

Like the Halton Regional Police Services headquarters, which was situated on regional land, the new HDSB administrative centre would be placed on Board property. This will result in a savings of approximately $5.6 to $8.8 million dollars, as land would not have to be purchased. It is also more efficient and would allow the project to be started and completed in a shorter time period.

It is for these reasons staff are recommending a new education centre be constructed on the site of the current administrative centre, subject to the required approvals.



JWS

The current street network was provided by the RegionalMunicipality of Halton and the Region assumes no responsibilityor liability for its use or accuracy. Proposed roads are subject to change.It is the intention of the HDSB to provide up-to-date and accurateinformation, and reasonable efforts have been made by the HDSBto verify the information, however a degree of error or change isinherent. This information is distributed “as is” without warranty.HDSB assume no legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information. If you require additional information please contact the Planning Department at 905-335-3663.

0 25 5012.5Meters

Ü

JOHN

STON

DR

NEW ST

MYERS LANE

Gary AllanBurlington Site

The current street network was provided by the RegionalMunicipality of Halton and the Region assumes no responsibilityor liability for its use or accuracy. Proposed roads are subject to change.It is the intention of the HDSB to provide up-to-date and accurateinformation, and reasonable efforts have been made by the HDSBto verify the information, however a degree of error or change isinherent. This information is distributed “as is” without warranty.HDSB assume no legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information. If you require additional information please contact the Planning Department at 905-335-3663.

0 50 10025Meters

Ü

Halton DistrictSchool Board

(8.87 ac)

Halton DistrictSchool Board

(5.8 ac)

City ofBurlington

City ofBurlington


75


FOR DECISION TO: The Chair and Members of the Halton District School Board

FROM: K. Amos, Oakville Trustee, Wards 5 & 6 D. Danielli, Milton Trustee, Wards 2, 3, 4 & 5 R. Papin, Burlington Trustee, Ward 4

RE: Support for OSTA/AECO Student Planform -- Education

RECOMMENDATION:

Be it resolved that the Board of Trustees authorize the Chair to write a letter to the Minister of Education showing our support and endorsement of the OSTA AECO Student Platform, Education policy recommendations for the 2018 provincial election – created by students, for students.

Background The Ontario Students Association has developed a document, The Student Platform, in preparation for the 2018 provincial election, after surveying 8,230 students from 62 school boards.

The Student Platform outlines a strategy to improve Ontario’s education system and ensure that Ontario’s youth are better prepared for the unique opportunities and challenges of the modern workforce. OSTA-AECO has identified three pillars that serve as the foundation of a strong education system; Student Wellbeing, 21st Century Learning and Equal Accessibility to Opportunities. More information can be found at this link. http://www.osta-aeco.org/assets/OSTA-AECO-Student-Platform.pdf

Student Trustees are a strong, effective and positive voice for students. Their role on the Board is a link between students and the Board and they represent the student voice. They are also active members of OSTA AECO and represent the student voice in Ontario. By supporting The Student Platform it will help in advancing the student vision and working towards improving education in Ontario.


K. Amos D. Danielli R. Papin Student Trustee Mentors

http://www.osta-aeco.org/assets/OSTA-AECO-Student-Platform.pdf

http://www.osta-aeco.org/assets/OSTA-AECO-Student-Platform.pdf


76


FOR INFORMATION


FROM: M. Zonneveld, Superintendent of Education – Student Services S. Miller, Director of Education

RE: Special Education Review Report

Background

In June 2017 trustees supported, through the allocation of funding in the 2017/18 budget, the continuation of the Special Education Review. Trustees received a report on November 15, 2017 on the progress of the review. The external reviewer has completed the data collection and analysis, and in response, with the input of the Steering Committee, has developed a set of recommendations.

Information

This report outlines the purpose, approaches, methodologies, limitations, key findings and recommendations of this second phase of the review. This report was shared with SEAC on March 6, 2018, with opportunities for additional discussion at future meetings. The key findings and recommendations are being considered by staff, with immediate and longer term action plans being developed.

Information regarding the cost of programs and services is being gathered and analyzed, with a report to follow in the near future.

Staff are considering the value and possible outcomes of continuing this review into a next phase, and will bring forward a report to trustees if this is the eventual recommendation.

Conclusion The findings and recommendations of this review will help guide improvements in programs and services that support students with special needs.


Mark Zonneveld Superintendent of Education – Student Services



Special Education Programs and Services Review

Phase II

Review of Elementary Special Education Referral, Identification and Placement Pathways

For Students identified with

Autism, Learning Disabilities, and Giftedness

Elana Gray, M.Sc., C.E.

March 14, 2018

Autism

Learning

Disabilities

Gifted

Program Review

PHASE II

REFERRAL

IDENTIFICATION

PLACEMENT

Special Education

Notes:

► The term “parent” is used throughout this report and refers to parents and guardians of students.

► Key informant interviewees represent local community associations and also have (or had) children attending

schools in the HDSB. In order to maintain anonymity, details regarding discussion topics with these

participants are included with those presented for parents throughout the report.

Special Education Programs & Services Review Steering Committee

David Boag Associate Director of Education

Elana Gray Consultant

Jane Lewis Principal - Special Education

Sean Marks In-School Principal - Elementary

Denise Nacev Chair - SEAC

Joanna Oliver Trustee

Tim Sadai Instructional Program Leader - Secondary

Linda Stewart Senior Manager - Professional Services

Nicholas Varricchio In-School Principal - Secondary

Lucy Veerman Superintendent - Business Services

Mark Zonneveld Superintendent - Special Education

Acknowledgements

The completion of Phase II was facilitated through the support of many dedicated individuals. A special note

of thanks is extended to the above noted members of the Special Education Programs and Services Review

Steering Committee who provided ongoing guidance and assistance throughout the review process.

Gratitude is extended to staff in Student Services, Research Department, Transportation Department,

Information Technology Department, and Business Services for assisting with data collection, and providing

feedback on data collection pieces.

Gratitude is also extended to all those who helped to support the data collection process: parents/guardians of

students with exceptionalities who participated in the parent/guardian focus groups; Psycho-educational

Consultants, Instructional Program Leaders, Special Education Resource Teachers, Classroom Teachers and

school Principals who participated in the staff focus groups and consultations; Special Education Advisory

Committee representatives who participated in the interviews; and representatives from each of the four

neighbouring school boards who participated in telephone consultations.

Table of Contents

Special Education in the Halton District School Board .................................................................. 1

Background to the Review .............................................................................................................. 2

Purpose of the Review .................................................................................................................... 3

Approach to the Review .................................................................................................................. 3

Review Methodology and Data Analyses ....................................................................................... 5

Limitation of the Review ................................................................................................................ 6

Overview of Elementary Student Enrolment in Special Education Programs and Services .......... 7

Overview of Exceptional Elementary Student Populations ............................................................ 8

Referral, Identification and Placement Procedures for Students with Autism, Learning

Disabilities and Giftedness in the HDSB ........................................................................................ 9

Focus Group and Key Informant Interviews ................................................................................. 22

Alignment with Ontario Ministry of Education Regulations, Policies and Procedures ................ 30

Referral, Identification and Placement Models in Neighbouring School Boards ......................... 32

Summary of Findings .................................................................................................................... 34

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 37

Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 39

References ..................................................................................................................................... 42

Appendix A: Elementary Referral, Identification and Placement Details for

Neighbouring School Boards ................................................................................... 43

List of Tables

Table 1: Review Framework for Elementary Referral, Identification and Placement Pathways ... 4

Table 2: Number of Elementary Students Identified with Autism in the HDSB Over 5 Years ... 13

Table 3: Elementary Special Education Referral, Identification and Placement Details

for Students with Autism in the 2017-2018 School Year ............................................... 15

Table 4: Number of Elementary Students Identified with Learning Disabilities in the

HDSB Over 5 Years ....................................................................................................... 16


for Students with Learning Disabilities in the 2017-2018 School Year ......................... 18

Table 6: Number of Elementary Students Identified with Autism in the HDSB Over 5 Years ... 19


for Students who are Gifted in the 2017-2018 School Year ........................................... 21

List of Figures

Figure 1: Enrolment and Distribution of Students Identified with Autism, Learning Disabilities

and Giftedness in the HDSB by Gender, Location, Grade and Placement

on October 31, 2017 ....................................................................................................... 7

Figure 2a: Percentage of Elementary Student Population Diagnosed with Autism ......................... 8

Figure 2b: Percentage of Elementary Student Population Identified with a

Learning Disabilities ......................................................................................................... 8

Figure 2c: Percentage of Elementary Student Population Identified as Gifted ................................ 8

Figure 3: Elementary Referral, Identification and Placement Pathways for Students

Diagnosed with Autism in the HDSB .......................................................................... 14


Identified with Learning Disabilities in the HDSB ...................................................... 17

Figure 5: Success Rates for SK & Primary Gifted Screening Over 7 Years ............................... 19


Identified as Gifted in the HDSB ................................................................................. 20

Special Education Programs and Services Review – Phase II March 2018 Review of Elementary Special Education Referral, Identification, and Placement Pathways Page 1

SPECIAL EDUCATION IN THE HALTON DISTICT SCHOOL BOARD

The Halton District School Board (HDSB) serves approximately 64,700 students, of which approximately

45,100 are in elementary grades. The HDSB operates 86 elementary schools and 19 secondary schools,

with more than 9000 staff, across the municipalities of Burlington, Halton Hills, Milton and

Oakville. HDSB’s four-year strategic plan (2016-2020) sets direction and priorities to fulfil their vision:

every student explores and enhances their potential, passions, and strengths to thrive as contributing global

citizens. Established priority areas include: (1) engagement and achievement, (2) stewardship and resources,

and (3) equity and wellbeing (HDSB, 2016).

The Student Services Department holds responsibilities for various aspects of special education across the

Board. Through its mission statement, Student Services is committed to ensuring schools work in

partnership with students, families, and community to meet the educational needs of every student. More

than 10,000 students currently receive special education support in the HDSB, and over 58% are in

elementary grades. Elementary special education services and supports range from those provided in the

regular classroom to those offered in full-time self-contained classes. The range of supports provided to

exceptional students are based on the following Statements of Belief maintained by Student Services:

student needs should be identified and concerns should be addressed at the earliest possible stage;

inclusion of students in their regular classroom and neighbourhood school environment to the

greatest extent possible is most desirable, when it is in the best interest of the child, and in

accordance with parental wishes;

a range of placements and programs is necessary to meet the needs of learners;

alternate placements outside of the neighbourhood school should be provided for students who

would most benefit from them when necessary; and

there should be equitable access to programs (HDSB, 2017).

Within the priority area of Stewardship and Resources, the Board’s multi-year plan states two goals with

associated targets that address the needs of exceptional students:

1. Every student will be supported by evidence-based instructional strategies, resources and

interventions differentiated to their strengths and needs; with the target of narrowing the gap in

achievement by 25% for students with special education needs in all EQAO assessments by 2020.

2. All staff will use data to inform actions, validate decision-making and allocate resources; with

the target of 100% of teachers using Individual Education Plans and/or Student Profile to

individualize assessment and/or instruction of students by 2020. (HDSB, 2016).

Overall, HDSB maintains a commitment towards its mission to inspire every student to LEARN, GROW,

and SUCCEED. Students with special needs are provided with supports and services that align with the

Board’s strategic plan, its philosophy on special education, and its special education delivery model.


BACKGROUND TO THE REVIEW

During the 2016-2017 school year, the HDSB performed an initial review of the special education programs

and services (Phase I), focusing on student enrolment, student achievement trends, stakeholder perspectives,

and cost analyses. Key findings from Phase I include:

Student Enrolment

Close to 16% of students receive special education support; with a large majority comprising of non-

identified (IEP) students, and students with Giftedness, Learning Disabilities, and Autism.

Over five years (2012-2016), special education student enrolment increased by 15%; with the largest

population increase found among non-identified (IEP) and Gifted students.

Over nine years, HDSB experienced a greater increase in their special education population (7%

increase), when compared to the province and the GTA (3% increase for both).

Student Achievement

Over four years, elementary student assessment results demonstrated large achievement gaps between

exceptionalities, and between students receiving special education support and students who were not.

Student Perspectives (grades 6-12)

The majority reported positive thoughts about school, and one-third reported having positive

experiences often at school.

Three-quarters reported greater independence and confidence due to the support received in school.

7 out of 10 students reported that they were satisfied with the support they receive in school.

Parent Perspectives

The majority reported satisfaction with various elements of the special education program.

Over half reported that their child had slightly or moderately improved their academic and social-

emotional skills over the past year.

7 out of 10 parents reported satisfaction with their child’s special education program.

School Staff and Educator Perspectives

Program strengths: responsive services, supportive school-based model, skilled and dedicated staff,

innovative programs, and assistive technology available to students.

Program challenges: rapid and unpredictable growth in Halton while funding is decreasing, increased

complexity and intensity of student needs, shortage of support and professional staff, and increased

responsibilities for classroom teachers.

Concerns for students with Autism – their vulnerability, the need for adequate programming and

services, the need for qualified support, and low achievement results among these students.

Concerns for students with Learning Disabilities – an underserved group, struggles they face,

insufficient support with many students opting for a non-identified status.

Concerns about the primary Gifted program – screening and assessment process, self-contained classes,

inconsistent implementation of criteria, and transportation costs. (Love and Favaro, 2017).

Phase 1 identified a need for HDSB to further examine elementary special education procedures, placements

and programming for students with Autism, Learning Disabilities, and Giftedness. The focus on these three

exceptionalities in Phase II reflects: (1) the concerns expressed by school staff regarding the services,

supports and increased student needs among these exceptionalities; (2) the large achievement gaps between

students not receiving special education support and students with Learning Disabilities and Autism; and

(3) current enrolment trends, where 58% of students in the special education program are in the elementary

panel, with a sizable proportion comprising of these three exceptionalities.


PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

The purpose of the Special Education Programs and Services Review–Phase II was to examine the Halton

District School Board’s (HDSB) current referral, identification and placement pathways for the provision

of special education programs and services to elementary students with Autism, Learning Disabilities, and

Giftedness. The review provides a comprehensive analysis of the pathways involved for each of the three

exceptionalities through the exploration of key problem solving practices, screening and assessment

procedures, identification criteria, decision making processes, and placement options. Phase II of this

review builds on the information illuminated in Phase I, with the intent to further inform Board practices

and procedures when placing exceptional students. Overall, the review set out to examine special education

referral, identification and placement procedures, with a focus on enhancing the fidelity, consistency,

efficiency, and effectiveness of implementation.

The Special Education Programs and Services Review–Phase II was conducted by an external evaluation

consultant. Independent reviews provide organizations with an objective approach, analysis and

interpretation of program and service strengths, challenges and opportunities for improvement. Throughout

the review process, the consultant approached each component with a clear awareness of stakeholder

investment while maintaining a neutral and open-minded perspective. As such, the reported findings and

subsequent recommendations are based on the evidence acquired throughout this review, and are provided

with the intent to guide future decisions regarding procedures and processes towards the provision of special

education programs and services in the HDSB.

APPROACH TO THE REVIEW

The review employed a mixed methods approach, involving a range of quantitative and qualitative data

sources. Data were collected from multiple perspectives (Student Services staff, teachers, school

administrators, and parents), using multiple methods (existing databases, document reviews, focus groups,

interviews, and consultations). The following questions were used to guide the program review:

What are the special education referral, identification and placement pathways for elementary

students identified with Autism, Learning Disabilities, and Giftedness in the HDSB?

What do key stakeholders think about the referral, identification and placement pathways for

elementary students identified with Autism, Learning Disabilities, and Giftedness in the HDSB?

How do the elementary special education referral, identification and placement pathways in the

HDSB align with the procedures, policies, and regulations issued by the Ontario Ministry of

Education?

How do the special education referral, identification and placement models for elementary students with Autism, Learning Disabilities, and Giftedness compare with neighbouring school boards?

What are the estimated cost allocations for the special education referral, identification, placement, and programming for elementary students with Autism, Learning Disabilities, and Giftedness in the HDSB?

This report provides a comprehensive review of Questions 1 through 4. Information regarding estimated

cost allocation for elementary students with Autism, Learning Disabilities, and Giftedness (Question #5) is

currently in progress. The time required to collect, analyze and report all elements of the costing data

extended beyond the timeline set out for the other review components. A supplemental report will be

available shortly.

1

3 4

2

5


Table 1: Review Framework for Elementary Referral, Identification and Placement Pathways

Review Component

Review Goals Data Sources

Overview of student

enrolment

Examine elementary student enrolment trends for students identified with Autism, Learning Disabilities, and Giftedness in the HDSB, the region and in the province.

HDSB Student Information System databases

Overview of

procedures and pathways

Identify special education referral, identification and placement processes and procedures.

Create a procedural flowchart for each exceptionality.

HDSB and Student Services online resources

Key Informant Consultations: IPLs for Autism, Learning Disabilities, & Gifted exceptionalities to confirm procedures

Key stakeholder perspectives

Explore the extent to which referral, identification and placement procedures are implemented across the system, focusing on:

Fidelity: extent to which procedures are implemented as specified/intended

Consistency: extent to which procedures are implemented in a consistent manner across the system

Efficiency: extent to which procedures move students through pathways in a proficient manner

Effectiveness: extent to which pathways enable staff to accurately refer, identify and place students

Strengths & challenges with the pathways

Recommendations for improvement

Focus Groups: 3 staff groups: special education Staff –SERTs,

IPLs, Psycho-educational Consultants 3 staff groups: school administrators, teachers 6 parent groups: parents of elementary

students with Autism, Learning Disabilities, & Giftedness

Key Informant Interviews: 3 interviews with SEAC representatives for

Autism, Learning Disabilities, and Giftedness

Ontario Ministry of Education expectations

Identify key procedures, policies, and regulations for special education referral, identification and placement of elementary students.

Explore the extent to which schools align their practices with Ministry guidelines.

Ontario Ministry of Education documents

Procedures in neighbouring school boards

Conduct an environmental scan to identify key referral and identification practices and placement options for elementary students with Autism, Learning Disabilities, and Giftedness among other school boards.

Explore similarities and differences in practice among neighbouring school boards and the HDSB.

Selected School Boards: Halton Catholic DSB Hamilton-Wentworth DSB Peel DSB Waterloo Region DSB

Online Board resources

Key Informant Consultations: Board administrative staff responsible for special education programs

Cost allocation for

exceptionalities of Interest

Establish an understanding of estimated costs and cost allocation for the procedures involved in referring, identifying, placing and supporting elementary students with Autism, Learning Disabilities, and Giftedness, focusing on:

Staffing Assistive Technology Assessment Transportation

Staff Consultations: Student Services Business Services IT Department Transportation Department School Staff

Special Education Programs and Services Review Steering Committee

Phase II employed a participatory approach to the review process. From project inception, a Special

Education Programs and Services Review Steering Committee was assembled to provide ongoing guidance

and support throughout the review process. Together, committee members helped to craft the review

questions, strategize project planning, facilitate data collection, and construct recommendations. Steering

Committee members included senior staff, Student Services staff, a trustee, a Special Education Advisory

Committee (SEAC) representative, school administrators, a board researcher, and a program evaluation

consultant. Steering Committee members are listed on the inside cover of this report.

1

2

3

5

4

1

a

a

2


REVIEW METHODOLOGY AND DATA ANALYSIS

The Special Education Programs and Services Review-Phase II employed a mixed methods approach to

data collection, including: document reviews, student enrolment data, student identification and placement

data, focus groups, key informant interviews and consultations, and financial data. Data was collected from

multiple perspectives, including: Student Services staff, school staff, SEAC representatives, and parents of

students with Autism, Learning Disabilities, and Giftedness.

Overview of Student Enrolment in the HDSB

Student Enrolment Data: October 2017 elementary enrolment data for students with Autism, Learning

Disabilities and Giftedness were analysed using percentages, and are disaggregated by gender, grade,

location, and placement type. In addition, HDSB’s five-year enrolment trends are compared to those in the

region and the province for each exceptionality.

Skopus Data Warehouse, Trillium (Student Information System), and Board Interface Tools comprise of

large system databases which house a variety of student information. The majority of student-related data

were retrieved from these databases.

Referral, Identification and Placement Procedures in the HDSB

HDSB Document Review: information regarding the elementary special education referral, identification

and placement pathways in the HDSB was collected from the following sources:

Special Education Plan 2017-2018 – Halton District School Board

Working Together – Special Education Procedures: A Guide for Parents, Guardians and Students

Guide to Student Services 2017-2018 – Halton District School Board

Other board and Students Services Special Education support documents

Key Informant Consultations: key informant consultations were conducted with Instructional Program

Leaders (IPLs) to review and confirm the procedural flowchart describing elementary special education

referral, identification and placement procedures for students with Autism, Learning Disabilities and

Giftedness in the HDSB.

Focus Groups and Key Informant Interviews

Focus Groups: a total of 13 focus groups were conducted, involving 134 participants. Seven focus groups

involved Student Services staff (IPLs and Psycho-educational Consultants); and school staff (Special

Education Resource Teachers [SERTs], elementary teachers, and principals). Six focus groups were

conducted with parents of elementary students identified with Autism, Learning Disabilities or Giftedness.

Two parent focus groups were conducted for each category of exceptionality (one group with parents of

students attending schools in the North, and one group with parents of students attending schools in the

South). Focus group invitations were sent via email to staff and parents, and participants were randomly

selected to participate among groups where a large number of invitees expressed interest. All sessions were

scheduled for 1.5–2 hours, and were facilitated by an experienced facilitator. Key Informant Interviews: three key informant interviews were conducted with a total of five SEAC

members, representing local community associations for Autism, Learning Disabilities, and Gifted

individuals. Each interview was scheduled for one hour, and were facilitated by an experienced facilitator.

Content analysis was conducted on the feedback provided by participants in each focus group and interview.

Discussion items were coded, categorized and analyzed for themes. For the purpose of this report, common

themes were identified across all focus groups and interviews, and discussion details are presented for each

theme.


Alignment with Ontario Ministry of Education Regulations, Policies & Procedures

Ontario Ministry of Education Document Review: guidelines and procedures relevant to the referral,

identification, placement, and transition processes were extracted and from the following regulations,

policy/program memoranda (PPMs), and documents:

1. Special Education in Ontario–Kindergarten to Grade 12: Policy and Resource Guide (Draft), 2017

2. PPM No. 59 – Psychological Testing and Assessment of Pupils, 1982

3. PPM No. 11 – Early Identification of Children’s Learning Needs, 1982

4. Regulation 181/98 (O. Reg. 181/98) – Identification and Placement of Exceptional Pupils, 2005

5. PPM No. 8 – Identification of and program planning for students with learning disabilities, 2014

6. PPM No. 156 – Supporting Transitions for Students with Special Education Needs, 2013

7. PPM No. 140 – Incorporating Methods of Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) Into Programs for

Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder, May 2007

A review of alignment between Ministry guidelines and HDSB practices was conducted using HDSB

procedural references, system support documents, and feedback from focus group and interview

participants.

Models Used in Neighbouring School Boards

School Board Document Review: information regarding the elementary special education referral,

identification and placement procedures implemented by the four neighbouring school boards was obtained

from respective school board websites, special education plans, parent guides, and online special education

support documents.

Key Informant Consultations: key informant consultations were conducted with special education

representatives from each school board (i.e., Special Education Coordinators) to confirm the online

information collected, and to fill in gaps in the data.

Elementary procedures used by neighbouring school boards were summarized and compared to those used

by the HDSB. Similarities and differences between the HDSB and other school boards were reported.

LIMITATION OF THE REVIEW

The reported strengths and challenges regarding the elementary special education referral, identification

and placement process reflect common themes discussed among focus group and interview participants

involving 139 staff, parents and SEAC representatives. Focus groups and interviews provide a powerful

means of investigating complex program issues by exploring the perceptions and experiences of program

stakeholders, digging deep into discussion topics, and probing for clarification. However, the focus group

participants in this review were self-selected and the data may not represent the perceptions and experiences

of all staff and parents of exceptional students in the Halton District School Board. Therefore, focus group

and interview results should be interpreted within this context.


GRADE

LOCATION

PLACEMENT

GENDER

PLACEMENT TYPE

OVERVIEW of ELEMENTARY STUDENT ENROLMENT

in Special Education Programs and Services In the Halton District School Board

October 31, 2017

Figure 1: Enrolment and Distribution of Students Identified with Autism, Learning Disabilities and

Giftedness in the HDSB by Gender, Location, Grade and Placement on October 31, 2017

PLACEMENT TYPE

PLACEMENT TYPE

LOCATION GENDER

AUTISM

192

elementary students diagnosed and

identified with Autism are receiving special education support.

8%

of all identified elementary students.

GRADE

85%Males 15% Females

3%

9%

9%

6%

12%

14%

17%

16%

14%

K

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8

PLACEMENT

70% resource assistance 3% withdrawal assistance

21% full-time self-contained 6% partial integration

5%

14%

23%

29%

29%

K

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8

70%Males

30%Females

LEARNING DISABILITIES

400

elementary students identified with Learning Disabilities are receiving

special education support.

17%


GIFTED

1,244

elementary students identified as Gifted are

receiving special education support.

54%


GENDER

62%Males

38%Females

LOCATION

GRADE

0.1%

3%

5%

7%

9%

18%

19%

19%

21%

K

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8

PLACEMENT





73% 27%Resource Support

Self-containedClass

58%42%

ResourceSupport

Self-containedClass

33%67%

Resource Support

Self-containedClass

20%North

57%East23%

West

49%North

24%East

27%West

36%North

35%East

29%West

45,135 elementary students 6,125 receiving special education support

► 2,298 (37.5%) identified exceptional

► 3,827 (62.5%) non-identified (IEP)


OVERVIEW of EXCEPTIONAL ELEMENTARY STUDENT POPULATIONS

In the Region, Province, and the HDSB Over 5 Years

Figure 2a: Percentage of Elementary Student Population Diagnosed with AUTISM

Figure 2b: Percentage of Elementary Student Population Identified with LEARNING DISABILITIES

Figure 2c: Percentage of Elementary Student Population Identified as GIFTED

* Graphs presenting Regional data include the following school boards: Conseil scolaire Viamonde; Conseil scolaire de district catholique

Centre-Sud; Conseil scolaire Catholique Providence; Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board; Halton Catholic District School Board; Halton District School Board; Peel District School Board; Toronto Catholic District School Board; Toronto District School Board; Upper Grand District School Board; Wellington Catholic District School Board.

0.76% 0.79%0.83% 0.86%

0.90%

DNA DNA

0.81%0.88%

0.95%0.99%

1.04%

DNADNA

0.66%0.61%

0.57%0.51%

0.46% 0.45% 0.43%

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018

Region* Province HDSB

2.30%2.14%

1.97% 1.89% 1.81%

DNADNA

2.44%2.33%

2.23% 2.16%2.07%

DNA DNA

2.14%1.94%

1.63%

1.39%

1.17%0.99%

0.89%

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018

1.51% 1.54% 1.52% 1.51% 1.52%

DNADNA

1.16% 1.15% 1.14% 1.11% 1.09%

DNA DNA

1.78%

2.23%

2.64% 2.72%2.86% 2.83% 2.76%

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018

Over 5 years, the proportion of elementary students identified with Autism:

steadily increased in the region (by 0.14%) and in the province (by 0.23%).

steadily decreased in the HDSB (by 0.2%).

was smaller in the HDSB when compared to the region and the province.

DNA denotes data not available.

Over 5 years, the proportion of elementary students identified with Learning Disabilities:

steadily decreased in the region (by 0.49%) and in the province (by 0.37%).

steadily decreased in the HDSB (by 0.97%).

was smaller in the HDSB when compared to the region and the province.

Over 5 years, the proportion of elementary students identified as Gifted:

remained consistent in the region (at 1.52%)

decreased slightly in the province (by 0.07%).

increased in the HDSB (by 1.08%).

was larger in the HDSB when compared to the region and the province.


REFERRAL IDENTIFICATION AND PLACEMENT PROCEDURES

for Students with Autism, Learning Disabilities and Giftedness in the HDSB

REVIEW QUESTION

What are the special education referral, identification and placement pathways for elementary students identified with Autism, Learning Disabilities, and Giftedness in the Halton District School Board?

Special education referral, identification and placement procedures, as well as placement options are

examined for elementary students with Autism, Learning Disabilities, and Giftedness. For each

exceptionality, a procedural pathway is presented, illustrating the processes and procedures involved in:

► Referring students to the Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC);

► Identifying students as exceptional; and

► Placing exceptional students into special education programs and services.

Within the referral, identification and placement pathways, there are common actions that occur among all

exceptionalities, and processes that are unique to each exceptionality. Procedures used to refer, identify and

place elementary students with Autism, Learning Disabilities and Giftedness are presented in this section,

alongside details for each placement options.

Common Referral, Identification and Placement Procedures for All Exceptionalities

Referral Process

The special education referral process involves ongoing communication and collaboration among the In-School Team members involving the classroom teacher, in-school personnel, and parents. Together, they discuss the student’s profile and identify supports and accommodations for the student in order to support his/her learning needs in the regular classroom.

If issues or concerns continue, or further problem solving is required, the

School Resource Team (SRT) is consulted for additional interventions

and/or further assessments.

The SRT may recommend:

instructional strategies to support the student;

behavioural or social/emotional supports for the student;

further testing or formal assessment be completed;

an Individual Education Plan (IEP) be developed for the student;

the student be referred to the IPRC for formal exceptional

identification and placement, or a change in placement; and/or

community support options for a student/family.

Referrals to the IPRC are made by the school principal, through recommendation of the SRT, or through a

parent request. Where necessary, more than one SRT process may occur to finalize recommendations.

School Resource Team

The SRT is a team consisting of school staff (principal, SERT, classroom teacher) and regional support staff (e.g., Psycho-educational Consultant, CYC, Social Worker, SLP, ABA Facilitator). This team meets on a monthly basis to problem solve issues and concerns for students experiencing difficulty.


Identification Process

For all exceptionalities, recommendations prepared by the SRT, relating to the identification and placement

of an exceptional student, are presented to an Area IPRC. Elementary IPRCs are held monthly in each of

HDSB’s three geographic areas (North, East, West).

The Area IPRC:

considers relevant assessment information when making a decision to

identify and place a student;

formally identifies students as exceptional and places students into

special education programs and services;

reviews the student’s identification and placement once a year unless

the annual review is waived by their parent or student, and changes are

made as appropriate;

may make recommendations regarding programs and services.

Placement Process

When deciding on the appropriate placement for an exceptional student, the IPRC considers:

the student’s profile and current IEP;

supports currently in place for the student in school and in the community;

assessment results;

type of assistive technology required by the student; and

parent concerns, ideas and information.

Two special education placement options are available for exceptional elementary students in the HDSB:

(1) Resource Support provided in the regular classroom, and (2) Self-contained special education classes.

Three categories of Resource Support include:

Consultative Support – the student is placed in a regular class

for the entire day, and the teacher receives specialized

consultative services;

Resource Assistance – the student is placed in the regular class

for most of the day and receives specialized instruction,

individually or in a small group, from a qualified special

education teacher; and

Withdrawal Assistance – the student is placed in a regular

class and receives instruction outside of the classroom, for less

than 50% of the instructional time, from a qualified special

education teacher.

Resource Support placements require a formal identification of exceptionality through the Area IPRC

process. The IPRC reviews and confirms the request for placement, parents are notified of the decision, and

an IEP is created for the student within 30 instructional days following the placement date.

Two categories of self-contained placements include:

Partial Integration – the student is placed in a special education class for more than 50% of the day;

Full-Time – the student is placed in a special education class for the entire school day.

A self-contained placement for a student requires a formal identification of exceptionality through the IPRC

process, and the IPRC determines if placement in a self-contained class is the most effective option to address

the student’s strengths and needs.

IPRC

The IPRC is legally responsible for making decisions about the identification of students as exceptional and the placement of students into special education programs and services (Regulation 181/98).

Placement Consideration

When making a placement decision, the committee shall, before considering the option of placement in a special education class, consider whether placement in a regular class, with appropriate special education services would meet the pupil’s needs, and is consistent with parental preferences (O. Reg. 181/98, s. 17 (1)).


Prior to considering a self-contained placement, school and support staff ensure that all strategies and

avenues of support are explored with the student at his/her home school. If a self-contained setting is still

considered best for the student, Board staff will recommend the most suitable location–considering parental

requests (with the exception of students identified as Gifted), and the student’s age/grade level,

exceptionality, learning profile, and home address relative to the class location. Parents may visit the

recommended class, and if in agreement, the school principal, on behalf of the SRT, will recommend a self-

contained setting through a request to the IPRC. Parents are then informed of the decision made by the

IPRC. If parents are unsure or in disagreement with the placement or class location, further discussion

ensues at the SRT.

Transition Plan

To ensure each student experiences successful transitions throughout their elementary years, transition plans

in the IEP are continually revised. Transitions may include starting in-school support, changing the type of

support they receive, changing schools, or moving to a new special education class. These plans address

the student’s physical, social/emotional, and learning needs, and provides supportive activities and

strategies that the student and staff can engage in to optimize student experiences during the transition

period. School staff, support staff and parents are involved in the transition planning process.

Annual Review Process

All exceptional elementary students in Resource Support and self-contained placements are reviewed

annually by the School Resource Team. Following the review process, the SRT may recommend that no

changes occur to the identification or placement of the student. For example:

No change in identification or placement for the student

The student will remain in the same self-contained class

The students will remain in a self-contained class but move to a new location because of grade

With parental agreement, an annual review with the IPRC will be waived for these students. If parents do

not sign the waiver for IPRC, the student is presented and discussed at a school-based IPRC meeting.

The SRT may recommend changes to the identification or placement of the student. For example:

The student’s identification will change

The student’s placement will change from self-contained placement to Resource Support or from

Resource Support placement to self-contained placement after exploring other programs and services

available

The student’s identification will change but placement will remain the same (may change location)

The student will be demitted from special education

The student will be presented, discussed, and a formal decision will be made regarding the change for that

student at the next Area IPRC meeting.


Early Identification Procedures for Exceptional Students

The Halton District School Board strives to ensure that staff understand the strengths and needs of students

early and promptly following enrolment in school. For Kindergarten students, and students entering the

HDSB in other grades, the following activities are used to understand each student as soon as possible:

Procedures for Kindergarten Students

Procedures for Students in Other Grades

Procedures for Students Diagnosed with AUTISM

Kindergarten Parent Questionnaire is completed by all parents/guardians

during Kindergarten registration, providing the opportunity to describe

their child’s learning needs.

Open House for parents/guardians of children who are

registered for Kindergarten. Provides an opportunity for parents to gather information from school staff,

SEAC members, and community agencies.

Kindergarten

Student

Observation of Child Prior to school entry, board personnel may

observe the child in his/her preschool setting and discuss his/her needs with the

staff (with parental consent).

Case Conferences are routinely held with parents and other key stakeholders to discuss

the student and his/her needs.

Student

Student Registration Form is completed by parents/guardians during

registration, providing the opportunity to describe their child’s learning needs, and the types of

supports and services he/she has been receiving.

Information Collection Parents are asked to provide as much

information about their child as possible, and the child’s Ontario Student Record is obtained

from the current educational provider.

Observation of Child Prior to school entry, board personnel may

observe the child in his/her educational setting and discuss his/her needs with the

staff (with parental consent).

Transition Plan is developed for students with

special learning needs, providing strategies that meet his/her needs.

Assessment Data is collected throughout the primary years for all students and is stored in the Electronic Students

Achievement Tracker (ESAT). The data represent student development, learning, and achievement.

Referral to SRT occurs if the student has been

identified as exceptional in another school board. SRT will determine if further assessment is required, if an IEP should be

initiated, and/or if an identification and placement recommendation

to IPRC should occur.

Immediate Referral to SRT & Contact Student Services Personnel

if a child has received extensive intervention and will continue to need support.


Procedures for Students with AUTISM Referral Process

For students who enter the HDSB with a medical diagnosis of

Autism, the classroom teacher, in-school support staff, and parents

create an IEP within 30 instructional days of entry. If more intensive

support or programming is required, further problem solving occurs

within the SRT and the student is referred to the IPRC. Similar to

other exceptionalities, the IPRC reviews the student profile and

decides the appropriate placement for the student.

Diagnostic Assessments for Autism

The majority of students diagnosed with Autism in the HDSB are diagnosed externally. Students who are

assessed within the Board are usually not initially assessed for Autism. Rather, during the assessment

process, PSSP may notice various behaviours, challenges or results that suggest the student is exhibiting

signs of Autism. The student may then participate in assessments that test for Autism.

The following assessments are used to identify students with Autism: 1. Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS): a semi-structured observational assessment of

communication and social behaviour. The areas of focus include communication, imaginative use of objects,

social interaction and play skills.

2. Autism Diagnostic Interview, Revised (ADI-R): a semi-structured interview conducted with parents of

students who have been referred for the evaluation of possible Autism. The areas of focus include early

development, language/communication, social interactions, and repetitive behaviours and interests.

Identification of Students

Table 2: Number of Elementary Students Identified with Autism in the HDSB Over 5 Years

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

63 39 51 67 61

Placement Process

When deciding appropriate placements for students with Autism, the IPRC considers the following:

if the student has been identified with a Mild Intellectual Disability or a Developmental Disability

assessment results

other diagnoses

the student’s academic skills relative to grade placement and cognitive ability

the student’s social and adaptive skills

if the student’s IEP includes alternative program areas

if the student is on an alternative curriculum

level of EA assistance required

behavioural concerns and required supports

Figure 3a provides a procedural framework displaying referral, identification and placement pathways for

elementary students diagnosed with Autism in the HDSB. The blue shaded components represent common

procedures for all exceptionalities, and the brown shaded components represent elements unique for

students with Autism.

Autism Spectrum Disorder

A severe learning disorder that is characterized by: a) disturbances in:

rate of educational development;

ability to relate to the environment;

mobility; and

perception, speech, and language. b) lack of the representational symbolic

behaviour that precedes language.


Figure 3: Elementary Referral, Identification and Placement Pathways for Students Diagnosed with Autism in the HDSB

Classroom teacher

In-School Team

Teacher consults with in-school personnel Develop strategies and supports for student

School Resource Team (SRT) Meets to further problem solve – with parent consent and attendance

Further actions may be identified – interventions, resources, assessments Identification & placement recommendations may be developed for IPRC

Conducts annual reviews of identified students

If further expertise is required to assist with problem solving process

Displays specific needs

If further consultation is required

Recommendation for Self-Contained Placement

Recommendation for Resource Support Placement

Problem

solving

strategies

Ongoing communication

with parents

Parent requests further discussion

Parent confirms interest

in placement or program

Area Identification, Placement, and Review Committee (IPRC) Review student’s strengths, needs, accommodations &/or modifications to date

Discuss category(ies) of exceptionality(ies) identified Discuss placement recommendations made by the School Resource Team

formally identify student with an exceptionality(ies)

formally decide program placement for the student

Within the student’s IEP, a transition plan is created or revised by school staff

and parents

Resource Support Placement

3 levels of support:

Self-Contained Placement

Life Skills Learning Focus Class Disabilities Grades 4-8 Class Grades 4-8

RE

FE

RR

AL P

RO

CE

SS

ID

EN

TIF

ICA

TIO

N

PR

OC

ES

S

PLA

CE

ME

NT

P

RO

CE

SS

Diagnostic Assessments

(usually administered in Grade 3 & up)

Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule

(ADOS)

Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised

(ADI-R)

Student

Enters with diagnosis of Autism

School-based IEP

may be developed

Communication Program

Grades JK-4

Referral and screening process

Consultative

Support Resource

Assistance Withdrawal

Assistance

Dimensions Assessed Adaptive behavior

Social behavior Anxiety, Emotional adjustment

Communication / language Sensory status

► IPL and/or Senior Manager receives confirmation of placement recommendation

► Investigate suitable program location based on SRT recommendation & parent location request form

► Parent may visit self-contained class being considered

Investigate suitable program location based on SRT

recommendation & parent location request form

Pare

nt m

ay re

quest IP

RC

Structured Learning Class

(pilot Jan. 2018)

Grades 1& 2

Grades JK-4

Special Education Programs and Services Review – Phase II March 2017 Section 1: Elementary Special Education Referral, Identification, and Placement Pathways in the HDSB Page 15

Table 3: Elementary Special Education Referral, Identification and Placement Details for Students with Autism in the 2017-2018 School Year

2017-18 School Year

Resource Support Placement Special Education Class or Program

Consultative Support

Resource Assistance

Withdrawal Assistance

Mixed Exceptionality

Life Skills Focus Class

Learning Disabilities Focus

Class

Structured Learning Class

Communication Program

Grades K – 8 K – 8 K – 8 4 – 8 4 – 8 SK – 2 JK – 4

Placement Type Regular classroom Regular classroom Regular classroom Self-contained

Partial Int. or Full-time Self-contained Partial Integration

Self-contained Full-time

Self-contained Full-time

# Classes N/A N/A N/A 25 24 2 (began Jan. 2018) 10

Class Locations

Throughout Board Throughout Board Throughout Board North-10, East-7,

West-8 North-13, East-4,

West-7 Burlington-1, Milton-1

North-4, East-3, West-3

Class size ≤ 20–Primary

≤ 25–Jr./Intermediate ≤ 20–Primary


≤ 25–Jr./Intermediate 10 students 8 students 6 students 6-8 students

Referral &/or Identification Requirements

Identification and placement through IPRC





Referred by SRT Placement through Student Services

Referred by SRT Placement through

Student Services

Full-time Staff

Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher with Spec.Ed. AQs

Classroom teacher with Spec.Ed. AQs



Support Staff

SERT Others as needed



May include ABA facilitators, SLPs, EAs,

others as needed

School support staff as needed

May include ABA facilitators, SLPs, EAs,

others as needed

SPL 1 day/week regional EA

EAs as needed

Support Received

Teacher receives specialized consultative

services

Student receives specialized instruction

for part of the day


≤ 50% of the time

Student receives full-time specialized

instruction or partial integration

into regular classes

Student receives specialized instruction and partial integration into regular classes

Student receives full-time

specialized instruction

Student receives full-time

specialized instruction

Learning Focus

Ontario Curriculum with

accommodations modifications

alternate programs

Alternate Curriculum



alternate programs




alternate programs


Alternate Curriculum communication self-regulation self-advocacy

social skills

Ontario Curriculum basic literacy & numeracy skills

Alternative Curriculum As needed or where

appropriate (language (receptive expressive,

processing), self-advocacy, self-esteem, social skills

other skills (organizational, study,

management) Ontario Curriculum literacy & numeracy

Alternate Curriculum social skills

Ontario Curriculum literacy & numeracy

skills

Alternate Curriculum vocabulary language

functional & social communication

play skills

Transportation Student is in home school

Student is in home school


provided provided provided provided


Procedures for Students with LEARNING DISABILITIES

Referral Process

Assessments for Learning Disabilities A variety of assessments are used to identify students with Learning Disabilities. The selection of assessments largely depends on the strengths and challenges exhibited by individual students. Frequently used assessments include:

1. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV): an assessment of a child's general intellectual ability, with a focus on verbal comprehension, visual spatial skills, fluid reasoning, working memory, and memory processing speed.

2. Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT): an assessment of academic achievement, wit a focus on reading, writing, math, and oral language.

3. Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning (WRAML): an assessment of memory functioning with a focus on verbal memory, visual memory, and attention-concentration.

Other examples of assessments used to identify

Learning Disabilities include:

Behaviour Assessment System for Children (BASC)

Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP)

Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF)


Table 4: Number of Elementary Students Identified with Learning Disabilities in the HDSB Over 5 Years

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

200 171 170 145 119

Placement Process

When deciding on the appropriate placement for a student identified with a Learning Disability, the IPRC

considers the following: assessment results other diagnoses student’s current achievement levels in Language and Math extent to which student is below grade level in Language and/or Math behavioural concerns estimated timeframe that student will return to a regular classroom use of assistive technology

Figure 4 provides a procedural framework displaying referral, identification and placement pathways for

elementary students identified with Learning Disabilities in the HDSB. Blue shaded components

represent common procedures for all exceptionalities, and orange shaded components represent elements

unique for students with Learning Disabilities.

Learning Disability

One of a number of neurodevelopmental disorders that persistently and significantly has an impact on the ability to learn and use academic and other skills and that:

affects the ability to perceive or process verbal or non-verbal information in an effective and accurate manner in students who have assessed intellectual abilities that are at least in the average range

results in (a) academic underachievement that is inconsistent with the intellectual abilities of the student (which are at least in the average range) and/or (b) academic achievement that can be maintained by the student only with extremely high levels of effort and/or with additional support

results in difficulties in the development and use of skills in one or more of the following areas: reading, writing, mathematics, and work habits and learning skills

may typically be associated with difficulties in one or more cognitive processes, such as phonological processing; memory and attention; processing speed; perceptual-motor processing; visual-spatial processing; executive functions.

may be associated with difficulties in social interaction, with various other conditions or disorders, diagnosed or undiagnosed; or with other exceptionalities.


Figure 4: Elementary Referral, Identification and Placement Pathways for Students Identified with Learning Disabilities in the HDSB

Classroom teacher

In-School Team










Problem

solving

strategies


with parents


Parent confirms

interest in placement



formally identify student

with an exceptionality(ies) formally decide program placement

for the student




Learning Disability Class Grades 4-8

RE

FE

RR

AL P

RO

CE

SS

ID

EN

TIF

ICA

TIO

N

PR

OC

ES

S

PLA

CE

ME

NT

P

RO

CE

SS

Frequently Used Assessments

(usually administered in Grade 3 & up)

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children

(WISC-IV)

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test

(WIAT)

Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning

(WRAML)

Student

School-based IEP

may be developed

Provincial Demonstration School

for students with Learning Disabilities

Referral to the Ministry of Education

Consultative

Support Resource


Assistance


► Investigate suitable program location based on SRT recommendation & parent location request form

► Parent may visit self-contained class being considered



Enters with identification of a learning disability

Pare

nt m

ay re

quest IP

RC

Dimensions Assessed Verbal memory & comprehension

Visual memory & spatial skills

Working memory & processing speed Fluid reasoning

Attention-concentration Academic achievement

Within the student’s IEP, a transition plan is created or revised by school staff and parents


Table 5: Special Education Referral, Identification and Placement Details for Elementary Students with Learning Disabilities in the 2017-2018 School Year

2017-18 School Year

Resource Support Placement Special Education

Class


Resource Assistance


Learning Disabilities Focus Class

Grades K – 8 K – 8 K – 8 4-8


Partial Integration

# Classes N/A N/A N/A 24

Class Locations Throughout Board Throughout Board Throughout Board North-13, East-4, West-7




≤ 25–Jr./Intermediate 8 students

Referral &/or Identification Requirements





Full-time Staff

Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher with

Spec.Ed. AQs

Support Staff




School support staff as needed

Support Received

Teacher receives specialized consultative

services

Student receives specialized instruction for

part of the day


≤ 50% of the time

Student receives specialized instruction and

partial integration into regular classes

Learning Focus



alternate programs


Ontario Curriculum with accommodations

modifications alternate programs


Ontario Curriculum with accommodations

modifications alternate programs


Alternate Curriculum language (receptive

expressive, processing) self-advocacy

self esteem, social skills other skills (organizational,

study, management)

Ontario Curriculum literacy & numeracy




provided

Procedures for Students Identified as GIFTED

Referral Process

Gifted Screening Process

SK and Primary Students:

If a teacher observes sufficient evidence that a student may meet

the Gifted criteria, she/he completes a Teacher Nomination Form

and a Student Profile Form as part of the screening process for

Gifted identification. Once nominated, the student’s

parent/guardian completes a Parent/Guardian Checklist. These

forms inquire about the degree to which students demonstrate

characteristics frequently displayed by Gifted children.

Gifted

An unusually advanced degree of general intellectual ability that requires differentiated learning experiences of a depth and breadth beyond those normally provided in the regular school program to satisfy the level of educational potential indicated.


Over 7 years, the average success rate for primary Gifted screening (percentage of nominated

students who met the Gifted criteria) was 36%.

Grade 4 Students: 1. Canadian Cognitive Abilities Test (CCAT-7): every year, the majority of students in Grade 4

complete a gifted screening assessment. The CCAT-7 is an assessment of a child’s aptitude for learning. The areas of focus include verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal cognitive abilities.

2. Gifted Rating Scales (GRS): if the results on the CCAT-7 meet the Gifted criteria, the student’s teacher completes the GRS. The GRS contains norm-referenced rating scales that evaluate students on six domains: intellectual, academic, motivation, creativity, leadership, and artistic talent.

3. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV): if the results on the CCAT-7 and GRS meet the Gifted criteria, students may complete WISC-V – an assessment of general intellectual ability, with a focus on verbal comprehension, visual spatial skills, fluid reasoning, working memory, and memory processing speed.

Primary Assessments for Giftedness

If the Teacher Nomination Form, Student Profile Form,

and Parent/Guardian Checklist indicate the student may

meet the criteria for Giftedness, the following

assessments are administered:

SK Students:

Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence

(WPPSI-III): assessment of general intellectual

ability, with a focus on intellectual functioning in

verbal and performance cognitive domains.

Primary Students:

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV):

As stated above.


Table 6: Number of Elementary Students Identified as Gifted in the HDSB Over 5 Years

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

362 292 256 143 181

Placement Process

When deciding on the appropriate placement for a student identified as Gifted, the IPRC considers the

following:

assessment results

additional learning needs (i.e., a Learning Disability)

behavioural concerns

level of EA support

program differentiation and/or interventions currently in place the regular classroom

unique needs that would be met through self-contained placement (e.g., social skills, anxiety)

Figure 6 provides a procedural framework displaying referral, identification and placement pathways for

elementary students identified as Gifted in the HDSB. Blue shaded components represent common

procedures for all exceptionalities, and green shaded components represent elements unique for students

with Giftedness.

381

475

465

345

275

181

207

149

174

150

120

85

82

73

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

# of students nominated for Giftedness

# of students who met Gifted vriteria

Figure 5: Success Rates for SK & Primary Gifted Screening Over 7 Years

35%

37%

32%

45%

32%

35%

# of students nominated for Giftedness

# of students who met Gifted criteria

Success Rates

39%


Figure 6: Elementary Referral, Identification and Placement Pathways for Students Identified as GIFTED in the HDSB

Classroom teacher

In-School Team










Problem

solving

strategies


with parents


Parent confirms

interest in placement



formally identify student

with an exceptionality(ies)

formally decide program placement

for the student




Gifted Class Grades 1-8

RE

FE

RR

AL P

RO

CE

SS

ID

EN

TIF

ICA

TIO

N

PR

OC

ES

S

PLA

CE

ME

NT

P

RO

CE

SS

Assessments

Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of

Intelligence – WPPSI (SK students)

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – WISC-IV

(primary students)

Student

School-based IEP

may be developed

Consultative

Support Resource


Assistance


► Identify program location based on proximity of student’s home



Canadian Cognitive Abilities Test – CCAT-7

(Grade 4 screening) &

Gifted Rating Scales

WISC-IV (GAI)

*Category 1 OR Category 2

OR

Displays signs of Giftedness in SK or primary grades

Parents complete a checklist

if ≥ 98th%ile

Parent & student may visit a self-contained class

if Cate

gory

1

if ≥ 9

8th%

ile

*Category 1: Student attains CCAT-7 composite score ≥ 99th%ile, & GRS-at least 3 scales have a T-score ≥ 65 Category 2: Student attains CCAT-7 1 domain score ≥ 98th%ile & 1 domain score ≥ 95th%ile, & GRS-at least 3 scales have a T-score ≥ 65

Pare

nt m

ay re

quest IP

RC

Dimensions Assessed Verbal & non-verbal

reasoning & comprehension Memory processing

Quantitative reasoning and problem solving

Nominates student (Teacher Nomination Form

& Student Profile Form)

Within the student’s IEP, a transition plan is created or revised by school staff and parents


Table 7: Special Education Referral, Identification and Placement Details for Elementary Students who

are Gifted in the 2017-2018 School Year

2017-18

School Year

Resource Support Placement Special Education

Class


Resource Assistance


Gifted Class

Grades K – 8 K – 8 K – 8 1 – 8


Full-time

# Classes N/A N/A N/A 40

Class Locations Throughout Board Throughout Board Throughout Board North-8, East-24,

West-8




≤ 25–Jr./Intermediate ≤20–Primary

≤25–Jr./Intermediate

Referral &/or

Identification

Requirements





Full-time Staff

Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher Classroom teacher with

Spec.Ed. AQs

Support Staff

SERT SERT SERT School support staff

as needed

Support Received Teacher receives

specialized consultative services

Student receives specialized instruction for

part of the day


≤ 50% of the time

Student receives full-time specialized

instruction

Learning Focus Ontario Curriculum

with modifications


modifications


modifications


modifications




provided


FOCUS GROUPS AND KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS

REVIEW QUESTION

What do key stakeholders think about the Special Education referral, identification and placement process for elementary students identified with Autism, Learning Disabilities, and Giftedness in the Halton District School Board?

Background

Through focus groups and key informant interviews, in-depth information was collected from staff,

parents, and SEAC representatives about the elementary special education referral, identification and

placement process for students with Autism, Learning Disabilities, and Giftedness. The sessions were

designed to obtain the opinions and perceptions of the fidelity, consistency, efficiency, and effectiveness

of the procedures used within the HDSB; reported strengths and challenges with the process; and

suggestions for improving the process. Discussion topics included: the referral process, identification

process, placement process, communication, assistive technology, and support in the classroom.

Throughout the findings, relevant Phase 1 survey results from parents with exceptional children in

elementary schools (administered in Jan. 2017) are presented for the three exceptionalities. Results reflect

parent satisfaction with components of their child’s special education program that were similar to

themes discussed during the focus groups and interviews.

Note: Phase I survey results include the following numbers of parents of students identified with:

Autism: 74 parents (39% in self-contained classes, 61% receiving Resource Support); Learning Disabilities: 141 parents (32% in self-contained classes, 68% receiving Resource Support); and Gifted: 392 parents (66% in self-contained classes, 34% receiving Resource Support).

Focus Group and Interview Participation

The following information represents the number and characteristics of the participants in each focus

group and key informant interview conducted with staff, parents and SEAC representatives in the HDSB.

78

participants

STAFF Focus Groups 7

School Staff

13 Elementary Teachers (SK – 2)

10 Elementary Teachers (Gr. 3-6)

8 Elementary Principals

23 Elementary SERTs

Student Services Staff

7 Instructional Program Leaders

17 Psycho-educational Consultants

Area Representation

35% of staff are from schools in the North

38% of staff are from schools in the West

27% of staff are from schools in the East

6 PARENT Focus Groups

56

participants

Category of Exceptionality

21 parents of children with Autism

15 parents of children with Learning Disabilities

20 parents of children with Giftedness

Child’s Grade Level Child’s Placement Type

36% Primary 64% Resource Support

36% Junior 36% Self-contained

28% Intermediate

Area Representation

36% of parents have children attending schools in the North

34% of parents have children attending schools in the West

30% of parents have children attending schools in the East

KEY INFORMANT

Interviews 3 5 participants

Special Education Advisory Committee

1 member representing Autism Ontario, Halton Chapter 2 members representing Learning Disabilities Association of Halton 2 members representing the Association for Bright Children, Halton Chapter


Findings

Overall, staff and parents reported that the referral, identification and placement pathways follow a

logical procedural flow that supports a team approach to decision making. The large emphasis on

brainstorming, collaboration, and problem solving among staff and parents facilitates a thorough

exploration and understanding of students’ learning, social-emotional, and behavioural profiles. The

contributions of each team member are valued, and decisions are based on information provided by all

stakeholders.

REFERRAL PROCESS

Teamwork and Collaboration

Parents and staff reported that the success of the referral process is largely due to the team approach

assumed by In-School Teams and School Resource Teams (SRT). These teams involve multidisciplinary

panels of staff with varying expertise related to teaching and learning, and support strong parental

presence and involvement. Team members genuinely care about the students they work with, and

advocate strongly for them. Parents and staff noted that SERTs work passionately for the students and

continually support parents throughout the process, thus facilitating positive rapport and strong school-

home relationships. In addition, the expertise provided by IPLs regarding documentation, expectations

and requirements for student identification is instrumental in ensuring that staff and students proceed

through the process.

Staff and parents agreed that the effectiveness of the referral process depends largely on the school

administration’s knowledge of special education. In general, the referral process runs smoothly and

efficiently in schools where the administrative team values special education, understands the

complexities and importance of the problem solving process, and provides staff with adequate time for

discussion and collaboration.

Member Participation in Meetings

Some parents felt the discussions and meetings they attended were productive, informative, and involved

a consistent team of professionals. These parents found that the referral, identification and placement

process ran smoothly and efficiently. Other parents expressed their frustration with the changing staff

members involved in In-School Team and SRT. These parents felt that a large amount of time was spent

reviewing their child’s profile and past discussions in order to bring new members up to date.

Staff and parents of students with Autism consider EAs to be critical front line support systems for

students. They noted that because EAs work so closely with students, they know the students best.

However, EAs are not typically involved in In-School Team and SRT meetings, thus excluding them

from crucial conversations regarding student needs, developmental progress, and plans. Both staff and

parents suggested that EAs be included in all team meetings, conversations and decisions about students

with Autism.

Time for Strategizing

School staff believe that problem solving and transition planning are crucial processes for students with

exceptionalities, particularly for those who have complex needs. They noted that staff, in schools where

release time is provided for these meetings, have sufficient time to engage in effective strategy-building

and in-depth conversations about students.


Wait Time for Assessments and Support

There is a sense among staff and parents of students

with Autism and Learning Disabilities that the wait

time for assessments and support is too long, and that

the learning gap for students who are struggling

continues to grow during this time. Several parents

questioned the rationale for the long wait times for

assessments and services.

Early Gifted Screening and Assessment

Staff discussed the perception of the system-wide pressure placed on Kindergarten teachers to actively

“seek out” and nominate students who display characteristics of Giftedness. However, there is a strong

sense among staff that screening and assessing students for Giftedness in Kindergarten and Grade 1 is

premature because they believe these children are too young and results are unstable. Staff also discussed

current research evidence that suggests assessment results for Giftedness prior to the age of seven years

are unreliable and have low predictive validity.

School staff feel that they are receiving confusing messages regarding the primary Gifted program. Staff

noted that while they believe pressure is placed on primary teachers to nominate students who may be

Gifted; school administrators feel pressure to encourage Resource Support placements for Gifted students

before suggesting self-contained placements. Staff question the necessity of assessing primary students

for Giftedness when they believe the system prefers the regular classroom with Resource Support. Many

staff believe that the needs of the majority of primary students who display enhanced learning profiles

can be addressed effectively in the regular classroom.

Staff Knowledge of Giftedness

Parents of students identified as Gifted discussed the importance of primary teachers nominating students

who may be Gifted. However, parents expressed concern regarding the inconsistent referral practices

within and between schools, and believe these differences may reflect variations in knowledge and beliefs

among teachers. As a result, parents believe that primary teachers and SERTs require more training about

Giftedness and the importance of enhanced programming for Gifted children.

Primary Gifted Assessment Expenses

Staff and parents noted that each year primary assessment results indicate that a large proportion of

nominated students do not meet Gifted criteria. Staff and parents voiced concern about the large amount

of staff time and money spent on these assessments each year with relatively low success rates.

Staff Turnover

High staff turnover among SERTs, EAs and teachers of self-contained classes was a noted concern

among staff and parents. They feel that these frequent changes may delay the referral process, hinder

student progress in school, and interfere with students’ ability to develop close relationships with their

EAs (particularly among students with low-functioning Autism). Parents attribute the turnover among

SERTs to job promotions, and believe that the high turnover among self-contained teachers is a result of

stress and burn-out.

Percentage of parents of elementary students who reported satisfaction with their child’s assessment or evaluation process.

Autism Learning Disabilities Giftedness

57% 92% 94%

76% 75% 87%

Parent Survey Results

Source: Special Education Program Review – Phase 1

Parent survey results (Jan. 2017).

Self- Contained

Resource

Support


IDENTIFICATION PROCESS

Parents and staff agreed that the identification process moves quickly and efficiently once assessment

results are provided to the SRT, team conversations have occurred, and documentation is complete.

Parents expressed gratitude for the frequency at which the Area IPRC meets throughout the school year,

and believe that the frequency of these meetings ensures students receive support in a timely manner.

Pressure to Avoid Identification

There is consensus among staff that, for some exceptionalities, there is system pressure for school staff

and administration to avoid the formal identification process for primary students. Staff concur that they

are encouraged to develop non-identified IEPs for students, and to help parents understand that the

supports their children are receiving will not change as a result of formal identification. Many parents of

students with Learning Disabilities and Autism expressed frustration with the resistance they experienced

throughout their children’s primary years.

Area IPRC Process

Staff and parents expressed appreciation for the work of the Area IPRCs. They recognize the importance

of an objective perspective, the need to maintain procedural standards, and the committee’s responsibility

to thoroughly review recommendations brought forward by the SRT.

Criteria Required for Identification and Placement

Staff feel that information requirements and criteria for identification are inconsistent among IPRCs, are

not always communicated, and may change without notice. Both staff and parents also described

experiences with the IPRC process as being “unpredictable.” They note that after several months of

problem solving with the SRT, the IPRC may challenge their findings, or deny placement

recommendations based on reasons staff and parents don’t understand.

Inequities Between Exceptionalities

Primary Identification

Staff and parents believe that formal identification in primary grades is an expectation for Giftedness and

is discouraged for other exceptionalities. Both parents and staff feel there is strong board-wide pressure

for staff to nominate and refer primary students for Giftedness, with the intent of early identification and

placement. Conversely, for primary students who may have Autism or Learning Disabilities, staff and

parents feel there is system pressure to delay assessments and referrals.

There is a sense among staff and parents that the HDSB may be over-identifying Gifted students. They

attribute this to the large number of student assessments administered in the primary grades, of which

they believe the results are unstable at such a young age. Conversely, staff and parents believe that the

HDSB may be under-identifying students with Learning Disabilities and Autism. They believe this is a

result of the pressure for staff to delay referrals and create non-identified IEPs for these students.

Board-wide Screening

Staff and parents note that the Gifted exceptionality is the only exceptionality in the HDSB with Board-

wide screening in Grade 4. The perceived inequity of this practice, coupled with system pressure to

nominate and assess students for Giftedness in primary grades, has lead staff and parents to believe that

the HDSB favours the Gifted exceptionality over other exceptionalities.


External Assessment Criteria

Staff noted that when students with Learning Disabilities are identified externally, and the assessments

or diagnostic criteria differ from those used in the HDSB, these students may not be granted identification

or placement upon entry into the Board, or following their assessment. Conversely, staff described that

when students are assessed for Giftedness external to the HDSB, the IPRC accepts assessments and

results that differ from those used in the HDSB.

Requirements for Reassessment

Parents of students with Learning Disabilities and staff discussed the requirement for students with

Learning Disabilities to be reassessed every few years, or at least prior to the transition years. Staff and

parents note that, in their experience, students with assessments older than three years may risk being

denied a self-contained placement by the IPRC. However, staff noted that assessments conducted in

Kindergarten and Grade 1 for students identified as Gifted are accepted throughout students’ educational

career in the HDSB.

PLACEMENT PROCESS

Parents of students identified with Autism, Learning

Disabilities and Giftedness agreed that once students

are formally identified and placement has been decided,

students are transferred into self-contained placements

and begin receiving support in a timely manner. Staff and parents of students identified with Autism

also noted that the pilot Structured Learning Class is an

excellent addition for primary students. Staff and parents are hopeful that this placement option will

continue beyond the pilot phase, and expand into other schools to accommodate more primary students

with Autism.

Placement Decisions Made by IPRC

Staff expressed confusion with some of the IPRCs decisions, particularly when placement decisions were

based on parent demands. Staff question the purpose of the SRT when parent demands supersede the

recommendations of an experienced team of staff.

Placement Changes

Staff believe that there is resistance in the Board to move students with Learning Disabilities from

Resource Support placements to self-contained classes. Staff believe this may, in part, be due to the

recent change in criteria that students must be achieving two grade levels below actual grade to qualify

for a self-contained placement.

Inequities Between Exceptionalities

Primary Self-Contained Placements

Staff and parents of students with Learning Disabilities and Autism noted that self-contained placement

options are not available for primary students identified with Learning Disabilities. Parents and staff

explained that these students are required to wait 3-4 years before they can be considered for self-

contained placements, and primary students who may be Gifted can be considered for such placements

in Grade 1.

Percentage of parents of elementary students who reported satisfaction with their child’s

program placement decision.


69% 93% 97%

89% 86% 91%




Self- Contained

Resource

Support


Junior and Intermediate Self-Contained Placements

Staff believe that a significantly higher proportion of junior and intermediate Gifted students are

receiving self-contained special education support, when compared to students with Autism or Learning

Disabilities. In addition, staff explained that self-contained placements have a “shorter lifespan” for

students with Learning Disabilities, as these students are expected to join the regular class within two or

three years. Conversely, staff note that self-contained Gifted classes span from Grades 1 to 8, and Gifted

students have the option to remain in this placement throughout their elementary years.

Profiles of Students in Self-Contained Placements

Staff believe that the profiles of elementary students in self-contained placements have changed. Staff

and parents believe these classrooms comprise of students with multiple or complex exceptionalities,

mental health challenges, and/or extreme behaviour challenges.

Staff believe that for some students who are placed in self-contained classes, the school classroom

is not the appropriate environment, as they require intensive treatment and/or therapy to support their

challenges.

Staff believe that Learning Disability classes are comprised of many students whose primary need

may not be a learning disability, and teachers are required to focus their efforts on behaviour

management and improving social skills.

Staff feel that the large developmental and functional range of students in Life Skills classes makes

it very challenging for teachers to meet the learning needs of all students.

Staff described Gifted classes as comprising of students struggling with behaviour and attention

challenges which often disrupts the teaching and learning of others in the class.

Transition Planning

Both parents and staff value the transition process. Parents appreciate the efficiency of the transition

process, as it enabled their children to obtain more intensive support in a timely manner. Staff believe

that transition planning for students entering a self-contained class is an essential process in order to

ensure students begin their placement with a strong start. However, in order to adequately support

students and their families, staff feel that they require more time and information about these students

prior to the transition.

COMMUNICATION

Information Provided to Parents

Parents feel they did not receive enough information about the referral, identification and placement

procedures prior to the SRT meeting. Many participating parents reported that their child’s school did

not direct them to the Working Together guide. These parents mentioned feeling confused about the

process initially, and others conducted their own research to understand it.

Communication Regarding IPRC Attendance

Parents believe that the communication parents receive about the importance of their involvement and

contributions in various meetings differs between schools. Many parents were encouraged by school staff

to attend the School Resource Team meetings and some were encouraged to attend the Area IPRC

meeting, particularly if their child was recommended for a self-contained placement. Other parents were

discouraged by staff to attend the Area IPRC meeting. In addition, many parents believe that the messages


they receive from schools regarding the annual school-based IPRC review meetings are delivered in a

way that minimizes the importance of their participation.

ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY

Parents of students identified with Learning Disabilities

expressed gratitude for the availability of Assistive

Technology for students. Many described

improvements in their child’s written communication,

reading, and class notes; as well as increased confidence

and independence with school work.

Parents also noted that when transitioning into a new

class, grade, and/or school, their child experienced some

challenges with their Assistive Technology. Either their

children’s Assistive Technology was not available for

several days into the new school year; or the new teachers were unfamiliar with how students used their

technology.

SUPPORT IN THE CLASSROOM

Focus groups and key informant interviews focused mainly on the elementary referral, identification and

placement process. However, participants often discussed strengths and challenges regarding student

IEPs, and the level of support provided to students following placement. In order to provide a full picture

of common themes, discussion details relating to these topics are also provided.

Development & Implementation of IEPs

Parents of students in Resource Support placements

expressed frustration with their child’s IEP. Parents

felt that staff did not consult with them while

developing their child’s IEP; the IEP did not

accurately reflect their child’s development or

academic progress; and the strategies in their

child’s IEP were not being implemented effectively

in the classroom.

Non-Identified IEPs

Staff discussed the many benefits of non-identified

IEPs for primary students who show signs of

struggling. For these students, creating non-

identified IEPs helps to identify their strengths and

needs, specify instructional strategies and

accommodations that support their learning, and

track their progress throughout the primary grades.

Staff also believe that the yearly documentation

enables SRTs to review students’ growth and

development over time, and make informed

decisions about assessments and possible

identification during their junior years.

Percentage of parents of elementary students who reported satisfaction with their child’s

Assistive Technology.


67% 93% 91%

75% 80% 100%




Self- Contained

Resource

Support

Percentage of parents of elementary students who reported:

Agreement that they are an active team member in the development of the child’s IEP.

Satisfaction with the development of their child’s IEP.

Satisfaction with how their child’s IEP is used in school.


69% 93% 90%

84% 74% 72%




Self- Contained

Resource

Support


78% 88% 83%

62% 56% 55%


61% 89% 75%

76% 79% 75%

Self- Contained

Resource Support

Self- Contained

Resource

Support


Parents of students with Learning Disabilities explained that their children were placed on non-identified

IEPs during the primary grades, however these parents did not believe the IEP was implemented

effectively.

Level of Support

Parents of students identified as Gifted discussed

positive changes their children experienced when

placed in self-contained classes during the primary

years. Parents explained that their children became

actively engaged in their learning, enjoyed school, and

developed a strong sense of belonging. Similarly,

parents of junior and intermediate students identified

with Learning Disabilities noted the increase in self-

confidence, independence, and academic progress

their children experienced once placed in Learning

Disability classes.

Some parents of students identified with Giftedness and Learning Disabilities who were placed in regular

elementary classrooms with resource support, believed that their children were not receiving the level of

support required to meet their needs.

Suggestions for Improvement

Focus group and interview participants also provided suggestions for improving the referral,

identification and placement processes, and for support provided in the classroom. These suggestions are

combined with the recommendations based on collective findings throughout the review, presented on

page 39.

Percentage of parents of elementary students who reported satisfaction with the special education

support their child is receiving.


69% 89% 88%

56% 56% 48%




Self- Contained

Resource

Support


ALIGNMENT WITH ONTARIO MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

Regulations, Policies & Procedures

REVIEW QUESTION

How do the elementary special education referral, identification and placement pathways throughout the HDSB align with the procedures, policies, and regulations issued by the Ontario Ministry of Education?

Background

Student Services Department of the HDSB provides the public with relevant information regarding

regulations and policies issued by the Ontario Ministry of Education (MOE) in the following documents:

1. Working Together–Special Education Procedures: A Guide for Parents, Guardians and Students; and

2. Halton District School Board Special Education Plan

The Working Together document provides stakeholders with information about the procedures used in

the Board to identify and place exceptional students, and outlines the available programs and services.

The Special Education Plan is a requirement of the Ministry of Education to ensure greater accountability

in school boards, and to improve the quality of special education programs and services across Ontario.

Special education procedures and practices within the HDSB were reviewed alongside regulations,

policies and procedures issued by the MOE. The extent to which HDSB procedures align with the MOE

was examined using HDSB’s special education procedural and support documents, and feedback

obtained from staff, parents and SEAC representatives through focus groups and interviews.

Findings

Alignment with Key Practices

An examination of HDSB’s elementary special education referral, identification and placement pathways

indicated that HDSB implements procedures that are consistent with regulations and policies issued by

the MOE. As seen in the documented pathways, and confirmed by staff and parents, the HDSB follows

a comprehensive and inclusive referral process. Problem solving begins with the classroom teacher,

includes an In-School Team of educators, and continues with a multidisciplinary School Resource Team

when further consultation is required. With each level of response, parents reported being informed and

included in discussions and decisions, and staff continue to gather a variety of student assessment

information. Early identification procedures are implemented through school-based events, information

gathering strategies, and child observations conducted prior to the start of school, staff have the means

to begin investigating and problem solving with young students, and students new to the board, early

and promptly.

Similar to the referral process, IPRC documented and reported practices within the HDSB are congruent

with Ministry guidelines. In accordance with the MOE regulation (O. Reg. 181/98), an Area IPRC

decides if a student should be identified as exceptional, identifies the area of exceptionality, and decides

on appropriate placement. The categories and definitions of exceptionalities used by the HDSB are

consistent with those provided by the MOE. Both an in-school principal or a parent can request an IPRC


for a student, and parents are informed of the IPRC within 10 days of the meeting through a written

invitation to attend. Elementary IPRCs are held monthly, and during each meeting, relevant information

about the student is reviewed prior to finalizing decisions.

As directed by the MOE (O. Reg. 181/98), and in keeping with HDSB’s commitment to inclusion,

placement in a regular class with appropriate special education services is considered by the IPRC before

placement in a special education class. Student needs and parental preferences play a large part in this

decision process. Following identification and placement decisions, parent focus group participants

confirmed that student transition plans are developed collaboratively, transitions are smooth and

efficient, and placement occurs in a timely manner. In addition, annual review meetings are held by an

IPRC unless the school principal receives written notice from the parents to waive the review.

Perceived Areas for Improving Alignment

Staff, parents, and SEAC representatives agreed that HDSB’s practices in special education adhere to

the regulations, policies and procedures issued by the Ministry of Education. In general, they respect the

procedural standards and believe they facilitate a smooth and efficient, yet comprehensive and inclusive

decision-making process. When discussing various procedures, interview and focus group participants

noted a few areas where improvement was needed. Most notable among stakeholders, was the perceived

inequities between exceptionalities regarding early identification practices. Participants compared the

lack of early assessment, identification, and placement options available for primary students with

Learning Disabilities, to the system-wide early screening and assessment procedures and placement

options available for primary students identified as Gifted.

As part of the referral and identification practice, the HDSB strives for transparency and inclusion

regarding IPRC procedures. In accordance with MOE guidelines, Student Services maintains a parent

guide entitled Working Together – Special Education Procedures: A Guide for Parents, Guardians and

Students with direct online access and hard copies provided to all schools. In keeping with their mission

statement, Student Services is also committed to working in partnership with parents, families and

students. Feedback provided by parents during focus group discussions indicated that the consistency in

which the Parent Guide is shared with parents across the schools could be improved; and the messaging

that parents receive from school staff regarding meetings concerning their children could be framed in a

more encouraging and inviting manner.

In alignment with the Ministry’s established priority of considering placement in regular classrooms

with appropriate supports prior to self-contained placements, the HDSB takes pride in its system-wide

commitment to inclusion. With this in mind, Area IPRCs engage in comprehensive examinations of

student profiles, and in-depth considerations of student needs, parent preferences, and SRT

recommendations. During interview and focus group discussions, stakeholders indicated that this

decision process, and the rationale for prioritizing regular class placements could be better

communicated to staff and parents. Participants believe this strategy would increase understanding about

the benefits of regular class placements, the purpose and value of SRT’s problem solving endeavors; and

reduce confusion about the criteria considered during the IPRC decision-making process, and final

decision outcomes.


RERFERRAL, IDENTIFICATION and PLACEMENT MODELS

in Neighbouring School Boards

REVIEW QUESTION

How do the special education referral, identification and placement models for elementary students with Autism, Learning Disabilities, and Giftedness compare with neighbouring school boards?

Background

HDSB provides a range of special education programs and services for exceptional elementary students,

where the types of placements are based on the current needs of students within the Board. As a frame

of reference, procedural information was gathered from four neighbouring school boards regarding the

referral, identification and placement of students with Autism, Learning Disabilities, and Giftedness.

The selected school boards include a combination of Public and Catholic boards, vary in size (based on

student population), are located in close proximity to the HDSB, and offer a range of special education

placement options for exceptional students. The following boards were selected:

► Halton Catholic District School Board

► Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board

► Peel District School Board

► Waterloo Region District School Board

Details regarding elementary special education referral and identification procedures and placement

options for the selected school boards can be found in Appendix A.

Board-specific information was obtained through online special education resources, followed by

consultations with special education representatives. During these conversations, it became apparent that

each board had recently modified their referral, identification and placement procedures; or were in the

process of revising their model and/or placement options. The information provided in this review

reflects current procedures and placement options as confirmed by board personnel. Therefore,

documented procedures may not reflect information available through online resources, or planned

changes to be implemented in the near future.

Findings

In October 2017, the Halton District School Board served 63,785 students in 105 schools. A total of

44,765 students were enrolled in the elementary panel, with 13.6% receiving special education support

across 86 elementary schools. Among the four selected school boards, total enrolment averaged

approximately 75,100 students (ranging from 33,000 to 154,000 students).

Referral and Identification Procedures

An analysis of the procedures used to refer and identify elementary students with Autism, Learning

Disabilities and Giftedness in the HDSB and neighbouring school boards, indicated the following:

As recommended by the Ontario Ministry of Education, schools in each board organize a

multidisciplinary team that assists with the problem solving process. This team includes school-

based staff and may include other support professionals depending on student needs.


Similar to the HDSB, two school boards also utilize an additional multidisciplinary team, as a second

level of response, for those students whose needs require further consultation. This team is usually

called upon prior to referring students to an IPRC.

Different from other school boards, HDSB students who are to be recommended for a Resource

Support placement are presented to an Area IPRC. For this type of placement, two other school

boards present these students to school-based IPRCs, and two boards do not require students to be

presented to an IPRC in order to receive this level of support.

As in the HDSB, one other school board presents students seeking placement in a self-contained

class to Area/Regional IPRCs. One board uses School-based IPRCs, and two boards use Field Office

or Board IPRCs when determining these placements.

As issued by the Ministry of Education, all school boards use the same categories of exceptionality,

subcategories and associated definitions to assist with the identification of students with special

education needs.

Similar to the HDSB, annual reviews of student placements, where no changes are recommended,

are conducted through School-based IPRCs in all school boards.

In the HDSB and three other school boards, annual board-wide Gifted screening, using the CCAT,

occurs in Grade 4. Students who meet the Gifted criteria may also complete the WISC, and the

Gifted criteria for these assessments vary among boards. Similar to HDSB, one board also includes

the Gifted Rating Scale (GRS), one board includes a staff nomination process, and the third board

includes grade 3 EQAO scores when determining eligibility for Gifted identification. The fourth

board does not conduct board-wide Gifted screening. Students do not require cognitive assessments

to be considered for any Gifted placement. Other sources of information are used to determine

student fit for these placements.

Placement Options

An analysis of the placement options available for students identified with Autism, Learning Disabilities

and Giftedness within the HDSB and four neighbouring school boards demonstrated the following:

The HDSB and all other school boards offer Resource Support involving consultative (or itinerant),

resource, and/or withdrawal assistance in regular classrooms for students in Kindergarten/grade 1

through to grade 8.

As in the HDSB, three other school boards offer a self-contained placement option for elementary

students with Autism in Kindergarten/grade 1 through to grade 8. One board does not provide self-

contained placement options for elementary students with Autism.

The HDSB and two other boards offer self-contained placements for junior/intermediate students

with Learning Disabilities, and one board offers similar placements from grade 1 through to grade

8. One board does not provide self-contained placements for students with Learning Disabilities.

For elementary students identified as Gifted, the HDSB and all other school boards offer self-

contained placements. Like the HDSB, one other board offers these placements in grade 1 through

to grade 8, and the remaining three school boards offer self-contained placements from grade 5

through to grade 8.


SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The purpose of the Special Education Programs and Services Review–Phase II was to examine the

HDSB’s current referral, identification and placement pathways for the provision of special education

programs and services to elementary students with Autism, Learning Disabilities, and Giftedness. The

review set out to investigate various components of the special education pathways, obtain feedback from

key stakeholder groups, asses the extent to which practices in the HDSB align with Ministry guidelines,

and explore procedures implemented by neighbouring school boards. Following is a summary of the key

findings established throughout the review.

Student Enrolment

In October 2017, HDSB enrolment figures demonstrated that 6,125 elementary students were receiving

special education support, of which 2,298 (37.5%) were identified with an exceptionality. Elementary

students identified as Gifted comprised of 54% of the identified special education population, followed

by students with Learning Disabilities (17%), and Autism (8%). Further elementary enrolment analyses

among the three exceptionalities demonstrated that:

males comprised of more than half of each exceptionality group (ranging from 62% - 85%);

students with Autism were equally distributed throughout the school board, almost half of students

with Learning Disabilities attended schools in the North, and 57% of Gifted students were in the

East; and

one-quarter of students with Autism, and 15% of students identified as Gifted were in primary

grades, and approximately four out of ten students with Autism, Learning Disabilities, and

Giftedness were in junior grades (range of 43%-46%).

Five-year enrolment trends demonstrated that the proportions of elementary students identified with

Autism and Learning Disabilities in the HDSB were smaller than that of the region and province. The

proportions of elementary students identified with Learning Disabilities decreased across the region, the

province, and the HDSB (to a greater extent) over time. While the proportions of elementary students

identified with Autism decreased in the HDSB over time, they increased across the region and the

province. Conversely, the proportion of elementary students identified as Gifted in the HDSB was larger

than that of the region and province, and increased over time; while proportions decreased slightly

throughout the region and remained consistent throughout the province.

Elementary Referral, Identification and Placement Procedures in the HDSB

Referral, identification and placement pathways in the HDSB employ procedures that are common

among all exceptionalities, and processes that are unique to each exceptionality. For all exceptionalities,

the elementary referral process involves a leveled response approach to problem solving. An In-School

Team (first level of response) supports the classroom teacher, and a School Resource Team (second level

of response) is called upon when further consultation, assessments or student IEPs are required. The SRT

provides identification and placement recommendations to one of three Area IPRCs, for subsequent

student identification and placement.

As directed by the Ministry, the HDSB offers two special education placement options: (1) Resource

Support provided in the regular classroom, and (2) self-contained special education classes/programs;

both of which require formal identification through the IPRC process. In keeping with HDSB’s

commitment to inclusion, Resource Support placements are considered prior to a special education class.

Once identification and placement decisions are made, a transition plan is developed as part of the

student’s IEP. Placements are reviewed annually by a school-based IPRC or an Area IPRC, depending

on recommended changes and parental preferences.


Unique to each exceptionality are the types of assessments conducted and self-contained placements

available to students. The HDSB offers one elementary self-contained placement option for students with

Autism (K-8), one option for students with Learning Disabilities (grades 4-8), and one self-contained

placement option for students identified as Gifted (grades 1-8). For each exceptionality the self-contained

classes are housed in elementary schools distributed across the board, based on student need in each area.

Perceptions of Key Stakeholders

Elementary special education referral, identification and placement procedures are viewed by

stakeholders as being logical, inclusive and collaborative. The strong team approach lends to a

comprehensive understanding of student profiles and facilitates strong home-school relationships.

Throughout the referral process, focus group and interview participants noted the high level of efficiency

in which decisions are made, and the continuous support provided by school and board staff. With respect

to assessment processes, a key topic of concern among staff and parents involved the primary Gifted

screening and assessment practice in the HDSB. There was a strong sense among participating staff that

the needs of primary students can be addressed effectively in the regular classroom, and that primary

assessment is premature due to the lack stability and low predictive validity of results.

The identification and placement process was described as being quick and efficient as a result the

frequency by which Area IPRCs convene during the school year, their objectivity, and their adherence

to procedural standards. Staff reportedly respect the IPRC’s responsibility for due diligence and

appreciate the level of commitment demonstrated by its members. A noted challenge described by staff

relates to perceived inconsistencies among the differing Area IPRCs regarding identification criteria,

placement decisions, and expectations. Focus group and interview participants also identified various

practices within the HDSB of which they believe to be inequitable. Most notably is the high level of

system support for primary Gifted assessment, identification and self-contained placements vs. the

reported resistance to identifying Learning Disabilities and Autism in primary students, and the lack of

self-contained placement options for students with Learning Disabilities.

Parents noted aspects of home-school communication that required improvement in order to increase

parental understanding of the procedures, and encourage participation throughout the process. Staff also

noted the need for improved communication strategies during student transitions into self-contained

placements. Although special education programming and support were not considered areas of focus in

this phase of the review, parents often referenced disparities in their children’s learning experiences and

academic progress following the transition from the regular classroom and/or Resource Support

placement to self-contained placements. Parents attributed these variances to the differing levels of

support inherent to each placement type, and perceived issues regarding the development and

implementation of student IEPs.

Alignment with the Ministry of Education Guidelines

Through stakeholder feedback and an in-depth examination of the board’s pathways, it is evident that

HDSB’s special education practices are strongly aligned with Ministry regulations and policies regarding

the In-School Team process and assessments, identification and placement of exceptional students,

program planning, and student transitions. Most notably, Ministry guidelines have informed:

the rigorous procedural framework that lends itself to a comprehensive, multidisciplinary and

inclusive problem solving process;

Area IPRC’s prioritized considerations of regular classroom placement through in-depth

evaluations of student profiles, assessment results and student needs;

the categories of exceptionalities and associated definitions;


the range of placement options available across exceptionalities; and

the smooth, efficient and timely manner in which students transition into special education

programs and/or services.

A key area in which stakeholders expressed a need for the HDSB to maximize alignment with Ministry

guidelines involves examining and reducing perceived inequities among exceptionalities, particularly

with respect to early identification practices. Other areas for consideration, as conveyed by stakeholders,

include: greater consistency across the system with the distribution and awareness of the Working

Together document, improved messaging to parents regarding their participation in meetings; and

improved parent and staff understanding of the IPRC decision-making process, including the rationale

for prioritizing the regular classroom during placement decisions.

Procedures and Placements in Neighbouring School Boards

Through the compilation and analysis of elementary special education referral and identification

procedures implemented in the HDSB and four neighbouring school boards of interest, it is clear that

both similarities and variations exist. While a collaborative team approach to problem solving is a

common thread among school boards, some use multidisciplinary first-level response teams, and others

include second level-response teams when further consultation is required. During the identification

process, the categories of exceptionalities and associated definitions used by all school boards were

consistent with those issued by the Ministry. Like the HDSB, three of the four boards conduct system-

wide screening for Giftedness, which may then lead to an individual cognitive assessment. Assessment

criteria used to determine eligibility for Gifted identification differs slightly in each board. As directed

by the Ministry, all school boards have established IPRCs to determine identification and placement of

exceptional students, and within each board the level of IPRCs differ, ranging from School- to Board-

based IPRCs.

Although the range of placement options available across school boards remains consistent with those

regulated by the Ministry of Education, placement variations exist across school boards, grade levels,

and exceptionalities. Given that all boards strive to meet the learning needs of their student populations,

these variations are not surprising. While Resource Support is available throughout the elementary grades

and across the three exceptionalities in each school board, the provision of special education classes and

programs differ by exceptionality and grade level. Most notably, the HDSB and two neighbouring school

boards offer students with Learning Disabilities self-contained placement options beginning in the junior

grades, one board provides such placements starting in primary grades, and one school board does not

offer self-contained placements. The HDSB and one neighbouring school board offers self-contained

placement options for Gifted students throughout the elementary grades, while three other boards provide

these options beginning in grade 5.


CONCLUSION

A review of the Halton District School Board’s elementary special education referral, identification and

placement pathways identified a variety of procedural strengths, challenges and opportunities for

improvement. An examination of the board’s current pathways and student enrolment trends facilitated

a comprehensive understanding of the procedures and level of participation in programs and services

available for students with Autism, Learning Disabilities and Giftedness. Key stakeholder feedback

addressed the degree of implementation, and perceived factors that may facilitate or impede procedural

operations. A frame of reference provided by the Ministry of Education provided a means of confirming

HDSB’s procedural alignment with respective guidelines; and the exploration of neighbouring school

boards enabled a comparative analysis of similarities and differences in practice. Finally, analyses of

estimated costs (to come) will provide insight into the allocation of funds throughout the referral and

identification pathways and within programs, supports and services provided to students identified with

Autism, Learning Disabilities and Giftedness.

Review findings identified a variety of factors that contribute to the fidelity, efficiency and effectiveness

in which students with exceptionalities navigate through the elementary referral, identification and

placement pathways. Through a comprehensive review of the procedural components, assessment of

Ministry expectations, and the reported perceptions of parents, staff and SEAC representatives, it is clear

that the success of the special education pathways is largely due to:

1. a logical and rigorous framework that promotes objective perspectives and follows

procedural standards;

2. a multidisciplinary and collaborative team approach;

3. a comprehensive problem solving process involving thorough examination of students’

strengths and needs;

4. the extent to which in-school administration understand and value the problem solving process;

5. the expertise, passion and dedication demonstrated by SERTs, IPLs and other support staff;

6. the ongoing responsive and supportive nature of SERTs;

7. high level of parental inclusion and respect during team-based discussions and decisions;

8. frequency of Area IPRC meetings;

9. quick transition processes for students entering self-contained placements; and

10. Ministry directions that guide the planning and implementation of system-wide procedures

and processes.

Phase I of this review identified similar strengths related to responsive services, the multidisciplinary

team-based approach, the supportive school-based model, and skilled and dedicated staff (Love &

Favaro, 2017).

Alongside factors that contribute to the success of the special education pathways, are challenges relating

to the manner in which procedures and processes are implemented. Found throughout the review were

various challenges identified by stakeholders as being largely related to the degree of consistency in

which procedures and processes were implemented between schools and throughout the system.

Although not a focus of Phase II, but of equal importance to stakeholders, challenges regarding the

fidelity and effectiveness of programming and services were also highlighted. Specifically, these

challenges reflect: (1) home-school communication, (2) student assessment, (3) identification, (4)

placement options, (5) professional development, (6) support in the classroom, and (7) Individual

Education Plans. Similar to this phase of the review, Phase I identified challenges regarding primary


screening and assessment practices, implementation of criteria, identification, placement options, and

services and supports provided in the classroom (Love & Favaro, 2017).

In conclusion, the collective findings and subsequent recommendations are based on the evidence

acquired throughout this review, and are provided with the intent to guide future decisions regarding

procedures and processes that students, parents, and staff encounter as elementary students access special

education programs and services in the Halton District School Board. It is anticipated that the following

recommendations, coupled with the action steps provided, will work to further enhance the fidelity,

consistency, efficiency, and effectiveness of the referral, identification and placement pathways.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following eight recommendations provide suggestions and action steps for improving aspects of the

elementary referral, identification and placement pathways for the provision of special education

programs and services. The recommendations address the challenges identified throughout the review

and are not presented in any particular order of priority.

1. Develop a Special Education Communication Plan

Assemble a Special Education Student Services Work Team to develop a comprehensive online

Elementary Special Education Information Video for parents and community members. The Work

Team should collaborate with the Communications Department to strategize the development,

implementation, and dissemination of this video. The information video should include the following

six sections:

a) Navigating the Special Education Website

b) Working Together resource for parents

► Purpose of the resource

► High level review of its contents

c) IPRC Process

► Purpose of the Committee

► Decision-making process and rationale

d) Parent Involvement

► How parents can be involved, provide input/feedback

► Parent’s rights and expectations of parents

► Key staff parents can contact (classroom teacher, EA, SERT, principal)

► Standard meetings and timelines (meeting types: In-school Team, SRT, IPRCs, and member

participation)

e) Individual Education Plan

► Purpose

► Development – who is involved, how parents can contribute, time frame, process of

development

► Contents and definitions (accommodations, modifications, goals, strategies, transition plan, etc.)

► Process of implementation in the classroom

f) Placement, Support and Service Options

► Range of special education placement options available

► Details regarding each placement type


2. Improve information sharing and communication among staff.

Within schools, leadership teams should continue to encourage and support opportunities for ongoing

information sharing, communication and collaboration among educator teams responsible for students

receiving special education support (e.g., classroom teachers, SERTs and EAs) to ensure:

► essential student information (needs, strengths, concerns, goals, strategies, etc.) is discussed

during In-School Team, SRT, IPRC, case conferences, and parent discussions; and

► important details, decisions and plans discussed in these key meetings are shared with team

members who work closely with the respective students.

3. Use the Grade 4 screening assessment results to build learner profiles.

Upon receipt of CCAT-7 results, Grade 4 classroom teachers, in collaboration with other support staff,

should review assessment results for each student with the intent to develop student and class profiles,

inform instructional programming, and flag students whose results may suggest learning profiles

associated with other exceptionalities.

Teaching staff should:

► review all assessment scores - verbal, nonverbal, quantitative; and composite scores;

► review individual student CCAT-7 results in tandem with other formative and summative

assessment results; and

► discuss the necessity of presenting flagged students to In-School Team and/or SRT for

further discussion.

Student Services should:

► establish a protocol for school staff to follow when exploring CCAT-7 results that may

demonstrate challenges in cognitive functioning among students; and

► establish criteria for assessment results that warrant further investigation.

4. Review and revise identification and placement criteria for each exceptionality

During the time of this review, descriptions for special education classes and programs (self-contained

placements) were in the process of being revised. It is recommended that the HDSB include the

following information as part of this work:

Special Education Classes and Programs

► revise the descriptions of existing elementary special education classes and programs to

reflect current inclusion criteria, student profiles (learning, behavioural, social-emotional),

learning goals and objectives, expectations of students, and exit criteria.

Internal Identification and Placement Criteria

► clarify and document all criteria used in the decision-making process during Area IPRCs for

students seeking self-contained placements (e.g., assessment, inclusion, and exclusion).

External Assessment Sources

► develop and document clear criteria that specify the types of acceptable external

assessments, assessment results (e.g., ranges, cut-points), and recommended age groups for

assessments; and

► specify acceptable licensed/registered professionals who can provide diagnoses

(psychologists, OTs, PTs, general practitioners, SLPs, etc.).


5. Simplify the identification process for Resource Support placements.

For students of whom SRT is recommending special education classes or programs, continue to

present them to Area IPRCs for identification and placement. For students of whom SRT is

recommending Resource Support placements, present them to In-School IPRCs if these students have:

► assessment results confirming an exceptionality,

► authorization/support from relevant Student Services staff (i.e., Psycho-educational Consultant),

► parent approval, and

► school principal agreement.

It is anticipated that this change will streamline the process for student identification and placement,

reduce wait times for students, increase parental participation in meetings (increase accessibility –

school proximity, flexibility with meeting dates and times), and reduce the workload for the Area

IPRCs.

6. Support primary students who demonstrate characteristics of Giftedness in their home schools.

a. Throughout the primary grades, classroom teachers, together with and SERTs and other support

staff should continue to build class learning profiles using observations, student assessments, and

parent feedback. During the profile exploration and development stages, school staff should:

► flag students who demonstrate advanced learning skills and abilities;

► develop and implement strategies to further explore and understand the characteristics of these

students; and

► consider developing IEPs documenting strengths, needs, learning goals and supports for these

students, prior to nominating them for possible Gifted identification.

b. For primary students who demonstrate characteristics of Giftedness, a programming model may be

implemented in the regular classroom of the student’s home school, along with consideration for

placement in a self-contained class. Together with ongoing differentiation of instruction and

assessment, classroom teachers should continue to work closely with school- and board-based

support staff to:

► implement a range of programming options;

► develop IEPs that effectively address student learning profiles;

► explore the potential for an identification and placement in Resource Support or a self-

contained class;

► continue implementing evidence-based pedagogy with engaging, challenging, and self-

directed learning opportunities; and

► plan and implement extra-curricular enrichment opportunities outside of the classroom that

build on student’s interests, abilities, and learning styles.

c. To support student profile exploration, student IEPs, and system-wide Resource Support

programming for primary students demonstrating characteristics of Giftedness, HDSB should

continue to build capacity among primary teachers and support staff by providing ongoing

professional learning opportunities. Topic areas of such initiatives should include but not be limited

to:

► understanding intellectual Giftedness;

► characteristics of Giftedness;

► development and implementation of IEPs for Gifted students; and

► evidence-based pedagogy.


7. Continue providing learning opportunities for staff supporting primary students with Learning

Disabilities and Autism.

Continue to provide ongoing professional development opportunities for special education resource

support staff in order to further build capacity among primary classroom teachers. Implement

professional learning initiatives that support:

► sharing of knowledge, experience and strategies specific to understanding the learning needs of

primary students with Learning Disabilities and Autism;

► evidence-based practices and interventions that support the development of early academic, social

and behavioural skills;

► principals of Universal Design for Learning (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013), differentiated

instruction, and instructional and assistive technology;

► consistent and intensive instructional strategies that effectively address the needs of students who

are struggling in the regular classroom, as well as those receiving support through resource and

withdrawal assistance; and

► development and implementation of IEPs for students with Learning Disabilities and Autism.

It is anticipated that focused, early and intensive support, coupled with the use of assistive technology,

will work to strengthen early skill development, increase independence, decrease the learning gap,

and improve the academic outcomes for these exceptional students.

8. Review and improve the IEP development and implementation process.

Consider conducting a system-wide review on the development and implementation of IEPs for

elementary students, particularly for those in Resource Support placements and for those with non-

identified IEPs. The review should examine:

► procedures for developing IEPs;

► information staff use to create and revise IEPs (e.g., formal assessment results and

recommendations, contributions from professional and support staff, parent suggestions);

► the frequency at which staff review and revise IEPs;

► the quality of information provided on IEPs (i.e., extent to which strategies, accommodations,

modifications and goals reflect the student’s strengths and needs);

► the extent to which teachers implement IEPs in the classroom – including teacher’s level of

knowledge of student IEPs, the feasibility of implementing IEPs in the regular classroom, the

frequency at which IEPs are implemented, and teacher attitudes towards student IEPs; and

► The level of consistency in which IEPs are developed and implemented within schools and across

the system.


REFERENCES

Halton District School Board. (2016). Multi-Year Plan 2016-2020. Burlington: Author, Retrieved from:

https://www.hdsb.ca/our-board/Documents/multiyear-plan-2016-20-online-4pg.pdf.

Halton District School Board. (Revised 2016). Working Together – Special Education Procedures: A

Guide for Parents, Guardians and Students. Burlington: Author, Retrieved from:

https://www.hdsb.ca/Documents/WorkingTogetherBooklet.pdf.

Halton District School Board. (2017). Elementary Self-contained Classes and Program Profiles.

Burlington: Author, Retrieved from:

https://www.myhdsb.ca/StudentServices/Documents/Elementary%20Self-

Contained%20Classes%20and%20Program%20Profiles.pdf

Halton District School Board. (2017). Guide to Student Services 2017-2018. Burlington: Author.

Halton District School Board. (2017). Special Education Plan 2017-2018. Burlington: Author, Retrieved

from: https://www.hdsb.ca/our-board/Documents/SpecialEducationPlan.pdf.

Love, A., & Favaro, P. (2017). Halton District School Board Special Education Review – Key Findings.

Unpublished presentation. Burlington, Ontario: Halton District School Board.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2013). Learning for All: A Guide to Effective Assessment and

Instruction for All Students, Kindergarten to Grade 12. Toronto: Author. Retrieved from:

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/speced/LearningforAll2013.pdf.

https://www.hdsb.ca/our-board/Documents/multiyear-plan-2016-20-online-4pg.pdf

https://www.hdsb.ca/Documents/WorkingTogetherBooklet.pdf

https://www.myhdsb.ca/StudentServices/Documents/Elementary%20Self-Contained%20Classes%20and%20Program%20Profiles.pdf

https://www.myhdsb.ca/StudentServices/Documents/Elementary%20Self-Contained%20Classes%20and%20Program%20Profiles.pdf

https://www.hdsb.ca/our-board/Documents/SpecialEducationPlan.pdf

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/speced/LearningforAll2013.pdf


APPENDIX A Elementary Referral, Identification and Placement Details

for Neighbouring School Boards

Halton Catholic District School Board (as of February 2018)

Elementary Referral, Identification and Placement Process

Problem solving by In-School Special Education Team

Board-based Special Education Support Team assists In-School Teams with problem solving, capacity building, and supporting students and staff

Transdisciplinary Rounds (TDR) – Behaviour Analysts work with Special Education Support Team to build capacity in schools for students with complex needs

TDR meetings (once a month per Family of Schools) to set goals and strategies to support In-School Teams with meeting student needs

Student is referred to school-based IPRC (for Resource Support), or Regional IPRC (for Self-contained Class)

IPRC identifies student and determines placement

Yearly review is conducted by school-based IPRC

Elementary Special Education Placements

Class Type Grades #

Classes Class Size

Identification & Placement

AU

TIS

M Resource Support Program

Itinerant Support regular class

indirect, resource or withdrawal support

K-8 Ministry

regulations School-based

IPRC

LE

AR

NIN

G

DIS

AB

ILIT

IES

Resource Support Program



K-8 Ministry


IPRC

GIF

TE

D




K-8 Ministry


IPRC

Special Education Class

Self-contained Gifted class self-contained partial integration 5-8 7 classes 25 students Regional IPRC

For a student to be considered eligible for gifted programming, his/her intellectual functioning must fall at or above the 98th percentile as indicated on an appropriate full-scale psycho-educational assessment or relevant sub-tests as determined by the supervising psychologist or psychological associate.

Board-wide gifted screening (using the CCAT-7) occurs in grade 4 (stage 1). Students qualify for stage 2 testing based on Grade 3 EQAO and Grade 4 CCAT-7 test scores. For students who meet the Gifted criteria in stage1, the WISC-V is administered. Students who meet the Gifted criteria in stage 2 are presented to IPRC for identification and placement.

Approximately:

33,000 students 22,000 elementary students 55 schools 46 elementary schools

BOARD FACTS


Sources:

Halton Catholic District School Board. (2017). Special Education Annual Plan 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.hcdsb.org/Programs/SpecialEducation/Documents/HCDSB%20Special%20Education%20Annual%20Plan.pdf

Halton Catholic District School Board. (Revised 2013). A Parent’s Guide to Special Education Programs and Services. Retrieved from: https://www.hcdsb.org/Programs/SpecialEducation/Documents/A%20Parent's%20Guide%20to%20Special%20Education%20Programs%20and%20Services.pdf

sources:Halton%20Catholic%20District%20School%20Board.%20(2017).%20Special%20Education%20Annual%20Plan%202017.%20Retrieved%20from:https://www.hcdsb.org/Programs/SpecialEducation/Documents/HCDSB%20Special%20Education%20Annual%20Plan.pdf

sources:Halton%20Catholic%20District%20School%20Board.%20(2017).%20Special%20Education%20Annual%20Plan%202017.%20Retrieved%20from:https://www.hcdsb.org/Programs/SpecialEducation/Documents/HCDSB%20Special%20Education%20Annual%20Plan.pdf

https://www.hcdsb.org/Programs/SpecialEducation/Documents/A%20Parent's%20Guide%20to%20Special%20Education%20Programs%20and%20Services.pdf

https://www.hcdsb.org/Programs/SpecialEducation/Documents/A%20Parent's%20Guide%20to%20Special%20Education%20Programs%20and%20Services.pdf


Hamilton Wentworth District School Board (as of February 2018)


Problem solving by School Resource Team

Assessment results indicate student meets criteria for exceptionality

Referral to In-School IPRC (for Resource Support)

Referral to System IPRC (for Special Education Class)

IPRC identifies student and determines placement

Yearly review is conducted by In-School IPRC


Class Type Grades #

Classes Class Size


AU

TIS

M




K-8 Ministry

regulations

Must demonstrate need or have diagnosis

In-School IPRC not required


ASD Class self-contained full-time

P/J

J/I

5 classes

5 classes

6 students

6 students System IPRC

Special Education Program

Social Communication Program

intensive withdrawal

support 1 day/wk 5-8 1 location

Group size 7-8 students

Application to Intensive Support Services Team

Must have diagnosis

LE

AR

NIN

G

DIS

AB

ILIT

IES


Itinerant Support regular class indirect support

3-8 Ministry

regulations

Must meet criteria via formal assessment



Comprehensive Class* self-contained partial integration

4-6

7-8

7 students

13 students 12 students System IPRC


Centre for Success Program 6 week program 5-7 3 locations 8 students

Application to Centre for Success Committee

Must have a diagnosis

GIF

TE

D


Itinerant Support

(via Special Assignment Teacher)

regular class indirect support

5-8 Ministry

regulations




Gifted + Class self-contained full-time

6-8 2 15 System IPRC


Enrichment and Innovation Centre Program

withdrawal 6-7 times a year

5-8 6-7

sessions per grade

22 students


IPRC not required

Approximately:


BOARD FACTS


* Elementary Comprehensive Classes serve students with various exceptionalities who also demonstrate social and emotional

challenges. The majority of students comprise of those with Mild Intellectual Disabilities and some have Learning Disabilities.

Board-wide gifted screening occurs in grade four (using the CCAT-7). Students who score highly on the CCAT-7, as well as those who are nominated by school personnel can complete an individual cognitive test. Results are compared against HWDSB’s Gifted Identification Criteria for eligibility to be identified as gifted.

Board Criteria for Categories of Exceptionalities

The HWSB adheres to the categories and definitions of exceptionalities provided by the Ontario Ministry of Education, and includes the following additional criteria for the exceptionalities of interest: Communication: ASD

A written report from a professional member of the College of Psychologists or the College of Physicians and Surgeons which gives a diagnosis of:

a) ASD/ASD Spectrum Disorder, or other forms of Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD) (Current DSM criteria); or

b) Childhood Disintegrative Disorder; c) Asperger’s Disorder; or d) Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDDNOS); and

Documentation (ex., report cards; IEP; assessment; work samples) of one or more of the following which adversely affect educational performance:

a) social interaction impairment; b) communication impairments as documented by a Speech and Language assessment; c) restricted and stereotyped patterns of behaviour, interests and activities (ex., repetitive motor

mannerisms or persistent preoccupation with parts of objects); d) ritualistic and compulsive behaviour; and/or e) poor self-regulation skills.

Communication: Learning Disability

1. The Best Estimate of assessed intellectual functioning is within the Average range (beginning at the 16th percentile) or higher as documented by a Psychoeducational assessment.

2. Academic underachievement that is consistent with Average intellectual abilities as documented by a Psychoeducational assessment.

3. Learning challenges as documented by a Psychological assessment associated with difficulties in one or more psychological/cognitive processes, such as:

Phonological processing Memory

Attention Working memory

Processing speed Perceptual-motor

Visual-spatial processing Visual-motor integration

Executive functions 4. Documentation indicates that achievement in Reading, Writing, Mathematics or Learning Skills can be

developed and maintained by the student only with:

Modified expectation and/or

Significant accommodations and/or

Alternative expectations

*Documentation must include report cards, IEP, assessment summaries and work samples. Intellectual: Giftedness

Non-English Language Leaner

WISC-IV Assessment: (< 2015)

Full Scale at or above the 99th percentile, OR

Verbal comprehension Index (VCI) at the 99th percentile, General Ability Index (GAI) at the 99th percentile, and the Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) at or above the 50th percentile, OR

Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) at the 99th percentile, General Ability Index (GAI) at the 99th percentile, and the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) at or above the 50th percentile.


WISC-V Assessment: (used currently)

Full Scale at or above 98th percentile, OR

Verbal (Expanded Crystallized) Index (VECI) at or above the 98th percentile, OR

Nonverbal Index (NVI) at or above the 98th percentile, OR

General Ability Index (GAI) at or above the 98th percentile

English Language Leaner

WISC-IV Assessment (< 2015)

(any of the above), OR

Full Scale at the 95th percentile, and either the VCI or the PRI at the 98th percentile, with the other index (VCI or PRI) at or above the 50th percentile

WISC-V Assessment (used currently)

(any of the above), OR

Full Scale (FSIQ) General Ability Index (GAI) or Nonverbal Index (NVI) at or above the 95th percentile

Sources:

HWDSB (2017). 2016-2017 Special Education Report & Next Steps for 2017-2018. http://www.hwdsb.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Special-Education-Report-1617.pdf

HWDSB. (ND), Working Together: A Guide to Special Education and Student Services. http://www.hwdsb.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Parent-Handbook-English.pdf

HWDSB. (2017), Gifted and Enrichment Centre Website. Retrieved from: https://gifted.commons.hwdsb.on.ca/

http://www.hwdsb.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Special-Education-Report-1617.pdf

http://www.hwdsb.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Parent-Handbook-English.pdf

https://gifted.commons.hwdsb.on.ca/


Peel District School Board (as of February 2018)


Problem solving by In-School Review Committee (ISRC)

Self-contained placements require formal assessments indicating student meets criteria for exceptionality

For most school-based programs (Resource Support placements) students are referred to School-based IPRC

Students with Autism are referred to Central Board Office IPRC

For Superintendency or Field Office programs (specific special education classes) students are referred to Field Office IPRC

Respective IPRC identifies student and determines placement

Annual reviews are conducted by School-based IPRC.


Class Type Grades # Classes Class Size Identification &

Placement

AU

TIS

M


Itinerant Support regular class indirect support

K-8 Ministry

regulations

Central Board Office

IPRC*

Special Education Classes

Primary Transition Program full-time

self-contained K-2 10 classes 6 students

Central Board Office IPRC ASD Program

self-contained partial integration

3-5

6-8

16 classes

21 classes

6 students

8 students

ASD Resource Program 6-8 7 classes 8 students


DD/ASD Class full-time

self-contained

3-5

6-8

9 classes

13 classes

6 students

6 students

Central Board Office IPRC

LE

AR

NIN

G

DIS

AB

ILIT

IES


In-School Support Program** (ISRC)

regular class withdrawal, resource,

or indirect support K-8

Ministry regulations

In-School Review Committee or

School-based IPRC


Communication Class self-contained

with integration opportunities

1-3 2-4 4-5

5,6,7 6-8

11 classes 8 classes

17 classes 2 classes

18 classes

8 students Field Office IPRC

GIF

TE

D


In-School Enhanced Learning Program ♦

regular class withdrawal, resource,

or indirect support 1-8


School-based IPRC


Enhanced Learning Class ♦♦ full-time

self-contained

1-3 4-5 6-8

2 classes 6 classes

18 classes

20 students 23 students 25 students

Field Office IPRC

Approximately:


BOARD FACTS


* Itinerant Support for students with Autism

Students with a diagnosis of Autism receive Itinerant services prior to being identified as exceptional. Students are then identified through a Central Board Office IPRC as Exceptional Communication - Autism and are placed as receiving Itinerant Service.

** In-School Support Program for students with Special Education needs

Admission criteria for non-exceptional students – students have demonstrated the need for academic support beyond the regular classroom program which may include difficulties in varying degrees and combinations congruent with Learning Disabilities. A psycho-educational assessment is not required. ♦ In-School Enhanced Learning Program for students with Giftedness

Students have demonstrated strong abilities and/or are rated by their teachers as needing differentiated instruction & enhancements beyond regular classroom programming. A cognitive assessment is required.

♦♦ Enhanced Learning Class for students with Giftedness

To be identified as an enhanced learner, the student may undergo a CCAT-4 as an initial screener. Following a review of the CCAT-4 results, the ISRC may recommend completion of the Gifted Rating Scale (GRS). If the ISRC believes the student may qualify as Gifted, an individual psycho-educational assessment will be completed and an IPRC may recommend placement in an Enhanced Learning Class (ELC). An ELC may have multi-grades, with a grade range of two or three years. (e.g. grades 1 ,2,3, grades 4,5 or grades 6,7,8).

Gifted Screening

Board-wide gifted screening (using the CCAT-4) occurs in grade 4.

Sources:

Peel District School Board. (2017). Special Education Plan 2017-2018. http://peelschools.org/Documents/SEAC%20-%20June%2013,%202017.pdf

Peel District School Board. (2017). Special Education Programs and Services 2017-2018. http://www.peelschools.org/parents/specialed/sep/Documents/Spec.%20Ed.%20Plan%20Amendment%202017-18.pdf

Peel District School Board. (ND). Elementary Enhanced Learning in Peel – Parent Information http://www.peelschools.org/Documents/Elementary%20Enhanced%20Learning%20in%20Peel%20-%20Parent%20Info.pdf#search=gifted%20identification

Peel District School Board. (ND). Special Education Placements provided by the Board. Retrieved from: http://www.peelschools.org/parents/specialed/sep/Documents/B8placements.pdf

http://peelschools.org/Documents/SEAC%20-%20June%2013,%202017.pdf

http://www.peelschools.org/parents/specialed/sep/Documents/Spec.%20Ed.%20Plan%20Amendment%202017-18.pdf

http://www.peelschools.org/parents/specialed/sep/Documents/Spec.%20Ed.%20Plan%20Amendment%202017-18.pdf

http://www.peelschools.org/Documents/Elementary%20Enhanced%20Learning%20in%20Peel%20-%20Parent%20Info.pdf#search=gifted%20identification

http://www.peelschools.org/Documents/Elementary%20Enhanced%20Learning%20in%20Peel%20-%20Parent%20Info.pdf#search=gifted%20identification

http://www.peelschools.org/parents/specialed/sep/Documents/B8placements.pdf


Waterloo Region District School Board (as of February 2018)

Elementary Special Education Referral, Identification and Placement Process

Resource Support Placement Self-contained Placement

AU

TIS

M

Problem solving by School Based Team and Multidisciplinary Team

Referral to the Developmental Support Teacher

Referral approved by the Developmental Support Committee

Formal diagnosis is required

IEP is developed

IPRC is not required

School Based Team and Multidisciplinary Team discussions/meeting

Formal diagnosis is required

Referral to Program Leader, who then refers student to the school-based IPRC

School-based IPRC identifies student and determines placement

In order to be eligible for services, students must have received a diagnosis of an Autism Spectrum Disorder as identified by a member of the college of Psychologists. In some cases, information from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario may be considered.

LE

AR

NIN

G

DIS

AB

ILIT

Y

Problem solving by School Based Team & Multidisciplinary Team consultation

Formal assessment is required

IEP is developed


School Based Team and Multidisciplinary Team discussions/meeting

Formal assessment is required

Referral to Program Leader, who then refers student to the School-based IPRC


GIF

TE

D

Student Groups:

Problem solving by School Based Team and Multidisciplinary Team

Formal assessment is not required

IEP is developed


Area Class for Gifted Learners:

Home school staff nominate students. Teachers assess and evaluate the learning needs of the gifted students while attending the program. The Area Class Teacher will make a recommendation for further participation in succeeding years.


IEP is developed


Itinerant Enrichment Teacher, Area Class Teacher, and/or Program Leader, in consultation with home school staff and parents, nominate students.



The WRDSB does not conduct Board-wide Gifted screening. Students do not require cognitive assessments to be considered for any Gifted placement. Other sources of information/criteria are used to determine student fit for Gifted placements (Gifted Rating Scale, student profile, demonstrated needs of student, etc.).

Approximately:


BOARD FACTS



Class Type Grades #

Classes Class Size


AU

TIS

M


Itinerant Support regular class indirect support JK-8


IPRC not required


Developmental Education Program

self-contained partial integration

JK-8 17 classes 6 students School-based

IPRC

LE

AR

NIN

G

DIS

AB

ILIT

IES


Itinerant Support regular class withdrawal and itinerant support

K-8 Ministry

regulations IPRC not required


Learning Disabilities Program

full-time self-contained

integration opportunities

5 & 6

7 & 8

2 classes

3 classes

12 students

16 students

School-based IPRC

GIF

TE

D


Student Groups regular class

indirect, withdrawal & itinerant support

K-8 Ministry

regulations IPRC not required


Area Class for Gifted Learners withdrawal 1 day/week

(off-site)

4-8 3 classes per grade

20 students IPRC not required

Gifted / Enrichment Program full-time

self-contained

5 & 6

7 & 8

3 classes

3 classes 25 students

School-based IPRC

Sources:

Waterloo District School Board (amended 2016). Special Education Plan 2007-2009 Programs and Services. Retrieved from: https://www.wrdsb.ca/wp-content/uploads/Special-Education-Plan-2007-2009.pdf Waterloo District School Board. (Amended Sept. 2014). Identification Placement and Review Committee Procedures: Understanding the IPRC Process – A Parent Guide. Retrieved from: https://www.wrdsb.ca/wp-content/uploads/IPRC_Parent-Guide.pdf

https://www.wrdsb.ca/wp-content/uploads/Special-Education-Plan-2007-2009.pdf

https://www.wrdsb.ca/wp-content/uploads/IPRC_Parent-Guide.pdf


Special Education Programs and Services Review – Phase II Review of Elementary Special Education Referral, Identification and Placement Pathways

for Students identified with Autism, Learning Disabilities, and Giftedness

♦ Overview of student enrolment ► 2017 elementary enrolment data, 5 year trends ♦ Overview of procedures and pathways ► HDSB document review, consultations ♦ Stakeholder perspectives ► 12 focus groups, 3 interviews ♦ Alignment with Ministry guidelines ► Ministry regulation and policy review ♦ Models in neighbouring school boards ► school board document reviews, consultations ♦ Estimated cost allocations (to come) ► data from relevant departments

Autism Learning Disabilities Gifted 192 students 400 students 1,244 students 85% males 70% males 62% males

equal area distribution 49% in the North 57% in the East 27% primary, 43% junior 42% junior, 58% intermediate 15% primary, 46% junior 70% resource assistance

21% self-contained (full-time) 54% resource assistance 41% self-contained (partial)

67% self-contained (full-time) 32% resource assistance

HDSB 0.56% ▼over time 1.65% ▼over time 2.45% ▲over time Region* 0.83% ▲over time 2.02% ▼over time 1.52% = over time Province 0.93% ▲over time 2.25% ▼over time 1.13% ▼over time

5-Year Average Percentage of Population (2011/12 – 2015/16)

* Region includes the following school boards: Conseil scolaire Viamonde; Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud; Conseil scolaire Catholique Providence; Dufferin-Peel Catholic DSB; Halton Catholic DSB; Halton DSB; Peel DSB; Toronto Catholic DSB; Toronto DSB; Upper Grand DSB; Wellington Catholic DSB.

Focus Groups & Interviews #

Elementary Teachers 23 Elementary Principals 8 Elementary SERTs 23 Instructional Program Leaders 7 Psycho-educational Consultants 17 Parents of students with Autism 21 Parents of students with LD 15 Parents of Gifted students 20 SEAC representatives 5 Total Participants 139

Inequities – primary assessment/identification expected for Gifted and discouraged for other exceptionalities – over-identification of Gifted students (unstable results), under-identifying students with LD (create IEPs) – Grade 4 board-wide screening for Giftedness – differing external assessments/criteria may not be accepted for LD, and may be accepted for Giftedness – reassessment requirements for students with LD, not for early assessed Gifted students

Referral Process

Teamwork and collaboration – efficient. supportive, inclusive – changing staff, exclusion of EAs

Early Gifted Screening & Assessment – system pressure for primary screening and assessment – students are too young & results are unstable, unreliable – student needs can be met in regular classroom – inconsistent referral practices across system → staff knowledge – low primary screening success rates

Staff turnover – SERTs, EAs, teachers of self-contained classes

Identification Process – quick, efficient, frequent IPRC meetings

Area IPRC – objective, maintain procedural standards – inconsistent, unpredictable, decisions not understood

KEY FINDINGS

REVIEW COMPONENTS

78 staff, 56 parents, 5 SEAC representatives

Elementary Student Enrolment (Oct. 31, 2017)

Stakeholder Perspectives

Placement Process – students are placed in a timely manner following IPRC decision

Placement Changes – resistance to move students with LD from Resource Support to self-contained classes

Inequities – Learning Disabilities class starts in grade 4, Gifted class in grade 1 – more Gifted students receiving self-contained support, longer program lifespan

Profiles of Students in Self-contained Placements – complex and/or extreme challenges

Transition Planning – efficient and timely process, staff request more information and time

Communication – parents unaware of the Working Together guide, messages regarding participation in meetings

Assistive Technology – student improvements, delays in AT arrival, teachers unfamiliar with technology

Support in the Classroom – concerns about IEPs among parents vs. noted benefits among staff – student progress in self-contained classes vs. Resource Support

The HDSB’s referral, identification and placement practices are well aligned with Ministry Guidelines

Areas for improvement based on stakeholder feedback: ► Inequities between exceptionalities regarding early identification practices ► Increased sharing of the Working Together parent guide & improved invitational messages to parents ► Communicate rationale for prioritizing regular classroom/resource support during placement decisions

Differences ► IPRC for Resource Support – 2 boards use In-School, 2 boards do not require IPRC ► IPRC for Self-contained – each board is different (In-School, Regional, Field Office, Board) ► Self-contained Learning Disabilities Class – 2 boards offer grades 4/5-8, 1 board offers grades 1–8,

1 board does not offer this type of placement ► Self-contained Gifted class – 3 boards offer grades 5/6–8, 1 board offers grades 1–8

1. Develop a Special Education Communication Plan.

2. Improve information sharing and communication among staff.

3. Use Grade 4 screening assessment results to build learner profiles.

4. Review and Revise identification and assessment criteria for each exceptionality.

5. Simplify the identification process for Resource Support placements.

6. Support primary students who demonstrate characteristics of Giftedness in their home schools. Continue to explore student profiles that suggest advanced skills and abilities. Consider Resource Support and self-contained placements, and provide extra-curricular enrichment opportunities. Continue to build teacher capacity through professional learning opportunities.

7. Continue providing learning opportunities for staff supporting primary students with Learning Disabilities and Autism.

8. Review and improve the IEP development and implementation process.

Halton DSB 63,700

Halton Catholic DSB 33,000 Hamilton-Wentworth DSB 49,500 Peel DSB 154,000 Waterloo Region DSB 64,000

Similarities ► Multidisciplinary team → problem solving ► Categories of exceptionalities and definitions ► Annual reviews (without changes) through In-School IPRC ► Resource Support placements offered from grades K/1–8 ► Autism – 3 boards offer self-contained placements from grades 1–8 ► Gifted – 3 boards conduct screening in grade 4, followed by the WISC

1 board does not conduct screening

RECOMMENDATIONS

Elana Gray, M.Sc., C.E. March 2018

Stakeholder Perspectives continued

Alignment with Ministry of Education Guidelines

Models in Neighbouring School Boards

Estimated Cost Allocations (to come) ► Staffing, Assessment, AT, Transportation