Halton’s boundary review committee and community angry about Option 5 changes

We are now being told that some members of the Boundary Review Committee (BRC) are now voicing anger at how their Option 5 recommendation has not only been modified but also presented in the HDSB’s report that is being submitted to the trustees tomorrow evening.

The BRC’s original Option 5 clearly stated and was heavily debated stating that the entry of French Immersion programming had to be delayed and could not be available when the new high school was opened.

The rationale many believed was to ensure that the community got into the school and that there was space for the community first before considering any optional programming. Although this was never officially stated as the rationale, many in the community became involved and/or kept updated on the accommodation process because community schools have as of late not been provided to local kids.

Lets all not forget the West Oak Trail’s elementary school that was taken away from the community and given instead exclusively to FI programming students.

So now even members of the BRC along with community members are expressing outrage at the fact that not only was that the single most important issue for this new high school completely ignored and reversed but it seems to many presented in such a manner that it suggests that the committee itself recommended what is in this report.

Here is some of the area causing the issue:

“The new recommendations are as follows:

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board adjust the boundaries for the secondary schools in Oakville as outlined in Scenario 5, Report 11090, effective September 2012.
Be it resolved that SRA #103 provide Grade 9 and 10 English programming in the year 2012-2013, add Grade 11 in 2013-2014 and add Grade 12 in 2014-2015.
Be it resolved that SRA #103, provide Grade 9 French Immersion Programming in September 2015 with an additional grade added in each successive year.

Be it resolved that consideration be given to initiating the Grade 9 French Immersion program prior to September 2015, in the year that sufficient enrolment exists within the SRA #103 French Immersion boundaries, for two Grade 9 French Immersion classes

Be it resolved that Grade 11 and 12 English program students within the SRA # 103 boundaries, attending White Oaks Secondary School in 2012-2013, continue at White Oaks Secondary School until such time as they graduate. Transportation will be provided for these students.

Be it resolved that students who initiate their program in Grade 9 at T.A. Blakelock High School due to the unavailability of program at SRA #103 be allowed to continue at T. A. Blakelock High School until they graduate, with transportation.
….

In addition the report concludes the following:

Rationale for Scenario #5:
• It was one of the recommendations of the Boundary Review Committee and received favourable feedback in the public consultation process;

Conclusion: Scenario 5, including the potential addition of Grade 9 French Immersion programming starting in the 2012/2013 school year, does address most of the criteria as identified during this boundary review process. As well, the additional recommendation of providing a Grade 9 French Immersion program also attempts to address and mitigate the issues with minimal impact to existing and future secondary school students within Oakville.”

The BRC was clear that the FI program had to be delayed for several years. It was included in its final recommendation. Much debate occurred regarding this and was acknowledge at public meetings the board held. We heard the board discuss this ourselves at the Abbey Park High School meeting. The board seemed to want to make it clear to the public that recommendations were carefully debated and devised by the members putting personal preferences and biases aside but instead recommendations were made to benefit the entire community.

The HDSB’s recommendation report not only includes FI programming students immediately but for community members they believe it also implies that immediate entry of FI was part of Option 5, meets criteria, etc. To them, it does exactly the opposite. Considering the board themselves told the public that the recommendations presented and considered were in the best interest of the entire community, why is the most important single issue it seems (FI entry) being reversed.

We are hearing outrage from all corners including members of the BRC who state they feel completely duped by the board.

What was the purpose of having them recommend when the single most important recommendation …that being delaying optional programming was not only ignored but actually completely overturned.

Some members and community residents are now stating they believe some members of the HDSB always intended on forcing the optional FI program into the school immediately even before the process ever started. They tell us they are, however, completely shocked that unlike the Palermo process the ‘hijacking’ has taken place at the report recommendation level not at the trustee vote table.

Many are now also stating that the last 3 accommodation processes have been a complete waste of time as the HDSB seems never intent on listening to the English or mandated community.

In addition, we are now being told that the boundary presented to the BRC for FI would not allow enough enrollment for the 2 classes being recommended. As such, we are being told that members believe a trustee will table a motion tomorrow evening to use ‘flexible boundaries’ or amend the boundaries to ensure there is enough enrollment to force the FI program on day 1.

We want to be clear that we do not know what the outcome of tomorrow’s night meeting will be either regarding amended boundaries or recommendations but we can tell you that the community is contacting us and telling us they are beyond frustrated at what they believe is the lack of honesty and transparency in Halton.

Many are now asking openly when will the HDSB follow the principles of the process they promise and when will mandated programming either be represented and/or put first at this board.

Many are also now promising to make this an election issue if the will of the people and what they recommended is changed from what was originally put forward.

Now many are asking for Ministry investigation and/or intervention.

Let us know what you think.

For many in community HDSB once again proves to be dishonest with the new high school consultation process

So now that the Halton District School Board has finally posted its recommendations for the new high school on its web site many in the community are stating the board has once again proven itself dishonest. For those wishing for anything different than what the public has come to expect, community members are stating openly that you will be sadly disappointed. For them it is simply business as usual at the HDSB.

Although the recommendation made by the board addresses some of the concerns raised, we are being contacted by outraged community members and participants of the BRC committee who state they feel they have once again been completely deceived by the HDSB. Although the committee expected some minor changes to any option they recommended to have Option 5 so drastically changed allowing the timing of FI entry to be exactly what they championed against and presented as if it was recommended is meeting with outrage.

Lets be honest here this entire process was really about programming not accommodation. By name it suggests it is about accommodation but most in the community believe nothing is done in Halton that is not about programmming these days – namely English against French. Although schools in our country are supposed to be community schools (thus for a specific community) the public believes they often don’t end up that because for many the HDSB is completely obsessed with optional French Immersion programming. Although FI programming is delivered across the country, in Oakville the delivery consists of trying to make the method single track.

So now for the new high school in Ward 4 the BRC process which took many parents and community members out of their homes and away from their families to work collectively in what was to be a transparent and honest process which was to take 3 final recommendations and have the Director present them to the board trustees for final approval, the vast changes to Option 5 goes against everything the process was suppose to be.

The main raging debate for this new high school was the fact that the community of mandated education desperately needs the physical spaces and that the optional FI program as it is delivered in Halton has no caps or management, deliberately typically provides an unfair enrollment boundary (for elementary say Palermo it has been provided a 5 to 1 sized boundary) thus crowding out the community for optional students. The community feared the same fate would occur at the high school level if the board was allowed to conduct itself in the same manner. It was the general belief that mandated programming was not properly represented at the board table that led to such public and heated public debate. Essentially it is the complete distrust the community has for this board on protecting and represented mandated education that has led to the community being so vocal about this high school.

The BRC final recommendation did in Option 5 allow for FI programming but it was delayed thus ensuring that room for the community had been met.

Now returning to the complete distrust the community has for how decisions are made at the board, many believed any option presented would have the final decision hijacked just like Palermo was at the 11th hour of voting.

What was not expected was that those wanting FI would it seems to many go behind the process and get their way even before the recommendation was tabled. It was also supposed to be presented to the board trustees and the public by the Director.

Option 5 firmly stated that FI programming had to wait several years before being introduced at the school. This delay allowed the board to determine spacing for the community. It was absolutely essential to ensure the community school was given to the community.

Oakville (and especially Ward 4) has a long history of taking away either community schools completely from the community (remember the West Oak Trail elementary school that was funded by the Ministry as a community school only to have the trustees vote to kick out the entire community other than FI students and make it a single track school). The next fiasco was the Palermo Public School that had its last minute motion tabled at 10:30 by the Ward 4 trustee replace all motions developed and put forth replaced by an unseen and uninvestigated motion. This motion as we have reported has absolutely no enrollment balancing protections thus the school is quickly being taken over by FI programming. To date, no recommendation or work has been put forth to address this brand new school’s crisis situation.

So now this latest accommodation review has become once again about programming because the trustees that were bent and determined to provided FI programming into the new school on day one have once again gotten their way. The only difference this time it is does appear to many that a last minute ‘pull a rat out of your hat’ doesn’t have to occur at the vote table. Instead their will has been forced into the recommendation even though this was deliberately never intended to be part of Option 5.

Let it be clear that the BRC’s community recommendation clearly stated and put forward that French Immersion programming had to wait for several years. This has been once again completely ignored in order to provide for the optional programming that consistently for many gets representation at the trustee vote table.

So a board that has been publicly humiliated by the Cooke Report that produced an extremely critical report on how this board handles public consultations and the honest behind them (read it online to see how critical it was about how this board dealt with the public – remember this was an official report produced by the government when it was forced to investigate this board once before) and the fiasco that occurred with the Palermo process, we are hearing the following from the community.

Community Comments:

1. This process has been completely violated. It has turned out dishonest and not transparent as promised as Option 5 has been modified in a way never recommended by the committee.

2. FI backed trustees have once again influenced the process forcing the exact opposite timing of FI enrollment into the school upon the immediate opening of the school.

3. People want to know what back door dealing occurred at this board to radically amend the recommendations made by this community.

4. The government needs to once and for all come in a properly investigate this board that time and time again seem to violate the very process they present to the community.

5. Why is the recommendation being presented by anyone other than the Director. The public was not only notified verbally but in writing that this would be presented by the Director and only the Director to the trustees.

6. What is the Minister of Education going to do when the process has again violated by this board.

7. BRC committee members feel deceived by the HDBS.

We are hearing from the community in record numbers that they do not trust this board, they believe this board is dishonest and their processes do not follow their own procedures.

Why many are asking does this board not represent any other children except those in the optional French Immersion program that they keep forcing down the community’s throats, that they do not manage properly and is absolutely destroying education in our community.

If the HDSB ever believed this process would restore its credibility …they can think again.

The public is screaming about how dishonest this board is again.

Now the only question for the community is what the hell will the Minister of Education do about this. Again we are hearing from many in the community they have no faith that what they believe is an incompetent Minister will step in and make a change.

Here’s hoping to some honesty and transparency for mandated programming in Halton.

So now that we have presented what we are hearing from the community let us state clearly that Oakville Chit Chat challenge national media to get on this story and make it visually impossible for Halton to once again it seems ignore the will of the people and put optional programming ahead of mandated programming. Force for once a system that funds this programming based on rational and managed methods.

Will the Liberals be the government to restore sanity to education in Halton or do we collectively have to make this such a political issue that we ensure the Liberals are once and for all thrown out this fall. Maybe a change of government is needed to standardize the way in which education is delivered in our province.

Let us know what you think.

Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor,

I am writing to you to make sure that your paper has got coverage of a very important meeting which will take place at the Halton District School Board on June 1st, 7.p.m. On that night the Director of Education David Euale will make a recommendation to the Trustees of the Board,( based on the information brought forth by the Boundary Review Committee which has been in place since January of this year) for the programming and boundaries for the new West Oaks High School. This is a very important meeting of the Board as we don’t build and open 30 million dollar schools very often. It will also be the first opening of a new school under our new Director of Education, David Euale.

Ward 4 Oakville is a ward which has experienced huge growth and unfortunately our schools have not kept up with the builds of our houses. We will actually be short secondary placement options even with this new school. It is paramount that the community be aware that this is being brought before the board on Wednesday night as unfortunately other schools in Ward 4 have been hijacked for optional programming in the past and we need the community to understand the importance of this recommendation.

We have Trustees at the board table who may well try to change the course that this school is supposed to take. Any one of those Trustees could make a motion for that school to be for students who do not reside in that community, that is a huge concern. We need taxpayers to understand that their dollars are supposed to be fairly and equitably supporting ALL children in the public education system, not just those whose voices are louder and who think that they have entitlement over all others.

On Friday the Halton District School Board announced that it will hold a delegation night for the community on June 14th 2011. I urge everyone who cares about the outcome of this school to please delegate the board and have your voices heard. You can book your delegation through the Secretary of the HDSB at gortmakerg@hdsb.ca The rules and regulations of delegations are available on the school board website. Thanks for helping me to reach the community on this important matter.

Wendy Gunn
Advocate for fair and equitable education and member of the Coalition for Quality Education

HDSB hears delegations on new Ward 4 high school

Hot off the press…..the Halton District School Board will hear delegations from the public on June 14, 2011 (one day before voting on the fate re: new Ward 4 high school).


The press release states the following:

“Oakville secondary school boundaries at their June 1 Board meeting. Following that review, Trustees will set aside Tuesday, June 14 as a “Special Delegation Night” to hear any delegations on the matter before the report comes back to the Board on June 15 for decision.

The subject of Board Report 11090, entitled “SRA (Secondary Review Area) 103”, is secondary school boundaries within Oakville. Specifically, the report deals with the boundary review process for the new Oakville high school currently under construction at 2820 Westoak Trails Blvd.

Members of the Boundary Review Committee and Boundary Review Steering Committee have met regularly for the past several months to explore and assess all possible boundary scenarios. The report reflects the ideas and suggestions of the committee.

The Boundary Review Committee includes two parent representatives each from Palermo, Captain R. Wilson, Emily Carr, Forest Trail, West Oak, Heritage Glen, Pilgrim Wood, Abbey Lane public schools, and Abbey Park, White Oaks and TA Blakelock high schools, as well as the elected trustees for the respective area(s).

As per the Board’s by-laws, there will be a maximum of 25 delegations at the June 14, 2011 meeting, which starts at 7 p.m. at the J.W. Singleton Education Centre, located at 2050 Guelph Line in Burlington.

Delegations will follow the same process as for Board meetings, with the deadline to register as a delegate being noon on Tuesday, June 7, 2011. Delegation requests should be sent via email to Gail Gortmaker, Manager, Director’s Office, at gortmakerg@hdsb.ca. Depending on the number of delegations registered for June 14, the Board reserves the right to move the delegations to Wednesday, June 15 as part of the Board meeting agenda.

The Board’s delegations by-law can be found on the Board website at www.hdsb.ca under “Boardroom & Trustees”.

For a copy of Report 11090, please visit the Halton District School Board website: www.hdsb.ca and select June 1, 2011 Agenda Package under Boardroom & Trustees > Board Agenda & Minutes.

Will Ward 4 residents lose out again regarding new high school

After much debate and public input regarding the new Ward 4 high school, the public is now keen to see if this time a community school is indeed given to the children living in a community or will it once again be given away for those in FI programming. Is a boundary review not supposed to be about accommodation and not programming? Normally it does suggest that but that does not seem the case in Oakville.

Months have gone by with parents volunteering time and energy to make a difference by taking part in a committee which tried to come up with recommendations for the long awaited high school. Unlike what is often suggested that only those at the ‘board table know what is good for our kids’, many parents believe they know what needs to happen regarding education in our community. Many believe the community simply needs a true voice that is actually listened to.

Does this process currently underway sound eerily familiar. It should as Ward 4 did the same exercise just a few years back for Palermo Public School. What was the outcome of community input, consultation money and reports and tabled recommendations? Well, we would like to say that all went well but to many it was a mockery of the process when recommendations brought to the table were at the 10:30 hour replaced by a new motion put forward by the Ward 4 trustee. Considering this ‘new motion’ was apparently never seen by other trustees (even in light of its financial implications with grandfathering FI families re: school boundaries, busing, etc. with none of the same luxuries provided for to the English stream families) it seemed outrageous to the community that the entire process was hijacked in such a manner.

Did the Ministry of Education help that time when this last minute motion replaced all the hard work the ‘transparent process’ accomplished? Absolutely not which seems to be ‘par for the course’ for the Liberal Minister now in power.

What resulted for that school where the ‘process was deemed honest and transparent’ except when the last minute rallying resulted in the school having absolutely no caps on FI programming and a deliberate 5 to 1 boundary for the school? To many it is now the inevitable complete takeover of the new school to FI program. The numbers do speak for themselves. With projections earlier this year being noted as 1 to 2 classes for Grade 1 (English stream) to approximately 5 classes for French stream fairness in enrollment balancing should be seriously questioned.

The Long Term Accommodation Report is dismal as this brand new school is classified by the Planning Department as the only elementary school to be in ‘crisis’ mode. After only a year, how is this possible?

Putting Programming Before Accommodation for some at the HDSB. Are some of our trustees completely obsessed with providing for FI only?

That seems to be the consensus from many out on the streets of Oakville these days. The method of delivering quality education has put what appears a permanent divide between the 2 camps. What a shame. How could this have occurred? Many state is the complete lack of transparency and oversight that has caused the distrust and outrage.

Even with the dire predictions, screaming from the affected communities and public outcry, the HDSB and its trustees seem unwilling to correct the situation for Palermo. To date, no trustee has motioned at a board meeting to review and adjust the boundaries of Palermo.

So now we must ask, do you think they will give a damn just because it now relates to high school and not elementary school.

So now you ask how does this factor into the new process about to be brought to the table for the long awaited high school for the same ward that has given up an elementary school for programming only – remember the West Oak Trail fiasco and then Palermo?

Clearly the process as it starts with community input is not flawed. Most taking part do it in a honest manner hoping for the best solution. Even the Director would seem to want the best but the issue resides in the fact that the real power resides in the hands of the trustees who can ignore the will of the people to push their own agendas to support their ‘pet projects’ at the expense of the entire community.

Now that the Ministry has its ears to the fire with the community screaming possible foul once again, lets see what ‘rabbit out of a hat’ will be produced when the recommendations put forth by the committee are amended or ignored to suite select trustees as they cow down to their supporters and vote again for programming and be damned about providing a community school to the people of the community.

Lets see how transparent and honest the actions of our elected officials are. If their track record speaks as to actions going forward, many believe in our community it may not look good.

Why is ADHD students not identified under Spec Ed

Why is a child with ADHD not identified as a student with special needs currently in Ontario or other provinces in Canada? How can the Ministry of Education around the country violate our Human Rights Code that recognizes it as a disability and get away with it? What services are not provided because of this outrageous omission?

Although they may be bright intellectually, many children with ADD or ADHD lag behind their peers developmentally – as much as 30 percent in certain areas, according to research by Dr. Russell Barkley. This translates into a delay of 4-6 years for teenagers. As a result they may seem immature or irresponsible.

How does this affect them? They are less likely to remember their chores or assignments, complete their work independently, are more likely to say things or act impulsively before thinking, and the quality and amount of their work will fluctuate from day to day. Consequently, parents and teachers may need to provide more positive feedback, supervise school work more closely, give reminders of homework, and interact more frequently with each other to help the child cope with this disability.

ADHD is not the only medical diagnosis not considered under the vast array of exceptionalities covered under Special Education. Did you know Alcohol Syndrome is yet another one not covered.

A representative for the Ministry of Education recently attended a Halton District School Board council meeting where this issue was raised. The rep noted the Ministry is currently reviewing the list.

Now if another recognized ‘learning disability’ also exists with ADHD, services may be provided. What about a child who is identified with ADHD, which often includes varying issues, but not all recognized on Ministry lists?

For those, services may not be provided. This is extremely disturbing to families, parents, students, teachers and medical experts who know the devastating effects of ADHD on the learning capability of students and/or services available.

So how does the Ministry of Education handle students with ADHD? The majority of these students are currently not identified as a student with special needs in Ontario. The designation as an “exceptional student” gives students the right to receive educational accommodations.

According to the Ministry of Education, exceptionalities are currently intended to describe broad educational barriers that might be experienced by students. ADD/ADHD is not a specific category of exceptionality, however students with this disorder can be identified in various categories, such as Learning Disability or Behaviour.

The majority of school boards in Ontario and around the country do not classify ADHD a learning disability and therefore unless behaviour difficulties are extreme ADHD students are not identified as a special needs student thus services and support are not provided or guaranteed.

There are many areas affected by ADHD but one of the areas affected by ADHD is executive function. This function affects a student from learning memory to handing in assignments. When you read the information on how this impairs a student, and the fact that the Ontario Human Rights Code recognizes ADHD as a disability thus the Ministry is violating a child’s human rights not having this identified as a disability with all the services that can be provided it is outrageous this continues.

We were sent the following information by a Psychoeducational Consultant who works with children suffering from ADHD and other exceptionalities.

——–
ADHD, EXECUTIVE FUNCTION AND SCHOOL SUCCESS
Chris A. Zeigler Dendy, M.S.
(CHADD adapted the article for publication, February, 2008 Attention magazine and it was updated in 2010)

Five years ago, most parents and teachers of students with ADHD didn’t have a clue that a child’s academic success was contingent upon strong executive skills. However, today’s savvy parents and educators realize that deficits in critical cognitive skills known as executive functions are slower to mature in many children with ADHD. In 2007, researchers made a startling discovery: the brains of ADHDers mature three years more slowly than their peers. This helps explain why their executive skills are delayed. Researchers vary widely in reports about the frequency of these deficits in students with ADHD: some report 30-50 percent of children and others, including Drs. Russell Barkley and Tom Brown, believe that by definition, 100% of people with ADHD also experience these deficits. Practically speaking, problems with the “brain’s CEO” contribute to several academic problems: disorganization, difficulty getting started and finishing work, forgetting homework, plus difficulty memorizing facts, writing essays or reports, working complex math problems, completing long-term projects, being on time, controlling emotions, and planning for the future.

Before we understood the role of executive functions, parents and teachers were often baffled when students, even those who were intellectually gifted, teetered on the brink of school failure. Unfortunately, to the uninformed, deficits in executive skills often appeared to be a simple matter of “laziness or lack of motivation”. When a student had trouble getting started and finishing an essay or math work, it was easy to assume that the student chose not to do the task.

According to Dr. Barkley, a leading researcher, students with ADHD experience roughly a thirty percent developmental delay in organizational and social skills. Basically this means our children appear less mature and responsible than their peers. For example, a twelve year old’s executive skills are often more like those of an eight-year-old. To ensure academic success for these students, parents and teachers must provide more supervision and monitoring than is normally expected for this age group. I like to refer to this as providing “developmentally appropriate supervision.”

Although scientists have not yet agreed on the exact elements of executive function, two ADHD researchers, Dr. Barkley and Dr. Brown, have given us insightful working descriptions. Dr. Barkley describes executive function as those “actions we perform to ourselves and direct at ourselves so as to accomplish self-control, goal-directed behavior, and the maximization of future outcomes.” Through use of a metaphor, Dr. Brown gives us a helpful visual image by comparing executive function to the conductor’s role in an orchestra. The conductor organizes various instruments to begin playing singularly or in combination, integrates the music by bringing in and fading certain actions, and controls the pace and intensity of the music. Dr. Gerard Gioia and his colleagues also contributed to our knowledge when they developed the BRIEF (Behavior Rating Scale of Executive Functions).

Although our son Alex successfully struggled through the early school years, he finally hit the proverbial “ADHD brick wall” in middle school. Belatedly I realized that the demands for executive skills increase exponentially in middle school (working independently, organizing oneself, getting started, remembering multiple assignments). As a former teacher and school psychologist, I’m also embarrassed to say I failed for many years to recognize that a high IQ score alone was not enough to make good grades. It wasn’t until Dr. Barkley identified the central role executive function plays in school success, that I finally understood why school was so difficult for my son. Teachers would say, “Alex is very bright; he could make better grades if he would just try harder.” In truth, our children often do try harder, but even then, cannot make good grades without proper treatment and academic supports.

Components of Executive Function

Based upon material from Barkley, Brown, and Gioia I have outlined eight general components of executive function that impact school performance:

1. Working memory and recall (holding facts in mind while manipulating information; accessing facts stored in long-term memory; includes an impaired sense of time.)
2. Activation, arousal, and effort (getting started; paying attention; finishing work)
3. Controlling emotions (ability to tolerate frustration; thinking before acting or speaking)
4. Internalizing language (using “self-talk” to control one’s behavior and direct future actions)
5. Taking an issue apart, analyzing the pieces, reconstituting and organizing it
into new ideas (complex problem solving).
6. Shifting, inhibiting (changing activities, stopping existing activity, stopping and thinking before acting or speaking)
7. Organizing/planning ahead (organizing time, projects, materials, and possessions)
8. Monitoring (self-monitoring and prompting)

Let’s take a more in-depth look at just one element of executive functions – deficits in working memory and recall—and their impact on school work.

Poor Working Memory and Recall

Contrary to conventional wisdom, researchers report that working memory skills are a better predictor of academic achievement than IQ scores. This explains why children with ADHD and high IQs may still struggle in school. Teachers often mistakenly tell parents “your child is so smart, he could do better if he’d just try harder.” Deficits in working memory and recall negatively affect these students in several areas:

1. The “here and now”: Our children have limited working memory capacity that often impacts their behavior at home and in the classroom:

- remembering and following instructions.
- memorizing math facts, spelling words, and dates.
- performing mental computation such as math in one’s head.
- completing complex math problems (algebra)
- remembering one part of an assignment while working on another segment.
- paraphrasing or summarizing.
- organizing and writing essays.

2. Sense of past events: Because our students have difficulty recalling the past, they have limited hindsight; in other words, they don’t learn easily from past behavior. This may help explain why our children often repeat misbehavior.

3. Sense of time: Many students with ADHD also have difficulty holding events in mind and using their sense of time to prepare for upcoming events and the future. Consequently, they have difficulty judging the passage of time accurately. Practically speaking, they don’t accurately estimate how much time it will take to finish a task, thus they may not allow enough time to complete the work.

4. Sense of self-awareness: As a result of their diminished self-awareness, these students don’t easily examine or change their own behavior. Perhaps this explains why they often are unaware of behaviors that may alienate friends.

5. Sense of the future: Most students with a working memory deficit focus on the here and now and are less likely to talk about time or plan for the future. Thus, they have limited foresight; in other words, they have difficulty projecting lessons learned in the past, forward into the future. Not surprisingly, they have difficulty preparing for the future.

Common Academic Problems Linked to ADHD and Executive Function Deficits

Many students with ADHD have impaired working memory and some also have slow processing speed, which are critical elements of executive function. Not surprisingly, these skills are critical for writing essays and working math problems.

A research study by Mayes and Calhoun has identified written expression as the most common learning problem among students with ADHD (65 percent). Consequently, writing essays, drafting book reports or answering questions on tests or homework is often very challenging. For example, when writing essays, students often have difficulty holding ideas in mind, acting upon and organizing the ideas, quickly retrieving grammar, spelling and punctuation rules from long-term memory, manipulating all this information, remembering ideas to write down, organizing the material in a logical sequence, and then reviewing and correcting errors.

Since learning is relatively easy for most of us, sometimes we forget just how complex seemingly simple tasks such as memorizing multiplication tables or working a math problem really are. For example, when a student works on a math problem, he must fluidly move back and forth between analytical skills and several levels of memory (working, short-term, and long-term memory). With word problems, he must hold several numbers and questions in mind while he decides how to work a problem. Next he must delve into long-term memory to find the correct math rule to use for the problem. Then he must hold important facts in mind while he applies the rules and shifts information back and forth between working and short-term memory to work the problem and determine the answer.

To further complicate matters, other serious conditions may co-occur with ADHD. According to a landmark National Institute of Mental Health study on ADHD (known as the MTA), two-thirds of children with ADHD have at least one other coexisting problem, such as depression or anxiety.

Accommodating students with complex cases of ADHD is critical! These children are at greater risk than their peers for a multitude of school problems, for example, failing a grade, skipping school, being suspended or expelled, and sometimes, dropping out of school and not going to college.

Favorite School Success Strategies

Over the years I have identified several teaching strategies and accommodations that work well for students with ADHD. So here are just a few of my favorite tips:

General Teaching Strategies

• Make the learning process as concrete and visual as possible.
Written expression

o Dictate information to a “scribe” or parents.
o Use graphic organizers to provide visual prompts.
o Use “post-it” notes to brainstorm essay ideas.

Math

o Use a peer tutor.
o Use paired learning (teacher explains problem, students make up their own examples, swap problems, and discuss answers).
(After barely passing high school and college algebra, my son made an A in calculus plus had a 100 average on tests when the professor used this strategy.)
Memory
o Use mnemonics (memory tricks), such as acronyms or acrostics, e.g., HOMES to remember names of the Great Lakes.
o Use “visual posting” of key information on strips of poster board.
• Modify teaching methods.
o Use an overhead projector to demonstrate how to write an essay. (Parents may simply write on paper or a computer to model this skill.)
o Use color to highlight important information.
o Use graphic organizers to help students organize their thoughts.
• Modify assignments – reduce written work.
o Shorten assignments.
o Check time spent on homework, and reduce it if appropriate (when total homework takes longer than roughly 10 minutes per grade as recommended in a PTA/NEA Policy, e.g. 7th grader = 70 minutes).
o Write answers only, not the questions (photocopy questions).
• Modify testing and grading.
o Give extended time on tests.
o Divide long-term projects into segments with separate due dates and grades.
o Average two grades on essays– one for content and one for grammar.
• Modify level of support and supervision.
o Appoint “row captains” to check to see that homework assignments are written down and later turned in to the teacher.
o Increase the amount of supervision and monitoring for these students, if they are struggling.
• Use technology.
o Use a computer as often as possible.
o Use software to help teach skills.

Unfortunately students with ADHD are often punished for executive function deficits such as lack of organizational and memory skills that interfere with their ability to bring home the correct homework assignments and books. Hopefully, after reading this article, teachers and parents will develop more innovative intervention strategies. For example, one effective alternative would be to have someone (a friend or teacher aide), meet the student at his locker to get the necessary homework materials together. Ultimately, this process of “modeling” and “shaping” behavior at the critical “point of performance” will help the student master skills or at a minimum, teach him to compensate for deficits.

In Closing

Clearly school is often very difficult for students with ADHD. However, when executive function deficits are also present, the accompanying problems are often overwhelming to the student and family. Traditionally, some parents and teachers have had little awareness or sympathy for the challenges presented by these combined deficits. Hopefully, teachers and parents of today realize that ADHD is often a very complex condition! It is much more than just a simple case of hyperactivity. When deficits in executive function and related learning problems are also present, students can try their very best and still not succeed in school!!

So what should parents and teachers do with this new information?

Identify:

1) the student’s specific learning problems (e.g. written expression or math) and
2) their executive function deficits (e.g. working memory, disorganization, forgetfulness, or impaired sense of time) and provide accommodations in both areas!

I leave you with this food for thought, “Succeeding in school is one of the most therapeutic things that can happen to a child!! So do whatever it takes to help the child succeed in school.”

A Personal Comment: Our youngest son, Alex, struggled terribly throughout his high school and college years with ADHD and executive function issues. We’re proud that he beat the odds and graduated from college. So if your child is struggling in school, do not give up. My family offers living proof that there is hope and help for ADHD and coexisting conditions.

Please visit my website www.chrisdendy.com to learn more about my family and how we have coped with ADHD. Several helpful articles are also available for you to download and share with friends. Best wishes for school success to you, your children and students with attention deficits!!

References:

Barkley, Russell A. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, (3rd ed.) New York: The Guilford Press, 2006.
Brown, Thomas E. Attention Deficit Disorders and Comorbidities in Children, Adolescents, and Adults. Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Press, 2000.
Dendy, Chris A. Zeigler Teaching Teens with ADD and ADHD (Summary 28). Bethesda, MD: Woodbine House, 2000
Dendy, Chris A. Zeigler Teenagers with ADD, (2nd ed.) Bethesda, MD: Woodbine House, 2006.
Deschler, Donald D., Edwin S. Ellis, and B. Keith Lenz Teaching Adolescents with Learning Disabilities. Denver, CO:
Love Publishing Company, 1996.
Levine, Mel Educational Care.(2nd ed.) Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service, 2002.
Mayes Susan D. and Susan Calhoun “Prevalence and Degree of Attention and Learning Problems in ADHD and LD.”
ADHD Reports, v.8, n.2, April 2000.

Chris Dendy has over 40 years experience as a teacher, school psychologist, mental health counselor and administrator plus perhaps more importantly, she is the mother of two grown sons and a daughter with ADHD. Ms. Dendy is the author of three popular books on ADHD and producer of three videos, Teen to Teen: the ADD Experience and Father to Father. A new DVD for children and teens, Real Life ADHD, featuring 30 teens is currently in production. She and her son Alex coauthored a book specifically for teenagers: A Bird’s-Eye View of Life with ADD and ADHD: Advice from Young Survivors. She and her husband are members of CHADD’s President’s Council. She served on the national CHADD Board of Directors from 2001-2005. She was inducted into the CHADD Hall of Fame for outstanding contributions to the field.

———————

In addition to the above references noted, we want to acknowledge information for this article was also used from Centre for ADHD, Canada.

So in closing, considering the information above, why is this country not recognizing and supporting this exceptionalities or other medical conditions known to affect learning?

Let us know what you think

I can see Russia….no my local school from my front window

The notorious words of a ‘now famous celebrity figure…starting off as a political figure’ did come back to haunt her but now can be used to describe the situation many children face in Halton.

I believe the quote went something like this:

“I know about foreign policy. Yes, I can see Russia from my front window”.

What a classic moment in the world of insane politics and policy and yes we can thank non other than Sarah Palin for the moment. It represented the insanity when special interest, incompetence and insanity ruled the day.

Oh, yes it still continues now with the formation of the Tea Party.

Who needs to have logic, intellect and morals when ruling a country, delivering services, spending money and of course affecting every other country on the planet because you are a super power.

The only admirable quality I believe she and her cronies have is the ability to mobilize people who want to be heard. For that, I give them high marks.

So, how does this tie into our community education?

“I can see my local school from my front window….but unfortunately I am not allowed to go there. Accommodating me in the school takes a back seat (no pun intended) to offering programming to some of the select few”.

Do we have our own version of the Tea Party influencing our board and/or voting on accommodation decisions?

Has accommodation taken a back seat to programming in Halton?

Watching young children this morning walk to a local school where the school is located in the middle of the community struck me as the very purpose of schools and where they are located, who goes to them, etc.

As noted in many reports, including the now famous Cooke Report, Canadian education states the benefits and purpose not only having a local school in the core of its community so it can supports those around it but ensuring communities feel represented.

I guess as we centralize programming, ship all the local kids out to wherever they can fit, give away local schools to the select few based on our personal preferences, that vision of what schools are supposed to be may have got lost in the translation.

Changing the vary fabric of what a community and all the amenities in it (including schools), many now believe has devastated the very core of how children learn and feel connected to their community.

All in the name of the three S’s (Specializing, Streaming and Segregating). Is that the model of choice for the Halton District School Board? Many in our community believe it is.

So if this latest high school accommodation process is hijacked with some new version of what ‘should be’ (just like many believe the last elementary accommodation process was) using maybe the same methods used in the past that result in your child not being allowed at their ‘local school’ that he/she can ‘see out his/her front window’ ….remember …..gottcha…..

Let us know what you think.

HDSB feedback form contains ‘room for error’

The much debated Northwest Oakville High School Boundary Review Feedback Form is causing quite a stir in the community not only for the added 4th option noted in our previous article but what appears to many to be a lack lack of controls to ensure forms can be tracked back to community members. Without such tracking methods, many are saying duplicates could be submitted thus not accurately reflecting the community preference.
[Read more...]

HDSB includes option 4 on accommodation feedback form

Halton District School Board (HDSB) held an update meeting at Abbey Park this week to update parents on the 3 scenarios selected by the boundary review committee.

Community members were told that great effort, compromise and understanding were necessary to come up with the best 3 scenarios. The board and boundary review participants explained that scenarios were weighed against specific criteria before coming up with the final choices. Criteria was developed based on community feedback regarding what was important to them.

The panel told the audience there were 3 options, went over what each represented and acknowledged that issues had been raised/considered before selecting the final 3 choices.

So with that in mind, many are now asking why a 4th ‘Other Option’ was noted on the feedback form.

Feedback forms are being collected by the board to ask for input from parents on which scenario they would like to see implemented that will define boundaries and/or programming at the secondary level for Ward 4.

So why is an ‘Other Option’ being added to the form when the board itself spoke and said only 3 options were to be selected and voted on?

Why? Because we are being told during the final boundary review meeting, some representatives wanted the 6th scenario added that would see all Ward 4 French Immersion (FI) students go to the new high school. Is that now what ‘Other Option’ is representing?

Why is this such an issue:

1. The board told the public that the exercise of the boundary committee was to select 3 options and that all representatives would respect and support those choices as the final 3.

2. Scenario 6 taking all FI programming to one location would have serious effects on the south school which now has FI and would push the new school over capacity…thus it was not an option based on criteria and/or for logical reasons could be considered. This is what many fear the new Other Option may be based on.

3. Although the new high school was not to be classified single track FI, many fear it could be seen as a ‘grow it from the ground up’ method of overrunning a secondary school with FI programming. Since this is the same board which until now has not addressed developing what many believe is a sustainable management methods to control FI delivery, to many it seems a logical concern.

4. It could to many once again overcrowd a school and thus potentially take away a community school from mandated English programming and give spots away again in record numbers to optional programming.

5. The last accommodation review that involved elementary schools in the same ward, went through a similar boundary review process with community involvement, saw the Ward 4 trustee replace all motions with a new version that to many has help create a serious imbalance in programming and for many support the ‘grow it from the ground up STFI school’. Residents are saying pleas to correct this have thus far not resulted in real change.

6. Feedback forms were not tied to student numbers as asked by parents during feedback thus there is no method of ensuring the feedback is representing both streams equally.

Many are asking in light of the fact that the last accommodation review, whereby residents participated fairly, had the end result replaced instead with a version favoring French Immersion (both in protection, boundaries, and services), this latest attempt at sneaking in a 4th option could be viewed as a dishonest attempt again to sabotage a fair and agreed to outcome.

By including this 4th option for feedback, many are saying it is a method of trying to mobilize the French Immersion community once again to force an option on the a table that could be included in the final vote.

Transparency and honesty are key right now for a board that has lost such significant confidence by such a vast majority of its community.

This latest attempt at putting a 4th option on a comment form that is being as used as ‘feedback’ and may be used in the final decision is an issue to many.

We encourage residents to fill out a New Oakville High School Feedback Form (at the bottom of the HDSB page). It is extremely important to let the board know which of the 3 scenarios you would pick.

Let us know what you think.





Shop Celebrity Style at Singer22.com


Check Out New Arrivals at DesignersImports.com


PoshTots - extraordinary children's furnishings!

Is Halton school board sensitive to the appearance of ‘Conflict of Interest’?

Is the Halton District School Board (HDSB) reacting to community complaints that conflict of interest is occurring when trustees vote in services and benefits to select groups? Could this explain why during this week’s board meeting, that the normal declaration of ‘Conflict of Interest” was noted instead as a ‘Pecuniary Conflict’.

Complaints have been sent not only to the board, discussed openly within the community but have now reached even the Ministry of Education.


Pecuniary Conflict is defined as an adjective as:

1. of or pertaining to money: pecuniary difficulties.
2. consisting of or given or exacted in money or monetary payments: pecuniary tributes.
3. (of a crime, violation, etc.) involving a money penalty or fine.


School board meetings usually start with a ‘Declaration of Possible Conflict of Interest’. It is standard for the board to ask if any conflicts exist. In fact, the Agenda even notes it as such.

Why is this so important to state this when a school council meeting begins?

For residents, it shows that vested interest does not exist when decisions are made and voted on. For trustees, however, it refers to a monetary connection.

Based on the Education Act, most do not realize the narrow definition allowed under Conflict of Interest is related to only money and not the trustees’ ability to represent their community based on relationship or influence.

Many community members who have contacted Oakville Chit Chat do not necessarily mean ‘conflict of interest’ exists only based on money exchange. Rather, most believe that decisions they see as being biased and siding with optional programming or most recently the Primary Gifted programming rollout may have been based on trustees having a preference to the groups based on their children or family members being part of the group, affiliations with that community, etc.

HDSB critics state that far too often extra benefits or services are provided by trustee votes that do not serve the mandated or majority of the residents the trustees are supposed to be representing. Their objection is the narrow scope to which the conflict of interest term refers and what they believe is the manipulation of the HDSB trustees to work around that very definition.

So now we must ask, is the HDSB and its trustees sensitive to the appearance of conflict of interest based on the distrust of the public as noted above and could that explain the sudden switch to amend the verbal wording at their meeting contradicting the paper Agenda/Minutes distributed at the meeting and general tradition?

Could the new wording have resulted in the implementation of Bill 177 and its changes regarding trustee behaviour and conduct?

Does other areas of government, business and life not have the obligation to disclose the fact that outside relationships or interests exist that could affect one’s ability to provide objectivity. Is it not fair to expect the same to be included in the education system’s definition of conflict of interest?

Do you believe the Ministry of Education should amend the Conflict of Interest rules to include guidelines that factors in a bias based not only influence of money but that of family connections to the subject being voted on or discussed, etc.?

Many community members are stating the limited definition of Conflict of Interest as defined in the Education Act is no longer acceptable and should be changed to include what has become a standard within business, government and society today.

Let it be noted that school board trustees may have stated Conflict of Interest exists regarding issues being presented even when monetary compensation is not the issue but rather they too have seen the issue to include influence or relationship to the subject that could be interpreted as their objectivity to an issue or item being voted on could be questioned. Let it be noted, however, that many in the community believe when it comes to key programming decisions regarding French Immersion and Primary Gifted conflicts based on non monetary connections have not been noted even when relationships and influences could be argued.

Let us know what you think?

Other Related Stories

Burlington names its new school

Teacher association funds election campaign

New high school scenarios






Shop Celebrity Style at Singer22.com


Check Out New Arrivals at DesignersImports.com


PoshTots - extraordinary children's furnishings!