It is official…..the decisions made by the Halton District School board and the Ministry of Education’s lack of oversight and action have finally become an election issue.
As Oakville residents and the media ask for a response on the many programming decisions made by the HDSB, the Ministry of Education has refused to comment or intervene.
We along with community members have worked hard trying to highlight the inequities of programming decision.
Take a look at the Queens Park session when Sylvia Jones MPP voices here outrage regarding the new Gifted Primary Program in Halton and the response to why our Minister of Education allowed this to pass essentially pushing the most vulnerable to wait at the back of the line for testing (never mind the many services they may never get).
I am so pleased to see that someone is finally taking an interest.
The need for more support for Special Education children was discussed repeatedly during Ward 4 accommodation. Most Boards in Southern Ontario subsidise Special Education by between 10 to 30% over and above the Provincial envelope, the HDSB adds approximately 3%.
Many in our community believe both Don and Kathryn have continually advocated for Oakville’s most privileged children, and are now willing to do it at the expense of the most vulnerable. The need for a gifted program is indisputable, but the expansion of it without significant financial support, while resources are scarce is unconscionable.
Not surprising, but still a disgraceful disappointment.
Cindy, who are these “most privileged” you refer to? If your referring to gifted children please explain how the are “privileged”.
Gifted children are just as vulnerable as any other special need child.
Jean, as I said in my email, there is definitely a need for the gifted program, but it should not be at the expense of the 700 children who on average have been waiting 15 months for phsych. ed. assessments.
Clearly, the parents of these children do not have the resources to pay for the assessments themselves. If gifted children are allowed to jump the queue than I would suggest that KBO is advocating for them, and in Ward 4 that is a “privilege” enjoyed by very few.
No surprise to me, Dalton McGuinty has laways put children with special needs, more particularly, children with Autism on the back burner, he has no use for them or their parents. Gifted children he can brag about! (No disrespect intended to gifted children, just to the premier)
Just as a reminder in Halton we have a gifted program already for kids in Grade 4 and up – what the Trustees in Halton have just approved is and early gifted program for Grade 1′s. Most educators that I have spoken with believe this cannot be tested until Grade 4.
I understand there are some children who are gifted from an early age and require extra help, and I appreciate their stuggle, but so are the stuggles of the Learning Disabled children who do not get any extra time with out very strong parent advocates. As a mother of a LD child who went privately for testing, I have advocated and pushed for my son every step of the way.
The “priveledged” that we are referring to are the kids who seem to be recognised by the school board as needing help. In our board that is FI and now gifted. Parents who do not choose the optional programs are pushed out in the cold and have to push hard just to keep schools in communities.
Thank you to the minister for finally standing up and making this a big deal!!
I agree with Sandi’s comment above. The ones receiving ‘exception to all rules’ in Halton is FI and now gifted. While children in the mandated stream (English, Spec Ed, etc) are forced into classrooms together (except for the limited self contained classes left) regardless of severity of issues for the Spec Ed kids or the disruption to the remaining class population, our trustees continue to vote for their pet projects. Until recently it was only French Immersion children in an optional program that got the benefit of their voting seat. Not only do they refuse to include caps or ways of managing the optional programming unlike many other boards but their preferred model has been to provide this as single track thus throwing out communities from their local schools. They don’t have to be in the same classes with everyone else but they don’t even have to share the building. After many attended accommodation meetings that resulted in a dual school, the Ward 4 trustee and her other trustees who voted on her motion refused to put limits to continue the school as dual enrollment. The board has a disgusting job at protecting dual schools. So if you are one of the families that want or have been convinced that FI is where to be (because as pointed out on the site run by Ward 4 trustee and our new Chair) by its links to document stating who goes into FI and who doesn’t) you can be guaranteed to keep out all the Spec ed kids or ones with issues, boys, ADHD, etc. out. So what everyone is talking about ..they state they are not going to FI for language but because they better be there…. to be a good parent and make it appear they care about their kid’s education or they want to make sure the ‘issued’ kids are not in their kid’s class – the trustees who push this through can claim they have no idea and it is all about language. Bullshit.
This same FI group not only gets streamed classes and entire schools, they get busing at the elementary level and at the secondary level (unlike other ‘program) because it is the only program this board seems to care about.
So yes this board now decided to add gifted to their special interest privileged group they care to advocate for. They did not care about the group they pushed to the back of the queue who may have waited years for testing and now waited 2 years as they rolled this out but because of them they have anyone who questions their vote as being immoral not advocating for gifted. The gifted kids who are in SK (barely attending school) are more important than the child in grade 3 that has waited for help. Now we fight amongst ourselves accusing each other of not caring when collectively all of us (and that includes gifted parents) should be furious that they took from one to give to another instead of demanding that services be provided to all.
All the gifted parents who are thinking that we don’t care be aware that during the very meeting that they voted this in, that the trustees themselves said they had moral issue with approving this program because of the lack of services for all the other spec ed kids had, they also agreed to find the funding to make sure the backlog was cleared. Oh yes…they promised but guess what …..no funding…when the dept went for more money they gave nothing but more documents and figures to study.
That is what happens when you give crumbs to starving mobs. They fall over each other killing each other in the process to survive. It is a disaster and the Ministry of Education has time and time again been shown this board and the votes are immorally bankrupt.
I would go one step further than Sylvia Jones and say that I believe it is child neglect, allowing our most vulnerable children to languish for one, two or more years without the support they need. My hope is her questioning puts the Ministry in a position where they can no longer absolve themselves of all responsibility for the actions of the HDSB. It is time to examine the priorities, policies, and practices of this Board.
The HDSB has spent years pouring resources into promoting, supporting and growing programs, such as the Single Track French Immersion, for some students at the unacceptable expense of most others. This early gifted program is just the latest most glaring example. Many believe that the Trustee who initiated this resolution, and those who supported it, have reinforced a loud and clear message that it is only the best and brightest who are worthy of their support. They should hang their heads in shame.
The Ministry of Education must hold the HDSB and Trustees accountable for ensuring that all of the Mandated and Optional programs are delivered in a responsible manner. Programs should be studied thoroughly before they are implemented. The effectiveness and success of the programs should be benchmarked and re-evaluated regularly. The impact on students in the program and those who are displaced by it must be very seriously considered and monitored as well as the impact on the communities. Clearly this has not been part of the process for the new gifted or the French Immersion programs.
The distribution of resources and fiscal responsibility should be transparent. Any Trustee whose children or family members are directly affected by the outcome of a decision or who have an affiliation with any special interest group lobbying for specific programs should not be part of HDSB committees to study the merit of those programs and should refrain from voting on those specific issues.
In the past it appeared that some Trustees voted to advance their personal agendas and those of their special interest groups, rather than to support sound educational and fiscal decisions to enhance the education of all of our children. Sadly, it seems to be a continuing trend with this new board of Trustees.
Jean,
I have posted this comment in more than one place in the hopes that you will see it. Your lack of understanding of the issue and what people are trying to say clearly demonstrates you don’t have children attending an English Track elementary school, and you don’t have a child with a learning disability.
I don’t have a child with a learning disability, but as my children often share classes with children who do, I appreciate how under supported these children are.
You need to stop being so hostile towards kids with learning disabilities, they have a right to learn and to be supported.
Cindy;
Well said, I could not agree with you more. I do not have a child with special needs, but I have also witnessed the heartbreaking struggle of some families in my community who are in constant battle to get the support their child needs to be successful in school.
Oakville Chit Chat has hit the nail on the head. Everyone has a right to education and fairness is all parents are asking for. Taking from one to give to the other is not acceptable, and neither is queue-jumping. If we are to provide separate programs, do it for kids with disabilities as well as kids that are gifted or in an FI program. Absolutely we must provide the support to all the kids that need it – gifted included – but do it in a fair way that does not impact those already waiting… and not only struggling with their own learning, but dramatically affecting the quality of education for peers in their classrooms. Lets not forget the needs of our regular kids in all of this.
My child with special needs has been fortunate enough to get support – only because we organized our own Psych-Ed assessment for her early on. She is one of the lucky ones. With this support she has been able to participate in a regular classroom and there has been no disruption to teaching for the other kids in her class. However many kids in her (and her older brother’s) classrooms have not been so lucky. Whilst children are waiting for assessments or not given support due to lack of funding, there is constant disruption to teaching as those with special ed needs take up the time, energy and teaching resources of the staff.
Oakville Chit Chat is right, fighting amongst ourselves is not the answer, we must unite in our common cause for an adequate amount of funding to ensure ALL of our children are supported in their educational needs.
The Education Act has defined giftedness as a special need for a reason. Please learn something about the children that you are maligning before doing so.
You are only trying to pit parents with special needs against each other at a time when they should be fighting the ‘powers that be’ together.
I understand that the Toronto District School Board only has a 6 month wait list, whereas ours has a 14-18 months for assessments. Oakville is supposed to be ‘big money’, so why isn’t any of it getting funneled into our schools??
There’s a bigger picture here.
Stop trying to derail the progress of the children you don’t deem ‘worthy’ of attention – they are innocent in this – every last one of them. Just because you don’t understand their needs doesn’t mean you should wish further hardship on them.
Sylvia Jones doesn’t know what she’s talking about.
Darlene we appreciate your comment above but let us reassure you that no one at Oakville Chit Chat is not working to report on issues that not only face Gifted but all Spec ed children and children in general. As for pitting parents against each other, many feel the HDSB has done that by implementing programs which their own trustees had serious issues implementing. We have been provided video of how this vote went down and the very concerns noted here and in other media are exactly what was voiced by many trustees in the November vote. This program only got in by 1 vote. In addition, SEAC members took exception re: the children they represent as being just as in crisis and needing assistance. When you take from one to give to another there is bound to be backlash especially when some are waiting for years for testing/services. Although no one has said Gifted or any specific exceptionality does not need servicing, it cannot be at the cost of others or not done in a fair method based on a pilot that needed further studies. Often individual groups only look at the outcome as they are concerned without seeing the entire picture of the effect as a whole. Following the paper trail, meetings, commentaries, and processes it sheds a very different light on how the process is done, for who and at what cost. Maybe it is too much to expect that a specific group benefiting from the outcome can see the overall effect and issue but as parents we believe it is important for our children to know that the mission statement our board has about treating and serving all children actually be acted on and clearly many believe it was not. If you really believe they are looking after all children equally, I suggest you order at a minimum the CD of this meeting from the board and hear the rationale for leaving most of spec ed children behind and unserviced. If they needed to revisit Gifted programming and timing they could have ensured the area was first cleaned up, methods of delivery were standardized, that the pilot had enough time to prove worthy in how/what was implemented and that all issues re: gifted were addressed. None of that happened when this program was rammed through on the last night of our outgoing board, with a 2 month trial etc. In addition, as stated on the CD process may have been violated as noted by trustees who stated they had no idea how it came to them or was being voted on as it came to them only as incidental information. That is not how something especially something as big as a new program is supposed to be tabled or voted on. If this turns out to be a violation of process than the entire way they do business is up for criticism regardless of whether or note they voted in the November meeting to go ahead with the program. Regardless of what they want to implement their intentions must be pure and the process must be done correctly. If not, the board will be nothing more than a soapbox for specific trustees to push their own agenda. That is the belief by many in the community. Gifted programming just happens to be for many the latest example of them doing this. In no way, however, do we suggest that Gifted children should not be provided for services it is just how and what was provided is causing outrage in our community. Who knows what next ‘pet project’ will be rammed through if serious analysis is not done this time. Maybe it will be the gifted children who will be penalized when they decide to give to others and take away from someone. I can only assume that parents of the 3% of gifted would not be happy with that outcome either. Let this board know that our community holds them accountable for what they vote and equally important how they get there.