Time sensitive assessment – what does that really mean?
To a parent who has struggled trying to get their child an educational assessment through their education board, it probably means an assessment as soon as possible before their poor child who has waited for what feels like forever ….is never able to catch up. Time sensitive is for that parent the possibility of losing their child forever or at the very least that child’s future.
To an educational board, however, time sensitive assessment refers to the timing needed for an assessment. For boards and trustees voting on policy change and program implementations, it means those having Primary Language Class Assessments and Grade 4 Gifted Assessments – because they need to be done quickly to meet the needs of a specific grade or program entry point.
For HDSB, however, time sensitive assessment now means an additional thing. To them it also means those having the Primary Gifted Assessments. For this year, approximately 360 students happen to require testing to quality to go into this board’s new Gifted Primary program in September. Although their testing takes less time than a regular assessment, with no additional staff hired, how can the resources normally allocated to perform full assessments not be impacted? Has this new program that was approved last fall requiring partial assessments allowed some to queue in front of others who have waited?
Sitting through last night’s board meeting was not nearly as informative as some would like to believe. Listening to clarification regarding the Special Education report that outlined excessive numbers of children on the wait list for educational assessment testing and the additional details asked for by trustees, offered very little new information to those in the audience. To hear some children’s needs referred to as ‘time sensitive’ because those children should not possibly miss out on entering the new program our board decided to implement met with disbelief by members of the community.
Trustees asked in-depth questions on recycling, standardization of school equipment and policy/procedure details. What did not seem to follow were in-depth questions on how a wait list could have occurred not servicing our most needy, what criteria was used to approve a new program adding hundreds of children to the list, and questions/rationale as to why such a program was approved or should continue in light of the excessive backlog.
As a reporter…. I got it. Every parent sitting in the audience got it and the other reporter sitting beside me got it as well.
To suggest the official report online might be misleading, inflammatory or that our reporting of the facts was based on anything but the statistics provided is nothing short of insulting but I get it …..one must defend one’s decisions.
So what did last night’s meeting or the official report presented highlight:
1. Time sensitive refers to very different things depending on whether you are a parent or a trustee.
2. HDSB did not provide evidence that an existing plan/document that outlined steps, procedures or options providing a sustainable plan for Special Education or educational assessment delivery already existed or that if it did exist, that it could answer some of the questions/concerns raised by some trustees. Following a motion presented last evening, however, the board did agree to develop a plan/document addressing some of the questions trustees raised and that it would be available for review in the next month or 2.
3. HDSB trustees voted last fall to implement a Primary Gifted program which requires a testing process for 360 children with the expectation that is ‘time sensitive’. The program was approved without having the document now being developed, without adding any additional staff to complete the Gifted Primary assessments. Are these children being allowed to jump the queue in front of many other needy children and if not, how does the same amount of staffing possibly not get pulled off the children already on the list?
4. Primary Gifted screening takes less time than regular assessments. Regardless of whether more assessments can be done in the same time period, HDSB approved the implementation of this program without adding any additional resources to complete the task thus potentially impacting those already waiting.
5. Primary Gifted program vote occurred before trustees were provided the startling numbers presented in the report before them.
6. Gifted children tested at such an early grade level may have an academic advantage to be able to catch up unlike some left waiting who may not be able to.
7. This new board of trustees did not implement this program. This new board, however, did not question the rationale of allowing the Gifted Program to be approved or recommend suspending the Primary Gifted program to ensure that the existing backlog be first cleared.
8. Gifted Primary testing does not test for other issues. Gifted children can have other identifications which are not included in this screening.
9. Grade 4 Gifted Program may be at risk after this new program is fully implemented.
10. Information noted by the Special Education report attached to the minutes and submitted at the time of the board meeting indicated staffing issues and remedies to assist staffing requirements to clear up some of the backlog on the wait list. The information noted provided options to be considered to increase either hours for existing staff or outsourcing assessments. Recommendations included increasing workload on existing staff (March Break or Summer break) or contracting out workload to outside resources.
What business runs a whole new product line without having done proper analysis, developing a strategic plan and ensuring proper staffing to produce the product. If you were building widgets you would determine your costs, know what materials were required, ensure you had staff to build the widgets, etc. Surely if mid way you discovered facts that caused concern you would suspend operation and solve the issues or at the very least offer concrete options. Not so some believe when the widgets happen to be education.
So yes…Dear Trustee we all get it. The decision made by the HDSB last fall to introduce a new program for only some students potentially allowing them to jump the queue could impact some of the 700 student from having a full assessment.
Yes we get it……..that some parents leave this board and go elsewhere either for testing or even for education because they are tired of dealing with backlog and politics.
Yes we get it….this little decision is costing approximately $800,000 to fully implement. As stated during the board meeting, the Ministry is not funding this program directly leaving many to ask where the money is coming from.
Yes we get it…..that once again there are those in our community who believe that favouring some and segregating them is unfair.
As always we welcome all members of HDSB to comment and/or provide information regarding this issue.
Let us know what you think.
Good synopsis of the evening.
I found the clarification of the difference of assessment of the 700 currently on the waiting list versus the gifted testing condescending. Of course we understand the difference between a full and partial assessment, and both obviously take time. 6 hours/assessment X 360 additional assessments is still a lot of time to find out if an SK student may be gifted when the board remains short staffed in this department to begin with. Time that could have taken 100 kids off that 700 wait list.
The worst of that, is that only 40% of those children will meet the criteria for the new program when we know that of those 700 students waiting – an identification is imminent.
I do not have a problem with the HDSB prioitizing special education programs for children in need, I just think they got their priorities wrong on this one.
I couldn’t agree more. Time is of the essence and students cannot wait.
In the meantime, Parents may want to take a look at resources available at The Society for Quality Education http://www.societyforqualityeducation.org
Here’s what I think.
A good reporter should always check her facts. You’re commenting on the needs of children you know nothing about. Have you checked the facts on gifted children?
At the Halton DSB gifted children have always had to wait until grade 4 for testing and grade 5 for programing, which means all other children “jumped the queue” on them. Gifted children received nothing until then even if they showed signs of being gifted in kindergarten. You failed to mention that fact.
If you have proof that gifted children are LESS needy than other children then produce it. I dare you.
Unless the government coughs up more money there will alway be a backlog and history shows us that gifted children have always been the ones to suffer. Check that fact.
FYI – you don’t need an assessment or an identifcation to get an IEP. Check that fact.
Research already exists on programing for gifted children – it says identify early, provide programs early, gifted children learn best with other gifted children. Why waste money doing more. Check that fact.
Clearly you think gifted children don’t have special needs and are not deserving of special programs or services but gifted children are NOT widgets. Using you logic, if the Halton board doesn’t have enough money to provide assessments, services and programs for all their students with special education needs then maybe they should just cut special education out all together. Then all the chidren can suffer equally.
Does it make you feel good to know your picking on children. You should fight your battle with the Ministry of Education not little children.
To Doretta Wilson: have you checked the facts on the needs of gifted children, if you did you wouldn’t be pushing for inclusion for all.
Jean: I’m not sure to whom all your comments are directed. Where did I say I was pushing for inclusion? I was agreeing that ALL children should be assessed (if needed) so that whatever interventions they should have for special education (of which gifted programs fall under) happen soon than later. I said “students can’t wait” especially when there are learning disabilility issues. The longer a child waits for remedial intervention, the harder it becomes to have a successful intervention. That is a fact.
I’m for making sure ALL children get the best education possible. I DO know the needs of gifted children because one of my three children was one.
The Society for Quality Education believes families should have access to the spectrum of choices available for their children. Our mission is to improve significantly improve student learning through effective instructional practice, accountabilty, and school choice. I invite you to check it out. http://www.societyforqualityeducation.org
I think the issue now faced by our community today regarding this new Gifted program goes beyond the program itself but rather the method of delivery. We have reported on facts as presented to us by HDSB personnel (via meetings, minutes, reports, etc.), by community opinion, by research we have either conducted and through personal and professional experience. As a parent having gone through the testing process, IEP process etc. as well as being related to others who work directly with children with these issues both dealing with the issues, testifying in court, developing educational/support plans etc. (working with social services, ministry of education, mental health, and social services) we do come with some insight as to what occurs when children’s needs are not addressed properly. Our personal experience and our investigative research, however, does not make us an expert. To be a true expert we believe you have also have educational/medical expertise. As parents we bring to the table our own experiences/biases/perspectives and that is one of the issues we believe with the voting. Advocating for a specific group does not mean you are an expert either in that specialty or can dictate the effects/issues of another group.
The method of delivering education in Halton has consistently pitted family against family. It pits one group against the other because they keep pushing one delivery model for a group while providing a different delivery model for another. It starts to look like one is not advocating for the other when in fact the issue is that all should be equal and represented.
We do appreciate your perspective. We can only assume that you either have a child that is gifted or are affected in one way or another. This allows you a perspective that may not shared by others who do not have the same situation. We can fully appreciate you advocating for this group of children. Every parent wants the needs of their child addressed. That is our job but as a community and an educational board all children should be treated equally addressing individual needs.
As such I will address some of your specific comments.
1. Gifted not receiving testing until grade 4/5 – You are absolutely right and this may indeed be too late for some. Experts agree that the help should be received early for many issues but they also say the longer you wait the more difficult it is to catch up. Experts also disagree as to timing of many assessment testing. How often is a child misdiagnosed without proper testing. Unfortunately, this new program is not just about testing but implementing a program in Grade 1 where the children have had few years in school, where socialization is very immature, etc. For some testing may need to be tested earlier than 4-5 but to do massive testing to approximately 500 children where even the experts state the testing is not the same because of such a young age is causing much debate even between the experts. Many experts say this is too young. Maybe the solution is earlier than 4 but not at 1.
2. Gifted children may be just as needy as other children on the list. We never said they were not. What was stated was that they may have the capability of catching up once resources are provided when some on the list who wait years may not. The variety of those on the list have learning issues that may not allow them the ability. The issue with this program is that children already at such a young, who have not fallen behind for years, who have not waited for years are on mass being allowed to be tested and then segregated into specialized programming. Although the board states 2 years we have heard from many many families on the list for years. We know personally of many families who have gone for private testing quite frankly giving up on this board ever getting around to testing their children and in some cases left the public system completely (many also not being really able to afford it). At SK a child cannot possibly have fallen behind as much as a child waiting for years for help…the math simply does not add up. The debate really is whether grade 4 is too long for this group.
3. Gifted children have suffered along with many other children with needs. Our board has done an dismal job addressing the needs. It seems our board is too busy streaming out children to optional programming, spending millions on busing, taking community schools away and not managing our budget properly. Our wait list as reported by The Star is up to 2 years (really debatable as it seems way higher for many families) with 700. Toronto is 4-6 months with 2,000. Having come from the Toronto board, I can state that their needs are far greater as the issues, diversity, etc. facing that board is extreme in comparison. To say gifted children have suffered more may not be a comfort for thousands of parents with children with a variety of issues who have had no testing and definitely no support from this board. As for money, the government has not couged up the approximately $800,000 for this new program. That has been confirmed by the board and stated in meetings. So how can this board suddenly find this kind of money yet they can’t find it for all the other kids waiting years?
4.Assessment testing is essentially often to determine the true nature of the issue. How often has a parent been told the issue is one thing and it turns out after testing to be something completely different. Gifted children in particular often seem to have ‘other issues’ according to teachers when the issue turns out to be gifted with all the symptoms/results of that classification. Assessments allow you to know what you are dealing with and quite frankly allow you to force support – although that could also be debated as the system takes away resources resulting in lack of support.
5. Research quoted is the same for children with learning issues. Children with any learning issues need to be identified early, provide programs early, and all learn best with an appropriate environment. Gifted are not the exception to that. Inclusion is the model of choice for spec ed kids but this is the same board advocating segregation for gifted while forcing inclusion for others by closing self contained classes even if their treatment requires specialty classes. For this same group, while forcing inclusive modelling they lack the support needed which not only impacts the child in question but the entire class. I know that for a fact as I have experienced it as a parent and have dealt with school faculty scrambling dealing with it. This same board is far too interested in segregating the FI programming (even as much as in the building with their STFI delivery model) so many are just plain fed up with having the trustees vote for segregating the programs they support while forcing integration for all mandated programming. The segregation/integration model goes far beyond gifted when it comes to HDSB.
6. We do not believe children should suffer…quite the opposite. We believe that all of these children should be serviced but equally. We have rattled the cages all the way up to the Ministry demanding accountability and action. We have spent countless years advocating for all children when we personally have not benefited because we believe that education should be providing for all.
This board seems to advocate segregation for some while forcing integration for others. Their method of delivering education, timing, and their lack of servicing the others is at the heart of the issue resulting again in the same thing….pitting one group against the other.
The timing of the new primary gifted testing was noted by the Super of Spec Ed. himself during the board meeting where he acknowledged (and this is recorded) that after doing the Primary Gifted testing they would then continue with the remaining people on the list. Even if gifted is done at Grade 4 the very children that are being tested for this new program have not waited until grade 4 but are on in SK so they have in fact jumped in front of children who have waited with no regard as to the severity of those waiting.
This board should be pushing for funding to clear up all kids needing an assessment and then if they want to start looking at specialized programming then that should be the next step. It is the timing and streaming. Their obsession re: specialized programming only for some while they sit not providing for others is changing the very nature of the classroom. Our backlog and our reputation re: assessment timing/servicing spec ed is quite frankly a disgrace.
This board needs to be accountable, advocate for all, deliver programming in a similar fashion based on needs not grouping kids together.
We do appreciate your perspective and do not in any way want to suggest that Gifted are not within the Spec ed grouping, have any less rights, etc. but pushing one group ahead of the other has outraged many in our community and has now quite frankly become an election issue.
In addition, the pilot for which this new program was based was 2 months old. Many of the trustees themselves stated they were not comfortable voting on it and the experts did not recommend expanding based on the limited knowledge they had based on this pilot. A pilot needs time to ensure its findings are accurate. Two months is not sufficient as noted in the meeting itself.
The gifted children in the contained classes are CONGREGATED, as in brought together, not segregated, as in keep away from others. People of the same religion congregate together.
The pilots have already been done for you. Congregated classes for primary age gifted children is nothing new. It’s done at other boards, in other provinces, in other countries. It’s supported by the research.
Other boards cheat the wait list by not put children on it until 3 months before they are to be tested.
The research says and those who are experts in the area of gifted children and their educational needs will tell you, gifted children can be identifed as early as age 3 and waiting until grade 4 is to late.
Gifted children NEED to be grouped together – read the research. Gifted children do not do well in the regular classroom.
Why should gifted children have to wait until grade 5 before they get anything? Others are getting services and programs before grade 5 but you want gifted children to suffer until then. Is the fair?
The Ministry of Education has not said anything about closing or not offering contained class programs. One special education service model can not meet the needs of all children. Blind children and deaf children have very different needs. Gifted children and developmentally delayed children have different needs. Two children, both with autism could have very different needs. One size does not fit all. Should all children be offered the same recreational program – We could all save money if we only offered soccer and not baseball or hockey.
You’re just looking for reasons to deny services to gifted children. You have no real concern for them.
The parents of gifted children should launch a class action lawsuit against the government for allowing school boards to neglect their children.
Parents of gifted children are getting nothing but a babysitting service for their children at school. If my children can function academically at a grade 6 level, he’s not learning anything sitting in the regular grade 2 classroom, except that he doesn’t matter because the needs of the others have to come first. And you’d like to keep that way for another 3 years.
I’ll bet you think my son should spent his time at school helping the other kids. Well the other kids think my son is freak and won’t go near him. He sits in the class alone most of the day reading books, trying to ignor teasing by the other children. This goes way beyond academics.
If you get your way, even if I do have my son tested privately the Halton board will have nothing for him until grade 5 – NOTHING. If a grade 1 child who isn’t gifted gets tested privately he’ll get a program or services well before grade 5. Is that fair? The other children HAVE been jumping the queue for years because they can get programs or services in grade 1. Do you really think that’s fair?
With or without an assessment my son will get NOTHING. He’s teacher has no time for him because he’s not failing. Is that fair?
My son is punished twice for being born gifted. He prays to God to fix him so he can be like the other kids. I pray to God that he can get into a gifted class and be with other kids like himself before he goes crazy.
You and your friends are very selfish, ignorant, bullies. You’re punishing innocent children because you can’t your way. Your children ARE getting services even without an assessment, and before grade 5. My child is getting nothing, he must wait until grade 5, with or without an assessment. That means he’ll have been on a waiting list for 4 years for an assessment and 5 years for a service or program.
As always we appreciate your comments above.
From what you have noted above regarding your son you obviously have specific issues that need resolution. Segregation as referred to re: above comment was based on FI programming and gifted.
Research as you have noted does support separating gifted as is done for example at Morden. Most would agree this is one method but there are others. Whether they are ‘congregated’ or not they are still separated into specialized classrooms. As for others being forced inclusion by this board closing self contained, they absolutely have. Several years ago self contained classrooms were closed as the inclusive model was rolled for spec ed. After some advocating happened for some families that desperately needed to remain in self contained classrooms, a few remained and they did not roll out the closure as swiftly as first intended. The number of self contained classrooms has declined and the model was moved to integration. That is a fact. During the November meeting the trustees commented on the reduction. During the inclusion method rollout the Super of Ed. presented the entire ‘new model and her vision’ while pushing an entirely different method of delivery for gifted as noted in the 1988 Spec Ed plan onward. I have personally read these reports and that is one of the reasons the community at the time and now are outraged. All children were being forced to adopt to this new method of delivery while the same individual was advocating for an entirely different model for another. The issue with inclusion although some children do have support in the classroom is that a) many don’t b) SERTs and support are at a bare minimum c) other children are complaining and affected. I know this for a fact as I have dealt with it, talked to support staff, talked to teachers and staff. To say that this board (regardless of what the Ministry says or not) has provided properly staffing/resources for spec ed kids is simply not true and it has changed the very nature of the classroom.In addition, they push their FI program streaming out high academic learners overcrowding schools, taking community schools away, etc. leaving the dynamics again in the regular classroom to fall apart. That is a fact. Over the last decade the board has changed the model of educational delivery in our community and the Ministry does nothing about it. The gifted may need services faster (I fully appreciate that) but again it is the method they have delivered it. Let them find money to fund the backlog for children who have waited years for testing – although many will never get proper support even after getting testing – out of a rabbit hat like they have for this new program before stating that these kids get all this stuff you claim. In addition, even if gifted wait until grade 4 (which may be too late) they then get services and classes which quite frankly many with issues never receive. Our board has been too interested in advocating for specific programs (specifically FI) while leaving the most vulnerable (including gifted) to fend for themselves. Maybe they could give back the hundreds of thousands of dollars they took for busing to cover their transportation deficit and give it to spec ed instead of busing our kids out of community schools because they take schools for FI. If you can get $$$ in a budget to cover busing then maybe you can get it for servicing spec ed. It is all interconnected. It is a complete disregard for mandated programming (and that includes gifted) while they advocated for optional programming that is at the heart of all the issues. The Ministry so far has been useless regarding programming issues so left unchecked they once again pit us against each other. I at no time have not advocated for gifted. In fact I have been on record stating they provide one of the oldest schools in Oakville to our ‘best and brightest’ while they take brand new schools away from communities. They have fallen short for gifted I agree but they have not and continue to provide adequate support to the remaining spec ed kids who still to this day do not have their services funded correctly. The 700 on a wait list prove that. In addition, gifted children have received testing before grade 4 as many gifted children have learning issues in the classroom that are not misinterpreted as other issues and it is only through testing that gifted is determined so to make a statement that gifted children wait until grade 4 is actually not entirely true. The formalized gifted testing is at that time but some receive testing (assuming they are the lucky ones on the list to get anything) looking for other learning issues. It is through the assessment that the gifted determination is discovered. Again, this is why proper testing is so important for all children – to know what you are really dealing with. There are stories of children waiting years, hospitalized, with specialists notes etc. who never get the help. In addition, our board pays low salaries so positions continue to go unfilled. Even when the Super of spec ed recently went for more money to clear up the backlog they provided nothing. Their solution was to document more. That simply does not help the children waited. I cannot stress that anyone in this battle is not saying gifted is not entitled to services or have needs but this board needs to start delivering in the same method and putting all of these children’s needs as a priority not just cherry picking. They are playing politics with kids futures.
The board pushes FI because the Ministry gives school boards more money for children enrolled in FI. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/funding/1011/technical10.pdf see pg. 44.
How can programming for gifted children cost $800,000.00 more? You say 500 kids will be tested that’s $1600.00, a private test for gifted costs less than half that. It can’t be the cost for contained classrooms because the cost is the same as a regular class. The teacher is paid the same, there are 20 children in a primary gifted class the same as a regular class.
Why aren’t you complaining about the amount of money the board spends on the other special needs children? Like the developmentally delayed children.
There are 10 or fewer developmentally delayed children in a class with up to 3 or more teachers per class. That’s more than $25,000.00 a year per child. Since children can stay in school until they’re 21(and these children usually do) that’s around $400,000.00 to educate each of these children. The Down syndrome Association wants these children in the regular classroom, with their own personal assistant, which costs even more. They want these children in the regular classroom so much that they are willing to sacrifice the needs other children and the Ministry of Education, the school boards and you have given into them by allowing the “inclusion” policy to be misinterpreted. The best way for the Down syndrome association to get what they want is force boards to close contained classes for all special needs children. So right now you’re fighting their fight for them. Everyone is so afraid of being politically incorrect that no one stands up to them.
There are approximately 50 DD children in the Halton board right now, that’s more than $1,250,000.00 per year spent on these children. For that kind of money we should expect great contributions to our society from those children. Perhaps one of them will discover what causes Down syndrome or they’ll cure cancer. In reality these children will at best, work a few hours a week at McDonald’s then go home to an assisted living facility, paid for with our tax dollars. Are we spending our educational tax dollars wisely here?
Let’s look at this as a business analogy. While all employees contribute to the success of a company, CEO’s are paid more than VPs; VPs are paid more than managers and so on down to the labourers who make the least. Why, – because the CEO’s contribution to the success of the business is great then that of the labourer. How about looking at it as a product, as you did earlier when you compared gifted children to inanimate widgets. Which product would a company invest more in, the product that will give them a 100% return for their investment or the product that will never be profitable? The company that chose latter would soon be bankrupt and its employees would be out of work.
So in education why do we spend the most on those who are most likely to make little or no contribution to the greater good of our society? Spending more on the other special needs children, those who will contribute to our tax base not be a burden on it, would serve our society better. It would also be good business sense. Is it fiscally responsible to spent $25,000.00 per year on the education of a development delayed children? Privately we all say no. Publicly it’s more acceptable to take from the child that society mistaken believes will be successful no matter how little we do for them. Gifted children already receive less of our special education dollar and the less teacher time than any other exceptionality. A contained class will help them the most and cost the least but let’s take that away from them so it looks like we’re being fiscally responsible and we’ll be politically correct too.
The cost of this program as noted in board meetings and documents has stated $800,00 for a complete implementation. Costs involve busing, teaching and all other factors to implement the program. Testing costs are only part of the total amount. Because they have chosen to segregate many children are bused in but this still is a cost to the board. These are not figures we made up. The board has also noted in the same resource material that there is no funding coming from the Ministry re: this. They still need to determine how to pay for this program. That means it comes out of the general budget pot but still this board implemented a program without even specifics on how to fund it. This program re: wait list alone is taking away from one group and giving to another but who knows who has services taken away to pay for this because they can’t be specific about where the money for the entire implementation is coming from.
As for the business analysis you mention, as noted by many high level academic programs (e.g. Queens MBA programs) they actually teach in the program that most businesses and contributions to the ‘economy’ as you noted are from business individuals not pure academics.
Having said that, I want to make it clear once and for all that we in no way condone lack of funding or resources for special ed kids. In fact, quite the opposite. We are disgusted by the lack of money, resources, foresight and concern re: how programs are implemented, to who, and when. Self contained classrooms need to be available for those who need them but with the closures they are often not. When the board implemented the ‘inclusive model’ several years ago they made sure that closing many self contained classrooms to those who needed them occurred. Closure of these classrooms was referenced in the November meeting as well as other times. We, unlike yourself, are not advocating for our child or a group of children who have the same issue as our child but rather the fairness of the entire model. This program and the way in which it is implemented takes from one to give to another it is that cut and dried. Whether any of these groups are entitled to services is an entirely different matter. The trustees job when voting is to serve all children not children represented by their personal family experience. All children in spec ed (and quite frankly our entire community) have the right to fair, equal and balanced education…including the method of delivery. This is where we absolutely disagree with the HDSB and resent the fact that on deciding its delivery models it has pitted parents against each other. Every spec ed child needs to have testing done quickly, services implemented quickly, resourced properly and taught in an environment that allows them to prosper. No classification has differences regarding this. In addition, there are as noted by the Super of Spec Ed many methods of teaching Gifted not just segregated. This board seemly chose a segregated model for some while forcing integration on many who can’t handle it (including the other children in the classroom).
Whether or not a child can contribute at a later date because of their academic ability has no bearing as a society on whether we pay or provide services. Our most vulnerable are in fact morally the ones we should be protecting first and foremost. Because a gifted child ‘may’ contribute more later is irrelevant. What makes them different is that they may have the capabilities of catching up. In addition, some children who are perceived to be of ‘no value to society’ may in fact contribute beyond compare. The future cannot be predicted for any child but robbing them of possibility will certainly lead to a dismal future.
Let me also remind you that the very children we are debating have waited 2 years for their testing because of this new program and/or the pilot it was based on not just this year so we are actually wrong stating 360 kids jumped the queue because in fact we have to factored in all the other children that got testing in front last year.
The gifted children in this program will also be guaranteed segregated placement whereby their children will now have their educational needs guaranteed just as the gifted now get after grade 4. Again the model our board uses for one spectrum is different than all others. The other children, however, do not get the services, testing or support guaranteed at all whether in a self contained environment or regular classroom. That is a fact and was noted on the CD I just finished watching as some of the trustees who took part in this vote in the November meeting stated they had real issue morally voting this program in knowing they had cut services, self contained classes, etc. to the most vulnerable. Even the testing only guarantees they are eligible for services. We have heard from so many families for years on the fact that they cannot get services due to shortages, priorities, lack of staffing, poor training/understanding, etc. All of these parents are not lucky enough to have their child in the group that gets serviced at a later date.
Again, I think that you believe we are making up the facts that spec ed children get testing/services. They don’t in many cases. You can twist my words and facts as much as you want but I am hearing from many families who will never have the services that this group now is guaranteed.
In addition, during the same meeting the trustees asked for funding to be found and allocated to ensure the backlog was cleared up which to date has still not been done (again this is only testing…no guarantee that resources will be available once identification is done). During the same meeting the trustees wrangled amongst themselves on the morals/message to all spec ed families of providing a different method of delivering for gifted as opposed to all other classifications. The Spec Ed Super himself noted that there were also other methods of delivering gifted programming not just the segregated model. He noted they chose to continue with this because ‘that is how it has been done’. That is little comfort to the thousands of spec ed families who wait, are not provided for, are forced into an integrated model of delivery etc. regardless of the severity of a child’s learning capability and/or issues.
All deserve the same and if that means testing and/or providing earlier for gifted than that should be the change but absolutely not how it has implemented here. Programs are not supposed to be based on individual needs only, to serve only some and biased. The delivery of services are individualized.
Clearly from the outrage of our community, politicians and Canadians many do not agree with this program decision and the way in which it has affected others or its variation of delivery.
For you and your family’s sake I sincerely hope that the education provided serves your child and his future. I just firmly believe that every other child deserves the same and that services for one group should not be taken from one and given to another.
Let them find funding out of a rabbit hold for testing/providing services for all spec ed children.
I believe that the gifted kids need a program I don’t think anyone is against that. I think we are all saying is that they have to wait their turn for assesments like everyone else.
If the school board can provide exclusive classrooms to this program that is fine, I think the same can be said for Learning Disabled. If you read the research on direct instruction it shows kids with learning disabilities can acheive grade level very, very quickly.
I believe that nobody should have the opportunity to jump the queue, as these are all kids with issues that need to be taken care of.
The facts speak for themselves one group of at need kids and jumping ahead of another group of at need kids – this is the problem – provide fair assessments for all!!!