Public Forum on Provincial Model Schools
May 2, 2007
Vancouver Public Library
Meeting notes

Background

This meeting was organized by an ad hoc committee of Vancouver parents and public education advocates (Dawn Steele, Jane Bouey, Helesia Luke and Ruth Herman) to promote greater understanding and informed debate over issues relating to the proposed creation of provincial model schools for students with unique learning needs, and to support well-considered solutions to concerns about failures in the public schools to address some unique learning needs. The meeting was advertised via the Web, press release and e-mail networks. Over 70 participants attended. Media present included Fairchild TV and one press photographer. Thanks to Helesia Luke for Website construction, communications support and for recording the proceedings; to the Vancouver Elementary Teachers Association (VESTA) for donating $100 to cover the cost of room rental; to former Vancouver School Board Chair Adrienne Montani for moderating; and to our four panellists for sharing their time and wisdom. Thanks also to all participants who attended or shared their own knowledge and experience, thus supporting an informed debate. The following is not a verbatim transcript but a synthesis of the discussion that took place. A shorter synopsis of key themes is also available.

Proceedings

Introduction/overview - Dawn Steele, parent & co-organizer

After welcoming participants and introducing the panellists, moderator and coorganizers,
Steele reviewed key events since the concept of provincial model schools for students with unique learning needs was first mooted in February 2007 by BC Education Minister Shirley Bond.

Meeting goals were also outlined as follows:

• to build awareness and understanding on all sides

• to build respect for different positions

• to find our common ground as parents and educators

• to explore possible next steps

Panel presentations

Why public schools are failing some students: A parent’s perspective

Carol Simpson, parent

Simpson, a former executive in business consulting, is also a single mother of two boys on the autism spectrum. Her 19-year old son won four scholarships to UBC, after suffering a rough time in his Vancouver public school, and having to complete high school via distance ed from age 15. Her second son, who faces severe learning challenges and is also insulin dependant, has struggled in two Vancouver schools and now goes to school in Richmond.

While Simpson supports separate schools for some students with autism, she said she had little confidence in either the Education Ministry’s proposed solution or the process, and therefore little trust in the outcome. She believes there is no one solution to treating or educating students with autism and feels that choice must reside with the families of those with special needs.

She outlined a vision of a “gentle school” that could offer students a number of options ranging from full graduation (Dogwood) to skills programs. Run by professionals and paraprofessionals, such a school could support “reverse integration” of typical students and integration of students with autism with careful supports. Such a school should be less institutional and more like a community.

Simpson described her trials with the public school system and the extreme stresses currently facing her younger son, who responds by fighting or bolting. In the last two years, he has made no academic progress at all. Her whole family has been traumatized by their experiences with educators and the public school system, with Simpson herself unable to work because of the constant demands and uncertainty. The costs are extremely high, in terms of lost parental income, individual and family trauma, and future productivity losses for students like her sons, along with potential costs to the justice system and social services.

Simpson blamed the problems on a lack of funding, saying there is a lack of political will to fund education appropriately and a lack of accountability. A full cost accounting must be done to establish the real costs of special education. Additionally, the Education Ministry sets no expectations for educational outcomes for such students. Educators lack expertise and there are no best practices. Teachers can’t do it alone—these students need the support of professionals and aides. Simpson also cited employment contracts that offer no incentive to address these challenges. She suggested that perhaps one form of accountability would be a requirement for the Ministry of Education and School Boards to pay parents for lost wages when they are unable to work because of the constant issues that arise at their children’s schools.

She closed by urging that her proposed school for students with autism should be tried for
a year as a prototype.

Requirements for success for students with disabilities

Nancy Perry, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia

Perry’s presentation set aside issues related to inclusion and governance models and focussed on what needs to happen for kids with special needs to be successful at school. To begin with, attitudes are important—people must believe educating exceptional learners in general education settings is the right thing to do and they must believe that these children can learn. Federal and provincial documents and surveys show that Canadians in general and teachers in particular support diversity and inclusion. Teachers also need to feel prepared and supported to take on the task of meeting challenging needs, but teachers feel unsupported and overwhelmed. Training must prepare teachers not just to deal with disabilities, but also ESL and socio economic factors.

Perry also distinguished between expectations of general and special education/resource teachers. The latter require specialized training to support special needs. However, many
resource teachers do not meet the required qualifications set out by the Province for such
roles. There are also too few such teachers—they have been disproportionately hit by
budget cuts despite increased enrolment of students with special needs. Since 2001, the
numbers of special education teachers has declined 15%, while the number of students
with special needs has increased, in some categories by 15%.

Another issue is the appropriate utilization of special education assistants—they cannot
replace the expertise of specialist teachers, but this too is increasingly happening. Students with special needs require direct contact with and instruction from special education teachers, who are now acting more like consultants.

Perry outlined further requirements for success. Instruction should address the particular
disability, provide compensatory strategies and it should include access to technology
that can help address/compensate for special needs. Classroom assessment should reflect
individual and curricular goals and include a variety of approaches. It should sample
performance over time and be embedded in day to day activities. High stakes accountability systems have worked counter to the interests of students with special needs. Such assessments should address the full range of learning, not just academic achievement, and should measure continuous individual progress instead of comparing students with a common standard. It should encompass all learners and seek to define excellence on an individual basis.

There also needs to be administrative support as all levels, including school-level and district administrators who are supportive. The Ministry also needs to commit to providing adequate funding, oversight and leadership.

In closing, Perry emphasized the diversity between and within different groups of special
education students—there are no one-size-fits-all solutions for any group, and schools for specific diagnostic groups may therefore not address the full diversity of needs within that group. Students with special needs have a lot in common with “typical” students. As much as possible, therefore, a continuum of services should be offered in neighbourhood schools.

Provincial model schools and issues in school governance

Dan Laitsch, Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University

So far, the Provincial government has provided little specific information to analyze, Laitsch began. However, the information provided raises three key issues:

1. The creation of separate schools for specific populations, including students with

special needs and Aboriginal students.

2. Changes to school governance

3. Accountability and public transparency

Bill 20 proposes changes to the School Act regarding the use of provincial schools. The issues raised go beyond special education, as the proposed amendment gives the Minister broad powers to establish such schools to do anything. The troubled history of separate or segregated schools raises issues that are exacerbated by the broad authorizing language, Laitsch said, and those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

The proposed new governance model reduces transparency of oversight by removing the
direct supervisory role of school boards. Such schools would report directly to the Minister via the Education Ministry. Unlike school trustees, the Minister is not directly accountable to local voters. Further, the Ministry’s bureaucratic structures that would support such schools are not accountable to parents or voters—they do not have to hold public meetings, for example. School boards are required to allow the public access to their meetings and are required to provide services without charge to parents. The Minister, however, may charge fees for goods or services provided by the Ministry. New appeals processes would also need to be established comparable to those provided through school boards.

Studies show that school governance, in and of itself, is not related to and doesn’t influence student achievement, Laitsch noted. When you compare public and independent school models in BC, most are organized around the same characteristics, with the same structures, teaching qualifications, curriculum, assessment processes, etc. So a change in governance won’t have much impact on outcomes. Laitsch presented the findings of a series of U.S. studies which showed no consistent advantage in terms of student outcomes for either private, charter and public school models, once factors such as socioeconomic status were controlled for.

So based on the U.S. and B.C. experience, Laitsch said, he was not confident that new provincial schools would be more accountable or more successful in addressing student achievement and addressing concerns about special education. Summing up, he said the creation of separate schools for specific populations is problematic for practical and historical reasons. Changes to school governance have implications for democracy, transparent government, service costs and accountability. Academic accountability is not likely to improve because of changes in governance. However, he concluded, it is possible to maintain the benefits of public oversight by providing such schools or programs within the publicly-funded and governed system.

Why should we value a strong public education system?

Catherine Evans, Chair, BC Society for Public Education

Why get all worked up about public education? Most of us went to public schools, Evans noted. Most take public education for granted and don’t consider the philosophical aspects. For the most part, Evans noted, Canadians have been the beneficiaries of a high-quality public education system. It did not turn out this way by chance. Our education system is the product of deliberate choices. The main architect of public education in English Canada, Egerton Ryerson, compared many different models, rejecting aspects of the British and American systems that prized private institutions. He drew instead from models in Holland, Prussia and Switzerland, where a family’s wealth and social class did not prescribe the standard of learning available to students. The Canadian system that emerged around 1872 was therefore universal and free. It has worked well for most Canadian students. Canadian public schools produce high achieving students, by international standards. And the disparity between students at the top and bottom is much narrower than in most other countries.

The introduction to BC’s School Act still reflects Ryerson’s vision of helping all Canadians to become effective citizens. It states that the purpose of the school system “is to enable all learners to develop their individual potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy, democratic and pluralistic society and a prosperous and sustainable economy.”

Evans quoted John Ralston Saul, who stresses the close connection between Canada’s public schools and Canadian democracy. This is a message that we should all take very seriously, she urged. If we care about the egalitarian and pluralistic values on which democracy in Canada rests, we must make sure those values continue to be embodied in our schools.

However, Evans warned, policy decisions across Canada are chipping away at these egalitarian principles. Elite programs, special fees, parent fundraising, the ranking of schools, etc., can lead to a system of winners and losers, in which private money becomes the key factor in deciding the quality of education. How do we defend public education without becoming advocates for the lowest common denominator? Egalitarian does not mean sameness, she stressed. Genuine equality respects that students start with different needs and abilities, and that we will need public school programs that respond to those differences.

This requires funding and our public school system is currently under-funded, Evans said. The system is not broken, but it is struggling and sometimes failing to meet the needs and to respect the abilities of students. Public education is expensive. But for the same reasons that mattered in the 1800s, it is worth the cost, because it’s ultimately about the kind of democracy that we live in.

Open discussion

Moderator: Adrienne Montani

Participant comments included the following key points:

• I don’t agree with starting separate schools

• I’m a Special Education teacher and we are a dying breed. I started working in 1981 with a segregated class, and later moved to an integrated model. I’m very unhappy to see a charter school model taking money out of the public system, after spending a career promoting inclusion. Watching one of my students walking down the hall with a “typical kid” shows what it’s about. It’s extremely frustrating being unable to provide the needed supports to my students because integration has never been properly funded. The number of kids with special needs is also increasing. This is a human rights issue and we need to fight it.

• I’m a teacher and the parent of a son with autism. Ours is a long horrific story. Parents are tired and they’re not always able to advocate. The cost of the failures in our public schools is enormous and the consequences are life-long. The system failed my son, who’s now an adult and sitting at home when he should be out making a living. Inclusion did not work for him. As a teacher, I’m trying unsuccessfully to support five children with autism in my school. About 30% of my time is spent on paperwork and I’m not being supported by the district. Australia has a model that we should consider. It involves a base school with a modified autism program and that links to and supports integration in surrounding schools to the extent possible for each student. Parents need to unite. Families need advocacy support!

• I’m a parent and past president of the Learning Disabilities Association of BC. LDABC wants a continuum of services in the public schools—not a provincial model school. Parents are looking for options because of the lack of support for inclusion in the public school system. Inclusion means different things—it doesn’t mean 100% integration for every kid all the time. Vancouver and other districts have repeatedly cut special education supports. The schools try but children are failed regularly and these children internalize the failures, with lasting consequences. Schools have never been properly funded for the costs of special education. What does Dr. Perry see as the basic education that a generalist teacher needs to function in a typical class?

• Perry replied that this was under discussion at UBC, which is struggling with cuts as well. Awareness is key—designing curriculum and activities that help such students. Outcomes do not need be the same for all and scaffolding is important. We can’t ask generalist teachers to provide very specific expertise, so there needs to be more collaboration with specialist teachers. But many districts are having great difficulty hiring and retaining special education teachers.

• There is a human rights issue, as reflected in the Jeffrey Moore court case, for which an appeal is pending. It will be important to watch this case closely. Stories have been collected documenting the failures and these files could be revived to support a legal action if necessary.
  

• I support the model school proposal and I think we need to allow five years to give the idea a try. Regarding the mandate of public education, Ryerson did not contemplate that 1 out of every 96 boys would be diagnosed with autism in 2007.

• I’m a Grade 3 teacher whose class includes an autistic student. Adequate support from special education assistants is key to maintaining a functioning classroom. Even with lots of help from parents and others, I don’t see how it is going to work.
  

• I’m a parent and former teacher who had to give up work to care for a daughter with high needs. History repeats itself. I’ve watched resource teachers burn out and parents tank. Why do we have to keep fighting for rights that other students have for granted? We need modeling and training, starting with senior administration and trickling right down. Parents are working around the clock to be advocates for their children. In Ontario, teachers are required to take special ed training. West Van School District has paid a private company to offer a summer program for students with special needs—we need to do more of this.

• As a parent, I attended the Minister’s meeting to discuss the proposed model school for autism. The main purpose of the meeting was to discuss potential benefits. As parents reeled off a long list of requested benefits, it became evident that these were all the same things we had been asking for over and over in the public schools. There is nothing that a model school can offer that can’t be offered in our public schools. I’m reluctant to give up on the public system and to say it does not work until we give it a real try. The $16,000 supplemental funding provided to public schools for each student with autism is only half the cost of an educational assistant, and doesn’t begin to cover the cost of special ed teachers. How do we convey that this is important?

• How does this proposed school differ from a charter school? The proposed legislation says the schools can do anything.

• Perry said little is known about the proposed model. However, if the plan is to just create a few such schools, then only a small portion of BC’s students with special needs would be able to benefit.

• What is UBC doing for my son with autism who is now pursuing post-secondary studies?

• My son’s experiences in the public system suggest that we need to build on successes and on what works, while learning from the failures. Our son did well in elementary school. We can afford to provide the education that our kids need and we should invest in that instead of creating boutique schools that will ignore most needs or segregated schools that just warehouse these students.

• The proposed changes to the School Act are eroding the democratic aspect provided by school boards and this needs more public consultation.
  

• First Call also plans a forum on June 13, with the Deputy Minister of Education invited as the keynote speaker.

• I have two boys on the spectrum and I’m split on this. One child is currently integrated while the other is segregated in a Life Skills program in Vancouver. There needs to be a range of choices. The changes implemented by Bill 33 last year mean my son can no longer go into a regular classroom on occasion, as he used to before. The system is sacrificing these students, with even more cuts in store.

• As a special ed teacher I went to Alberta for a year and worked in a segregated special education program in Calgary. They have segregated schools for special needs and families have no choice in the matter. That was the worst year of my life. This school had a padded room and the students were placed on leashes for security.
  

• Margaret Birrell, BC Coalition for People with Disabilities: I have never seen an issue move so fast through the legislative process. What is driving this train so fast? It’s important to look at the background of BC’s Deputy Minister for education to understand the motivation. The proposed school will accommodate perhaps 20 students. Why would we trust that once we segregate these students there will be adequate funding from the same people who have systemically cut funding for special education in our public schools?

• There is a new generation of parents who are receiving MCFD funding to do intensive behaviour intervention therapy before kindergarten. This approach is very effective and part of the challenge is that parents now have high expectations that the schools will continue the quality of therapy they have been getting up to age six. Autism is varied and no one therapy will work for all students.
  

Closing comments

Simpson said she was not advocating that separate school should replace inclusion but more choices are needed than are currently being offered in the public system. She wished to see a year devoted to developing a model and best practices. Training and expertise is particularly important—the current approach is like having short-order cooks trying to take the place of gourmet chefs.

Perry said much is already known about what needs to be provided in schools to identify and support students with special needs. What we need to do is work towards a public system that provides for all learners, she added, expressing suspicion about government’s intentions for the proposed provincial schools.

Laitsch noted that the proposed model schools raise issues that are broader than special education. The goal should be to provide a free and appropriate education in the most unrestrictive ways possible, but there needs to be a careful and well thought-out response to the specific needs that exist, with solutions developed through an open and transparent process. Laitsch saw nothing to suggest that a separate provincial model school would be any better funded or more transparently governed than is currently the case with programs and services in the public system. Further, all the options discussed could just as well be delivered in a publicly-funded and publicly-governed system. The key issue, he concluded, appears to be a lack political will to make it happen, and that’s unlikely to change under a new model.

Evans stressed that the public system needs to work for all students, and this is not happening because adequate provincial funding is not there.

Steele thanked all participants and panellists and summed up key themes and messages heard as follows, noting that a more detailed report would be provided via the web site, and that this feedback would guide next steps.

• Canada’s public education system is a cornerstone of our success as a society. For the most part, it has been a very successful system and it’s worth saving.

• However, our public schools are failing many students with special needs, with devastating and potentially lifelong costs to those students and to society in general, while placing unbearable stresses on their families and teachers.

• Lack of funding is a key reason for failure: integration has never been adequately funded and is therefore not working for many. Inclusion needs to be understood to encompass a continuum of services to meet different needs, and this is not happening in most cases. Budget cuts have disproportionately targeted special education teachers, whose role is critical, resulting in an erosion of expertise at a time when special education enrolment is increasing.

• Other factors include inadequate oversight, accountability systems based on standardised high-stakes testing that have worked counter to the interests of these students, collective agreements and policies like Bill 33 that have had unintended negative side effects, and in general a lack of understanding, leadership and commitment from leaders and administrators from the Ministry on down.
  

• At the same time, schools are facing significantly higher expectations of service from a new generation of parents who expect to continue intensive preschool therapies like ABA once they enter the K-12 system.

• Governance was examined, with the evidence suggesting no reason to believe that the proposed new model would resolve current problems in the public system. A participant said all the touted benefits of this model could be offered instead in the public system and that we should give that a chance first. It was also noted that proposed changes to the School Act related to provincial schools would give the Minister sweeping powers, with implications that go far beyond special education.

• In terms of solutions, participants urged more training at all levels, more specialist teachers and involvement of parents in teacher education.
  

• More funding was repeatedly cited as a critical need and a reason for failure.

• There were appeals for more advocacy support for families and a call for families to unite to support each other.

• New models were also proposed, including a “gentle school” and an Australian system of base school and satellites.

• A key theme, consistent with these proposals, was the need for a continuum of services to meet special needs in the public system, with options from separate schools or classes to full integration.

• Most participant supported solutions within the public system, with more effort proposed to learn from what’s working and not working well.

• One proponent urged support of a provincial school as an experimental model. However others expressed concern that this would result in warehousing, citing “horror stories” from the past and from current schools in Calgary. There were also concerns that “boutique schools” would not serve the majority of students who need better supports.

• Concerns were also expressed about how fast this proposal was moving, along with suspicion about the motivation behind it. Why would anyone trust that there will be the political will to do this right, given these are the same people who have failed to fund special education in the public schools?

• The need to generate political will and how to do that was another key theme.
  

• In terms of next steps, there was a call for a more measured and transparent process to develop a more careful and thoughtful response to the specific needs being addressed.

• Organizations were also urged to get active and to start working together.

• A representative from the BC Association for Community Living was given the last word, urging participants to write their MLAs and to visit the BCACL Web site for more information on the issue.