Frequently Asked Questions about the Transformation of Special Education in Saskatchewan

1
Frequently Asked Questions about the
Transformation of Special Education in
Saskatchewan
2
What are the key conceptual changes that have
occurred in Special Education in Saskatchewan?

• PAST
• Focus on . . .
• Administrative process of approvals
• Individual
• Entitlement
• Reaction
• Access to special education

• NOW
• Focus on . . .
• Student learning outcomes and assessing progress
• Changes in service delivery
• Needs based and accountability driven
• Response to intervention
• Access to early identification

3
(No Transcript)
4
What are the national and international evidence
based practices from research?

• Response to Intervention
• Movement to Inclusion
• Special education as a service for all
• Increased focus on the role of the administrator
• Collaborative and inter-professional teams

5
What is the Provincial Trend?
From 2000-2001 to the present, the number of
students with intensive needs has doubled.
6
What is the National Trend?
7
How must we transform our thinking?
Two Prong Approach
Intensive Support
Individual Students
RTI Service Delivery Model
Systemic Change
Strengths Procedures
Performance Supports Outcomes
Differentiated Objectives
Collaborative Parental
Staffing Model Sufficiency
Efficiency Effectiveness
Appropriateness
8
What processes have influenced the changes in
special education?

• Special Education Review, April 2000
• Review of funding approaches across Canada,
  November 2004
• Local funding mechanism review(Directors of
  Education, Superintendents November 2004)
• Government alignment, May 2004

9
What were the key findings from the provincial
special education review reports?

• Develop funding protocols to focus on childrens
  needs
• Adopt, implement and support the philosophy of
  inclusive schools
• Develop a framework of effective practices

10
What did the traditional model of special
education look like?
Special Education
Sea of Ineligibility
General Education
11
What will the future of student services look
like?
General Intensive Resources
General Supplemental Resources
Amount of Resources Needed to Solve Problem
General Resources
Intensity of Problem
12
What is the philosophical shift inspecial
education?

• Shift away from a medical model (entitlement) to
  an impact (needs) model
• What is the impact of the students presenting
  need on accessing curriculum? .. Not what is
  the students disability

13
What does this paradigm shift look like for
schools?

• Assessment for funding
• Interventions focused on changing the student
• Planning focused on the individual student
• Remediation students already failing
• Emphasis on disabilities and deficits
• Working independently

• Assessment for educational programming
• Interventions focused on changing the environment
• School wide planning first, then planning for at
  risk students, then the individual student
• Prevention students who are at risk
• Emphasis on strengths what the student can do
• Educational specialists
• working as part of a team
• providing services with the school

14
What have the funding policy changes been?

• Movement to block funding recognition from
  individual funding
• Movement to needs based model
• New terminology student requiring intensive
  supports
• Upfront funding based on prevalence rates
• Movement to undefined individual funding dollar
  recognition
• Amalgamation of assistive technology with
  intensive supports funding recognition
• Movement to vulnerability factors
• Increased accountability

15
What does systemic change require?
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

• Approach or framework for redesigning
  establishing teaching learning environments
  that are effective, efficient, relevant,
  durable for all students, families educators
• NOT program, curriculum, strategy, intervention
• NOT limited to special education
• NOT new

16
What are the elements of systemic change?
RtI
17
How does Response to Intervention support all
learners?
Few
Some
All
18
How can we design school-wide systems for student
success?
Academic Systems
Behavioral Systems
1-5
1-5
5-10
5-10
80-90
80-90
19
How are students identified?
The Impact Assessment Profile supports the
identification ofstudents with intensive needs.
Impact ? Supports So What ? Now What
20
How many students are being identified?

• 6,742 students with intensive needs were
  identified
• Represents 4.11 of student population
• Represents 35 increase during medical to
  needs-based transition
• (2007-2008 data as of December 20, 2007)

21
How is programming developed for students with
intensive needs?

1. Formative, Summative, Diagnostic Assessments are
   completed
2. Impact Profile is completed
3. Personal Program plan is developed
4. Supports are put into place

22
What is the accountability framework for students
with intensive needs?

• Ministry of Education conducts audit of impact
  assessment profiles and personal program plans
  based on collaborative standards
• Funding recognition is influenced by success rate
  of school division in audit
• Ministry of Education provides recommended
  staffing ratios for Student Services and service
  delivery rubrics
• School Division identifies Areas of Development
  for improving Student Services
• Personal Program Plans and outcome rubrics are
  developed for all students with intensive needs

23
What students are being identified?
07/08 Impact Assessment Prevalence Categories 07/08 Impact Assessment Prevalence Categories 07/08 Impact Assessment Prevalence Categories 07/08 Impact Assessment Prevalence Categories 07/08 Impact Assessment Prevalence Categories 07/08 Impact Assessment Prevalence Categories 07/08 Impact Assessment Prevalence Categories 07/08 Impact Assessment Prevalence Categories
Blind or Visual Impairment Deaf or Hard of Hearing Intellectual Disability Mental Health Impairment Orthopaedic Disability Pervasive Development Disorder Pervasive Development Disorder
Level I 46 139 486 181 128 262 262
Level II 138 157 1359 262 414 688 688
Sub Total 184 296 1845 443 542 950 950
Percentage of Total 2.41 3.88 24.17 5.80 7.10 12.44 12.44

  Physical Health Impairment Prenatal Substance Exposure Substance-related Disorders Other Diagnosed Other Undiagnosed Other Total Total
Level I 236 177 14 568 868 1436 3,105
Level II 486 200 13 349 464 813 4,530
Sub Total 722 377 27 917 1332 2249  
Percentage of Total 9.46 4.94 0.35 12.01 17.45 29.46  
Total 2249 7,635
24
What supports are in place for students?
Staffing Profile Staffing Profile Staffing Profile Staffing Profile
  2006-2007 FTE 2007-2008 FTE Percentage Change
Superintendent(s) Student Services/Special Education 21 20 -4.67
Coordinator(s) 44 45 2.49
Consultant(s) 40 44 8.73
Classroom Teachers 9,599 9,537 -0.64
Special Education Teachers 887 945 6.44
Education/Teacher Assistants 3,536 3,554 0.50
Psychologists 61 64 4.97
Physical Therapists 1 1 0.00
Occupational Therapists 13 17 28.84
Speech Language Pathologists 92 97 5.62
Counsellors 129 134 3.32
Social Workers 64 69 7.03
Other 135 155 14.70
Total 14,624 14,682 0.40
25
What provincial funding recognition is provided
to school divisions?

• 67 Million Intensive Supports
• 74 Million Diversity

26
Saskatchewan versus other jurisdictions
Province Student Population (Approximate) Special Needs Population (Approximate) Percentage Special Needs (Approximate) Special Needs Funding (Approximate) Identification Process
British Columbia 582,691 57,349 9.84 32,000, 16,000, and 8,000, per student Medical Model
Alberta 560,563 67,025 11.96 24,316, 16,465, and 2,413, per student Medical Model
Manitoba 182,185 6531 3.58 18,000, and 9,000, per student Primary Medical Model - Some Impact
Saskatchewan 160,763 6742 4.19 67 million (intensive supports), and 74 million (diversity) Impact Model
27
Why are parents feeling challenged with the
transition to a needs-based model?

• Change is difficult for parents and school
  divisions.
• Change challenges the status quo.
• Movement from a dependency-based paraprofessional
  model to an independent-focused professional
  model.
• Previous model was based on individual specific
  funding recognition this empowered parents to
  say, That school is receiving 12,800 dollars
  for my child, so they better have an educational
  assistant. NOT FOCUSING ON OUTCOMES
• Movement away from an entitlement model.
• Inconsistent communication
• Parents want what they have always had.

28
Assumptions

• We assumed that there would be a direct
  relationship between the number of students
  identified and an increase/decrease in the
  staffing profile.

29
What have we learned?

• The previous Department of Learning historically
  focused on TRACKING STUDENTS THAT WERE DESIGNATED
  AS DISABLED, and not on the accountability of
  staffing in place to support learner needs or
  learner outcomes.
• We have focused on inputs instead of outcomes.
• We are in transition.

30
How was funding recognition from 2007/2008 to
2008/2009 affected?
31
Why did funding recognition change?

• Funding recognition changed from school division
  to school division based on several factors
  including
• the provincial allocation of intensive supports
  investment in the context of the individual
  school division prevalence rate
• the number of students identified
• the service delivery model employed