Special Education Budget Presentation

February 29, 2016

Presented by: Tina D’Acunto, Superintendent of Education: Exceptional Learners

77

Student Services

Areas for Consideration

• Vision and Delivery Model • Changes to the Special Education Funding

Model • Accumulative Reductions • Cost Saving Measures Implemented To Date • Current Challenges, Limitations, Restrictions • Next Steps for 2016-2017

78

Student Services Department Vision and Delivery Model

79

YCDSB Plan supported by Student Services Focus

Vision Our envisioned future

Our students will become creative and critical thinkers who integrate Catholic values into their daily lives as socially responsible global citizens.

Students with special education needs, as meaningful members of an inclusive Catholic community, will reach optimal independence and achievement through strategic, focused,

accessible, and timely educational

interventions.

Mission Our core reason for being

Guided by gospel values and Catholic virtues, in partnership with home and Church, we educate and inspire all students to reach their full potential in a safe and caring environment.

We are committed to providing consistent, accountable and focused quality service in response to identified needs of students, through direct and effective intervention, and building capacity of staff.

Values Important as we work on the above

Catholicity Excellence Equity Respect, Integrity Inclusion Fiscal Responsibility

Catholic value of compassion Strong commitment to a collaborative team approach Respectful and open-minded communication Creative, innovative, flexible, and adaptive problem-solving approach

4 80

Connections on a Continuum

Creative and critical thinkers

Socially responsible global citizens

Optimal independence and achievement

Meaningful members of a Catholic community

YCDSB Vision YCDSB

Student Services Engaging Enabling Empowering

81

From Vision to Action

“accessible, and timely educational interventions”

Year 1

Core Function

Establish consistent and focused areas of service and expectations for each unique service by developing department Handbooks and service delivery expectations

“strategic, focused”

Year 2

Accountability

Targeted assessments

Tiered service

Customized strategies

Goals with measured outcomes

Transparent statistics

“reach optimal independence and

achievement”

Year 3

Resources

Continued realignment of resources that provide responsive structures and supports based on need.

Continued focus on research and development ( i.e. training, data analysis, new evidence based strategies and programs)

6 82

• The integration of all learners within their home school with a focus on providing the most enabling learning environment within their age appropriate class placement.

• The implementation practices may include the need for a continuum of responses, including:

program centers (i.e. PACE, TD, ISA, Language Support Centers, Hearing, ASD),

human resource support (i.e. EA, EI, CYW, SSW),

range of other accommodations (i.e. instructional, environmental, technical, assessment).

* Please note the glossary of terms in your package

Philosophy: A Framework for Mainstreaming

83

Quick Facts

Categories of

Exceptionalities

(Refer to Handout for

Definitions)

Autism LD MID Dev

Delays

Gifted Lang

Imp.

Deaf &

Hard of

Hearing

Blind &

Low

Vision

Non

Identified

Totals

Elementary

Program Centres 18 (ASD)

305 (ISA)

- - 398 (PACE)

30 (Lang)

10 (Hearing)

- - -

Regular Class

Placements

453 962 88 39 18 23 91 17 3163 -

TOTAL STUDENTS 471 1267 88 39 416 53 101 17 3163 5615

Secondary

Program Centres - - - - 272 - 5 - Regular Class

Placements 314 1565 130 76 85 30 27 21 965

TOTAL STUDENTS 314 1565 130 76 357 30 32 21 965 3490

TOTALS 785 2832 218 115 773 53 133 38 4335 9105

Please note: • Elementary Transition Diagnostic Centres have 38 students • Secondary Transition Diagnostic Centres have 8 students

84

Special Education Funding

Model Changes

85

The HNA allocation can be misunderstood, as it is still frequently associated with its past connection to counts of students with “high needs”. The recent changes to this allocation are meant to transition this allocation to one that addresses the variation among boards with respect to students with special education needs, including students with greater needs, and boards' abilities to respond to their special education needs.

The High Needs Amount Allocation

86

2015-16 SEG Allocation Method

Allocation Method

Special Education per

Pupil Amount (SEPPA)

($1.402 billion)

A per-pupil amount that varies by grade grouping: JK-3; 4-8 and 9-12.

High Needs Amount (HNA) ($1.05 billion)

HNA Per Pupil Amount (47.2%) • Board-specific

per pupil amount per student of the board funded at 50%

Note: the HNA Per Pupil amounts will be reduced to 25% in 2016-17 and eliminated by 2017-18.

Special Education Statistical Prediction Model (SESPM) (37.3%) • Board predicted value

(census-based) of the total number of students that are likely to receive special education programs and/or services multiplied by the board’s ADE determines each board’s proportion of allocation.

Measures of Variability (MOV) (12.4%) • Five categories of data

(one category census-based) where each category has an assigned percentage of the total MOV amount (each category has one or more factors and each factor has an assigned percentage of the category total) determines each board’s proportion of allocation.

High Needs Base Amount for Collaboration and Integration (3.1%) • $450,000 per

board

Special Equipment

Amount (SEA)

($93.7 million)

Per-Pupil Amount

A base amount plus a per-pupil amount.

Claims-Based Amount

• Claim amount minus $800 deductible

Special Incidence

Portion (SIP)

($68.7 million)

A claims-based amount, up to a maximum per claim.

Note: Further analysis of SIP is warranted given the broad ranges among boards.

Facilities Amount (FA)

($96 million)

• Based on an approval process specified in a guideline issued for programs for school-aged children and youth in care and/or treatment

centres, and in custody and correctional facilities.

• Recognize costs of teachers, education assistants, classroom supplies, health and/or social support services provided by regulated health

professionals, regulated social service professionals and paraprofessionals.

Behaviour Expertise

Amount (BEA)

($11.6 million)

A base amount plus a per-pupil amount.

87

HNA MOV:

How is Data Used to Fund School Boards?

HNA Funding Allocation/

Category

How is Data Used to Fund School Boards?

Measures of Variability (MOV)

Category #1: Programs &

Services

Provides more funding to boards that reported having higher prevalence rates

of students with special education needs.

Category #2: EQAO Provides more funding to boards with students with special education needs

that are performing below the provincial average on the Grade 3 and 6

EQAO assessments and those that require more accommodations

Category #3: Credit

Accumulation, Locally

Developed (LD) and K-

Courses

Provides more funding to boards with students with special education needs

that have a low number of credits in Grade 9 (i.e., 5 or less) and Grade 10

(i.e., 13 or less), and for those with higher numbers of students with special

education needs enrolled in LD and K-courses in Grades 9 and 10

Category #4: Remote & Rural Supports the higher per-pupil costs for goods and services faced by

smaller school boards (board enrolment)

Recognizes the additional costs of services related to remoteness and

the absence of nearby urban centres (distance/urban factor/French-

language equivalence)

Recognizes the higher costs of providing services to students with

special education needs in widely dispersed schools (school dispersion)

Category #5: FNMI Provides more funding to boards with larger FNMI populations

Please note: Based on 2012-13 data (as reported by boards)

88

Special Education Funding Implications For

York Catholic District School Board

89

In 2015-2016, the estimated decrease for Special Education high needs amount for 2016-2017 was projected to be $650,000.

Special Education Funding Projection

2016-2017

90

Special Education Funding Revenue Comparisons

2015/16 2015/16Revised

Estimates Estimates

Revenue

SEPPA 38,764,025 38,515,191Special Education Equipment Amount:

Claims Based Amount 250,000 310,000Board Amount 10,000 10,000Per Pupil Amount 1,984,116 1,973,058

2,244,116 2,293,058

High Needs Amount (HNA) 27,087,790 27,010,521Special Incident Portion 2,100,000 2,200,000Section 23 488,803 488,803Behavioural Expertise 239,083 238,219

Total 70,923,817 70,745,792

Difference (RE to Est.) (178,025)

91

Special Education Funding

Expense Comparisons

2015/16 2015/16

Revised

Estimates Estimates

Expenditure

Salaries & Wages 64,352,712 63,471,228Employee Benefits 12,953,907 12,216,962

77,306,619 75,688,190

Professional Development 126,679 126,679Supplies and Services 1,533,390 1,533,390Fees and Contractual Services 869,309 869,309Other 0 0Section 23 488,803 488,803

3,018,181 3,018,181

Total 80,324,800 78,706,371

Difference (RE to Est) (1,618,429)

92

Special Education Funding Envelope Comparisons

2015/16 2015/16

Revised

Estimates Estimates

Enveloping: Special Education

Special Education Expenses 80,324,800 78,706,371Less: Other Revenue Sources

CTN 784,187 784,187EPO Autism Training/EPO Other 83,231 120,305

Net Special Education Expenses 79,457,382 77,801,879

Allocation for Pupils in Self-contained Special Education Classrooms:

Pupil Foundation 3,732,442 4,068,355French as a First Language 0 0Teacher Qualification and Experience 605,102 660,010

4,337,544 4,728,365

Net Spec. Ed Expenses Less Self-contained 75,119,838 73,073,514

Expenses Relating to SEA (Base and Per Pupi) 1,994,116 1,983,058

Incremental Expenses for Compliance Purposes 73,125,722 71,090,456

Special Education Funding 70,923,817 70,745,792Less: SEA (Base and Per Pupil) 1,994,116 1,983,058

68,929,701 68,762,734

Under/(Over) Envelope (4,196,021) (2,327,722)

Difference (RE - Est.) 1,868,299

93

Accumulative Reductions

2009 -2016

94

Special Education Budget Savings

Year Type of Reduction Total Amount

2009-2010 • 1 ASD program itinerant teacher $90,000

2011-2012 • 1 Elementary Consultant $100,000

2013 -2014 • 1 Hearing Itinerant Teacher • 1 Secretary • 1 Communication Disorder Assistant (CDA) • 1 Secondary Consultant

$300,000

2014-2015 • 1 Behavior Resource Worker • 1 Secretary • 1 Vision Teacher • Reduced Mileage budget by $80,000

$300,000

2015-2016 • 3 Behavior Resource Workers • Restructuring Special Equipment Amount

(SEA) Training Model, selection of software application, and model of laptops

$880,000

95

Cost Saving Measures Implemented

Year Strategy Budget Savings

2015-2016 Restructuring SEA equipment

• Refurbished computer with greater technical capacity and three year warranty

• Transition to GAFFE accessibility software • Elimination of continued funding for school

Wi-Fi, interactive whiteboards, laptop carts, and projectors.

• Reframe SEA student training model to include small group sessions with YCDSB trainers

$700,000

Educational Assistants/Educational

Intervenors

• Development of a new policy and procedure outlining criteria for access

• annual review of students meeting criteria for EA support

• Increased EA to student ratio to accommodate over 115 Junior Kindergarten students with complex needs

• Realignment of resources to address changing school needs during the school year (Oct, Jan, March)

$400,000 (due to increased EA/student ratio)

96

Cost Reduction Measures Implemented

Year Strategy Budget Savings

2015-2016 Program Center Consolidation

• Closure of ISA , Secondary TD center • Reallocation of resources to new ISA centers

and Kindergarten ASD centers to address new needs in York region

$320,000 (due to realignment of resources)

Core Resource Staffing

• Maintaining a freeze in hiring additional core resource teachers to address the additional student needs ( over 200 per year)

• Adjustments made to system staffing formulas to distribute resources equitably

$200,000 (due to increased teacher/student ratio)

Management of School Based Special

Education Resources

• Administration training session • Use of Special education planning templates

(ie. Core resource and EA timetables)

• Reduce number of standardized academic assessments and optimize the use of formative assessments and direct teaching time

97

Current Challenges, Limitations,

Restrictions

• Over 110 Junior Kindergarten students with complex needs requiring human resource support annually.

• Increased number of potential staff work refusal due to violent incident reports (approximately 30) requiring additional staffing

• Additional students receiving special education support with fewer staff • Reduction of Third Party supports to students and staff (i.e. COMPASS,

Kinark ASD School Support Workers) • Limited access to Day Treatment placements resulting in increase CYW

expenditures • Impact of FDK on special education resources • Waitlist for assessments (i.e. psycho-educational, speech and

language, occupational therapy) • Waitlist for Student Services (ie. BRS, SSW, Psychology, Speech and

Language, Physical Management, Program Consultant) • Funding restrictions do not reflect real costs to supporting actual

students with complex needs.

98

• Further consolidation of program centers ($360,000)

• Introduction of a Health Assist E. A. role to address the needs of medically fragile students and reduce the need for EIs ($200,000)

• Reduced number of purpose built calming rooms ($50,000 x # of rooms requested)

• Transition from Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI) training model to Behaviour Management System (BMS) ($10,000 per year)

• Streamline process for managing potential staff work refusal involving students with special education needs

• Transition from SEA claim software licensing to the use of GAFE • Transition from SEA laptop computers to refurbished computers or Chromebooks

($200,000)

• Implementation of the Special Education Operational Review Recommendations

Next Steps: Future Cost Savings

99