AGENDA - Peel District School Board

AGENDA

Special Education Advisory Committee

Thursday, April 22, 2021

7:00 p.m.

Please note that all public sessions of Regular Board meetings are live-

streamed.

Due to the government's state of emergency declaration and to help contain the spread of novel coronavirus, for everyone's safety, all public meetings of the Peel board will be held virtually until further notice. Members of the public can continue to participate in public meetings by watching the live-stream, and may make delegation presentations and/or ask public questions electronically.

For additional details, including the live-stream link, visit

www.peelschools.org/trustees.

PEEL DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

Special Education Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENDA Brampton Room

Thursday, April 22, 2021 7:00 p.m. OPEN SESSION 1. Call to Order

1.1 Approval of Agenda 2. Declaration of Conflict of Interest

3. Minutes

3.1 Special Education Advisory Committee Meeting March 22, 2021

4. Chair's Request for Written Questions from Committee Members

5. Notices of Motion and Petitions

6. Delegations

7. Ministry and Board Policy Review 8. Program Review

9. Reports from Officials and Staff/Department Work Plan Review

9.1 Learning Disabilities Association of Peel Region - Overview

9.2 Superintendent’s Report – oral

9.3 Review of Gifted Identification Process

9.4 Audit of Special Education Fully Self-Contained Classes – December 2020

9.5 Vocational 2 Update

10. Communications - for Action or Receipt

10.1 Memo from Ministry re: Federal Safe Return to Class Fund: 2020-21 Spring and Summer Learning Opportunities for School Boards

10.2 Letter from Director of Education re: Urgent Request for COVID-19 Vaccine Prioritization for Education Workers

10.3 Letter from Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board Special Education Advisory Committee re: Prioritization of Vaccinations during Phase II in Support of Students with Special Needs and their Staff

10.4 Memo from Minister re: Ministry of Education Update

11. Ministry and Board Review

2

12. Response of Administration to Former Questions 13. Reports from Representatives on Councils/Associations 14. Questions asked of and by Committee Members 14.1 Questions from Members at a Previous SEAC Meeting

15. Action/Motion Log

15.1 Special Education Advisory Committee, Pending Action/Motion Log and Completed Action/Motion Items

16. Public Question Period 17. Adjournment

March 22, 2021 Special Education Advisory Committee:ma

PEEL DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

Minutes of a meeting of the Special Education Advisory Committee of the Peel District School Board, held on Monday, March 22, 2021 at 19:00 hours. The meeting was held by electronic means, under Ontario Regulation 463/97, as amended.

Members present:

Shelley Foster, VOICE for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children, Chair Mary Wright, Down Syndrome Association of Peel, Vice-Chair Nicole Buckett, Fragile X Research Foundation of Canada Barbara Cyr, Association for Bright Children, Peel Chapter Jennifer Knight, Easter Seals Ontario Sue Lawton, Trustee John Marchant, Trustee Kathy McDonald, Trustee Wes McDonald, VIEWS for the Visually Impaired Carol Ogilvie, Learning Disabilities Association of Peel Region Carol Oitment, Tourette Canada Sinthusha Panchalingam, Canadian Mental Health Association, Peel Fauzia Reza, Autism Ontario, Peel Chapter Ann Smith, Brampton-Caledon Community Living

Member absent:

Dorothy Peddie, FASworld Canada, Peel Chapter

Administration:

Poleen Grewal, Associate Director, Instruction and Equity (Executive Member) Liz Cook, Executive Superintendent, Student Learning Darren Van Hooydonk, Superintendent, Social Emotional Learning and Well-Being

Marina Amin, Board Reporter

1. Approval of Agenda

SE-33, moved by Carol Oitment, that the agenda be approved.

…........... carried

2. Conflict of Interest

There were no declarations of conflict of interest.

1

March 22, 2021 Special Education Advisory Committee:ma 3. Minutes of the Special Education Advisory Committee Meeting, February 16, 2021

SE-34, moved by Kathy McDonald, that the Minutes of the Special Education Advisory Committee Meeting of February 16, 2021, be approved. …........... carried

4. Written Questions, Notices of Motion, and Petitions There were no written questions, notices of motion, or petitions.

5. Associate Director’s Report Associate Director of Instruction and Equity, Poleen Grewal, reported that staff continue to work towards dismantling inequities, as special education programs and processes are reviewed in the context of disrupting systemic discrimination, anti-racism and anti-oppression. She stated that all matters relevant to SEAC will be brought for review, prior to being taken to the Board. Associate Director Grewal advised that updates on the Vocational 2 program will continue, and she thanked the Committee for the letter of appreciation on phasing out of Vocational 2 Programs. She noted that the letter is included in the agenda for the Regular Meeting of the Board on March 23, 2021. SE-35, moved by Barbara Cyr, that the Associate Director’s Report (oral), be received. …........... carried

6. Data Reporting Ontario School Information System (OnSIS) 2020 Reviewing a slide presentation, Staff Development Coordinator, Nora Green, reported that the total special education population is 25,085 students, out of which 10,818 are identified, and 14,267, are non-identified special needs students. She advised that all students can only be counted once in reporting, and as such, the data outlined in the report does not accurately reflect the needs of students as many have dual exceptionalities, and receive multiple services. Nora Green and Special Education Coordinator, Karina Aveiro, reviewed statistical data, by exceptionality, of identified and non-identified students in the elementary and secondary streams, and provided information on some of the supports required by students with multiple exceptionalities.

The administration responded to members’ questions including: a report on OnSIS data by gender population, type of exceptionality, and type of services provided will be brought to a future meeting; learning disability assessment process will be reviewed; SVI race-based data relating to various exceptionalities will be brought to the Committee, following completion of the Equity & Accountability Report Card; number of students who had an ISRC referral can be tracked to ensure supports are provided; need to identify students in the mainstream setting; whether information can be included in the report about what programs were added or cancelled for special needs students and how it has affected them. Responding to queries about placements for non-identified students, potential gap between schools in the North and South, Associate Director Grewal advised that a report will be brought to the Committee in terms of what action can be taken.

2

March 22, 2021 Special Education Advisory Committee:ma 6. Data Reporting Ontario School Information System (OnSIS) 2020 (Continued)

SE-36, moved by Barbara Cyr, that the report re Data Reporting Ontario School Information System (OnSIS) 2020, be received. .............. carried

7. Impact of the Ministry Directives on Special Education Associate Director Grewal advised that the report speaks to the Board’s vision for special education for the next 3-5 years. She reported on the high percentage of students with Developmental Disabilities in contained classes, and, highlighting the importance of inclusion, indicated a need for change at the elementary level. She advised that the report of the Regional Internal Audit Team’s Audit of Special Education fully self-contained classes will be brought to the Committee in April. The report identifies a high number of contained classes, and gaps in admission and demission criteria. Coordinating Principal (Acting), Judy Richards outlined priority actions to dismantle streaming beginning at the Kindergarten level. Nora Green reviewed information about behaviour class additions and closures in the North and South as local schools and resource staff work to support students with special behaviour needs. She explained that Inclusion Coaches supporting Kindergarten to Age 21 students in contained classes will work with teachers to revise instructional approaches in the classroom to adopt the principles of Universal Design for Learning, and Differentiated Instruction. She reported on the professional learning plan developed with Student Learning and Equity and Student Support Services staff to support educators and build capacity in the system. Members’ questions of clarification were responded to by the administration re: process of implementing the vision aligned to anti-racism and anti-oppression; staff commitment to the principles of Inclusive Education, Universal Design for Learning and Differentiated Instruction; development of accountability measures; anti-racism and anti-oppression training continues to be provided to support staff regarding the identification process, and importance of student narrative; in addition to designated Professional Learning days, the Board has moved to job embedded professional learning. A member asked whether a framework can be developed that includes a simple and transparent appeal process for parents, and whether it can be communicated to parents in all common languages. Another member voiced concerns about the impact on the gifted program. Associate Director Grewal advised that a report will be brought to the next meeting about gifted identification and placement. In regards to communication about class closures and transitions, Executive Superintendent of Student Learning, Liz Cook, advised that communications to families have been explicit around transition planning and special education classes and supports for the next school year.

SE-37, moved by Carol Ogilvie, that the report re Impact of the Ministry Directives on Special Education, be received. .............. carried

3

March 22, 2021 Special Education Advisory Committee:ma 8. Inclusion for Students with Developmental Disabilities

Acting Coordinating Principals, Ana Pauchulo and Shari Nickle, presented information on the five-year Inclusion Plan for students with Developmental Disabilities (DD) in the elementary and secondary panels. Ana Pauchulo reported that, beginning 2021-2022 school year, no new elementary students with Developmental Disabilities will be recommended for placement in DD classes, so as to ensure that no elementary DD classes exist by the 2026-2027 school year. DD/Autism Spectrum Disorder classes will be reviewed to ascertain their effectiveness and outcomes. Shari Nickle spoke about the conversion of Developmental Disability Transition classes to Developmental Disability Resource and District Developmental Disability programs. She noted that the conversion will result in reduced school transitions, so as to allow educators to focus on a successful transition plan for these students as they transition to adulthood and the community. SE-38, moved by Ann Smith, that the report re Inclusion for Students with Developmental Disabilities, be received. .............. carried

9. Phasing Out of the Vocational 2 Program Coordinating Principal for Student Learning, Rasulan Hoppie, reported that, following receipt of the recommendation at the Regular Meeting of the Board on January 25, 2021, to phase out the Vocational 2 Program, a communication was disseminated to all elementary and secondary principals to ensure consistent messaging to families as to the reason for phasing out the program effective September 2022, and the IPRC process for students who are starting the program in September 2021. He indicated that there will be ongoing communications to the community to support an understanding of the programs, course options, future options, home school versus vocational programs, vocational versus locally developed, and de-streamed pathways. He spoke about work being done to eliminate disparities, close the achievement gap, and establish collaborative relationships with families, stakeholders, and students who are being streamed. The administration responded to members’ questions, including: the current program will be in place for 2020-2021 school year; parents can engage with school staff for a change to a different pathway; communication to parents is through a variety of means, and dissemination in different languages will be explored; conversations about options and pathways needs to take place at the time of transition at the school. SE-39, moved by Wes McDonald, that the report re Phasing Out of the Vocational 2 Program, be received. .............. carried

Sinthusha Panchalingam and Kathy McDonald retired from the meeting. (21:00 hours)

4

March 22, 2021 Special Education Advisory Committee:ma 10. Meeting Beyond 21:30 Hours SE-40, moved by Carol Ogilvie, that the meeting be extended beyond 21:30 hours to

complete the agenda.

.............. carried 11. Communications

SE-41, moved by Mary Wright, that the following communication items, be received: 1. Memo from Ministry of Education, re School Public Health Nurses and COVID-19:

Role Clarification Resources. 2. Memo from Ministry of Education re Federal Safe Return to Class Fund and Expanded

Targeted Testing in Schools. 3. Memo from the Ministry re Prioritization of Education and Child Care Workers – Phase

Two: COVID-19 Vaccination Distribution Plan.

…........... carried

12. Letter from Special Education Advisory Committee re Support for the Phasing out of the Vocational 2 Program SE-42, moved by Sue Lawton, that the Letter from Special Education Advisory Committee re Support for the Phasing out of the Vocational 2 Program, be received. …........... carried

13. Reports from Representatives on Councils/Associations Barbara Cyr reported that the Parent Involvement Committee (PIC) is hosting an event end May or early June 2021 to support parents who have questions about the Individual Education Plan. She stated that PIC has requested a member of SEAC who has a broad knowledge of IEPs to be on the panel. Barbara Cyr asked members to let her know, if interested.

14. Responses of Administration to Members’ Questions Asked at the Previous Meeting Executive Superintendent Cook stated that the report provides written responses to

questions asked by SEAC members at the previous meeting re: use of Eye Gaze equipment at home; availability of technological tools and resources for public access; clarification regarding accommodations for students with ADHD; delivery of the DD/ASD program and level of consistency during the pandemic.

5

March 22, 2021 Special Education Advisory Committee:ma 15. Question Period Carol Ogilvie asked about EQAO testing. Associate Director Grewal advised that the Peel

DSB did not engage in the Grade 9 Mathematics assessment as it did not align with the Board’s learning quadmester. She stated that Peel is also not engaging in the EQAO OSSLT field test in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. Associate Director Grewal noted that the tests were optional, and the communication regarding OSSLT testing was communicated to families.

Carol Ogilvie asked about assessments at the Roy McMurtry facility. Poleen Grewal will

bring back a response. Carol Ogilvie inquired about plans to start the Innovation Hub at Central Peel Secondary School,

considering the phase out of Vocational 2 programs. Liz Cook advised that there was a pause due to COVID-19, and she is awaiting an update from staff which will be brought to SEAC.

16. Action/Motion Log

The following items were added to the Action/Motion log:

• Presentations on items presented at the meeting will be forwarded to members.

• A report on OnSIS data by gender population and type will be brought to a future meeting (Item 6 of the minutes).

• SVI race based data in regards to various exceptionalities will be brought to SEAC following completion of the Equity & Accountability Report Card (Item 6 of the minutes).

• An update report will be brought back regarding contained classes and placements in the Gifted Program (Item 7 of the minutes).

• A Revisioning Report will be brought to the next SEAC Meeting (Item 7 of the minutes).

• Regional Internal Audit Team Report on Special Education Fully Contained Classes will be brought to the next meeting (Item 7 of the minutes).

• Update report on Roy McMurtry School and Central Peel Secondary School’s Innovation Hub will be brought to the next meeting (Item 14 of the minutes).

SE-43, moved by Jennifer Knight, that the Special Education Advisory Committee – Pending Motion/Action Log and Completed Motion/Action Items, be received. …........... carried

17. Public Question Period A member of the public asked about allocation of the 26 Instructional Coaches between elementary and secondary schools. Executive Superintendent Cook responded.

6

March 22, 2021 Special Education Advisory Committee:ma 18. Adjournment

SE-44, moved by John Marchant, that the meeting adjourn (22:00 hours). .............. carried .....................................................… Chair ….....................................….......... Secretary

7

8

PEEL DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD 9.1

Special Education Advisory Committee April 22, 2021

Learning Disabilities Association of Peel Region - Overview Recommendation: It is recommended that this information be received.

Background:

This presentation's objective is to give participants a better understanding about Learning Disabilities Association of Peel Region (LDAPR) and whom they support, current programs offered, what is on the horizon and how COVID-19 has impacted LDAPR and its students. Prepared by:

Lorri King, Special Education Teacher/Tutor, Learning Disabilities Association of Peel Region Submitted by:

Liz Cook, Executive Superintendent, Student Learning Support Services

9

10



Superintendent’s Report Recommendation: It is recommended that this oral report be received.

Submitted by:


11

12



Review of the Gifted Identification Process Recommendation: It is recommended that this report be received.

Background:

Drawing from an equity and anti-oppressive lens, this gifted review was focused on identifying student disproportionalities in the gifted exceptionality, and the biases and barriers contributing to these outcomes. This report includes specific recommendations to target and dismantle these identified structures and mechanisms that act to create equities in the gifted identification process at the Peel District School Board. Taking a portfolio approach to gifted identification, multiple sources of information are utilized to better understand the strengths and needs of the individual student being considered for gifted identification and programming. Prepared by: Archie Kwan, Ph.D., Psychologist – Consultant, Social-Emotional Learning & Wellbeing Submitted by: Liz Cook, Executive Superintendent, Student Learning Support Services Poleen Grewal, Associate Director of Instructional and Equity Support Services

13

14

Review of the Gifted Identification Process

Peel District School Board

Team Members:

Archie Kwan, Ph.D., C.Psych. (Team Lead)

Carol Barber, M.A., C.Psych.

Nicole Haughton, M.Ed., C.Psych.

Jan Heramchuk, Dip.C.S., C.Psych.

Harpal Mehmi, M.Psy.

Anne Marie Mikhail, Ph.D., C.Psych.

Joanna Rowe, M.A.

Connie Zieren, M.A., C.Psych.

15



April 2021

2

Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 2

Next Steps ................................................................................................................................... 2

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 3

Recommendations from Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) ................................ 3

Current Gifted Identification Process .............................................................................................. 4

Review of Gifted Identification Statistics at the Peel District School Board ............................... 5

Gifted Identification at Ontario School Boards............................................................................ 6

Definitions ....................................................................................................................................... 6

Review of the Gifted Literature - Effective Practices to Address Inequity ..................................... 7

1. Multiple Sources of Information ........................................................................................... 7

2. Universal or Group Administered Measures ....................................................................... 9

A) Use of Local Norms ...................................................................................................... 9

3. Individual Psychological Assessment ................................................................................ 10

A) Use of Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children - 5th Edition (WISC-V) ................ 11

B) Use of Nonverbal Measures ....................................................................................... 12

C) Use of Social-Emotional Measures ............................................................................ 13

4. Degrees of Giftedness Based on Intellectual Levels ........................................................ 14

5. Matching Measures to Program Emphasis ....................................................................... 15

6. Use of Academic Measures ............................................................................................... 16

7. Teacher Information and Training ..................................................................................... 17

A) Teacher Understanding of Giftedness ....................................................................... 18

B) Gifted Rating Scale - School Age (GRS-S)................................................................ 18

C) Teacher Training ........................................................................................................ 19

8. Parent Input........................................................................................................................ 20

9. Student Input ...................................................................................................................... 21

10. Disproportionality Targets .............................................................................................. 22

16



April 2021

3

References .................................................................................................................................... 23

Appendices ................................................................................................................................... 28

Appendix A - Equity Issues in the Gifted Identification Process .............................................. 27

Appendix B - Summary of Ontario School Board Gifted Criteria ............................................. 33

Appendix C - Sample Summary and Decision-Making Tools .................................................. 36

Appendix D - CCAT Process Chart .......................................................................................... 40

Appendix E - Expanded General Ability Index ......................................................................... 42

Appendix F - Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) ................................................. 44

Appendix G - Teacher Observation Tool .................................................................................. 45

Appendix H - Parent Input Questionnaire ................................................................................. 48

Appendix I - Parent Interview for Psychology ........................................................................... 50

Appendix J - Student Interest Interview and Questionnaire ..................................................... 52

Recommendations

● The What

● The blue boxes contain general recommendations

Implementation Considerations

● The How

● The green boxes contain information about specific processes, as well as steps that are

to be followed by individual educators and school board staff.

17

Executive Summary

The Peel District School Board is undertaking system transformation to ensure that the well

documented historical disparities and disproportionate outcomes in student achievement and

experiences are eliminated. Drawing from an equity and anti-oppressive lens, this review of the

gifted identification process was also guided by several key recommendations from the Special

Education Advisory Committee (SEAC):

1. Review gifted identification statistics

2. Create a portfolio approach to gifted identification

3. Ensure the GRS-S is not a barrier to gifted identification

4. Develop a process where outcome data is examined against the Ministry of Education’s

definition of giftedness

Recommendation #1: (Review of the gifted identification statistics):

To address Recommendation #1, the Research and Accountability Department examined several

sources of data including the student census, Student Information System, and the PDSB

Research database. A report entitled Equity Issues in the Gifted Identification Process (PDSB,

2021) (Appendix A) was completed, and it details significant disproportionalities such that

students of certain racial, gender, socio-economic, and ELL groups were under-represented in

gifted identification statistics. These disproportionalities are reflective of inherent biases in the

gifted identification process, creating barriers that disadvantaged certain students from accessing

gifted identification and support.

In the current review, several key barriers were identified in the gifted identification process at the

Peel District School Board. These barriers included:

● CCAT index scores are recalculated in a manner that may disadvantage students with

math talents and/or limited English language proficiency.

● The teacher completed Gifted Rating Scale-School Age (GRS-S), in the decision-making

algorithm, acts as a blocking mechanism which restricts a student from proceeding further

in the gifted identification process if scoring thresholds on the GRS are not first met.

Students who may be unmotivated, reticent, or come from disadvantaged backgrounds

may attain low scores on the teacher completed GRS-S.

● Academic achievement results are heavily weighted and serve as a blocking mechanism

such that a student cannot proceed further in the formal identification process if the

academic achievement threshold is not first met. As a result, gifted and talented students

with learning disabilities, low motivation, or disadvantaged backgrounds may be screened

out.

● Parent and student voices are not included.

● ELL students working within the Steps 1-3, which are among approximately 15% of Grade

4 students, are exempted from writing the CCAT each year. These students have no

pathway to the gifted screening process.

18

Recommendation #2: Create a portfolio approach to gifted identification, and

Recommendation #3: GRS

Current theories and research regarding intelligence and giftedness emphasize that gifted

identification should be a multi-faceted approach to reduce bias. Use of a single criterion as the

determining measure for gifted identification is not considered best practice, particularly for

students from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Rather, data should be gathered from

multiple sources, both qualitative and quantitative. Intellectual and academic achievement data

are important sources of quantitative information while qualitative information may include

observations, interviews, or work samples. To further reduce bias, input from various individuals

including the students themselves, their parents, and teachers contribute to a portfolio approach

to the gifted identification/screening process.

This review detailed the various sources of information that are gathered to help guide the gifted

identification process at the Peel District School Board. Samples of rating scales, questionnaires,

and decision-making algorithms are contained in the Appendices. Key recommendations include:

● Continued use of the CCAT as a universal measure

● Students attaining a high score on the CCAT need not continue to an individual

cognitive/psychological assessment (see Appendix D)

● Individual cognitive/psychological assessment for a select group of students

● Intellectual measures to include expanded pathways for students to demonstrate their

abilities and talents

● Academic achievement measures to inform strengths and needs only

● A social-emotional measure to identify any additional needs of the student

● Utilize various resources developed as part of this review to obtain information from

parents, teachers, and the student

● Using resources to capture self-identification data and other information such as SVI and

ELL status

● Facilitate additional professional development opportunities for teachers and parents

● GRS-S to be replaced with a Teacher Observation Tool (see Appendix G)

● Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the data to measure progress over time

● Consider using local or building norms, disproportionality targets, and/or alternative/new

universal measures as needed to address any shortfalls in the outcome data over time

Recommendation #4: Outcome Data

This final recommendation to the writing team centers on the following guiding questions:

All ability-related data to be examined against the following criteria:

● Do the data demonstrate an unusually advanced degree of general intellectual ability?

● Do the data demonstrate that the student requires differentiated learning experiences of

a depth and breadth beyond those normally provided in the regular school program to

satisfy the level of educational potential indicated?

As a result, additional materials (Appendix C) are created to guide the consolidation of information

from multiple sources of data. This will allow for better understanding of students’ learning profile

19



April 2021

2

and their programming needs. In doing so, the student’s profile can be examined against the

Ontario Ministry of Education’s formal definition of giftedness.

Conclusions

Current directions in gifted student identification focus on inclusion of diversity and more effective

methods of identifying students with strong proclivity as learners. It is essential that decisions are

made with the input of multiple stakeholders, including members of SEAC, administrators,

educators, Special Education staff, members of community groups, and psychology staff.

Through the recommendations presented above, we expect that the Gifted Identification process

at the Peel District School Board can be made more inclusive and accessible to those who have

previously been left out, become more in line with the practices occurring in other school boards

(particularly in the United States), and be more responsive to the requests made by the Special

Education Advisory Committee.

Next Steps

● Presentation of key components and recommendations to SEAC

● Establish a stakeholder committee to review and receive feedback of recommendations

including procedural options, and materials/resources created to support the new gifted

screening proposal

● Continue to develop additional resource materials to support key components of the new

gifted screening proposal

● Involvement of Special Education to further develop and refine the new gifted screening

process, particularly with respect to IPRC identification, placement, educational

programming, and teacher professional learning

● Involvement of the Research Department to assist with best practices including data

collection, interpretation, and reporting

● Establish a pilot study to trial key components of the new assessment process (possibly

including all SVI 6 schools)

● Continue to investigate and evaluate new measures that are scheduled for publication in

2021 (e.g., GRS-2, The Naglieri General Ability Tests)

20



April 2021

3

Background

The Peel District School Board (PDSB) is undertaking system transformation to ensure that the

well documented and historical disparities and disproportionate outcomes in student achievement

and experiences are eliminated. The PDSB recognizes that in order to achieve our stated mission

of inspiring success, confidence and hope in every student, we must identify and address the

systemic inequities that persist and continue to deny students with particular identities and

intersectional identities (e.g., Black, African, Caribbean, Indigenous) access to the pathways and

programs.

Staff will be developing a process for reviewing specific processes, structures, policies and

programs through an anti-racism and anti-oppression analysis as part of our commitment to equity

and inclusion, which aligns closely with the Ministry of Education’s Directions to the Pee l District

School Board (March 13, 2020).

Directive 9 states that, as part of the Annual Accountability Equity Report Card, the PDSB must

report on clearly defined student-centred outcomes including eliminating disparities in

achievement of students from the Board’s various communities. This means establishing

accountability measures and responsibilities for using disaggregated data based on a number of

identity factors including race.

Overview

A writing team, composed of staff from the Psychology Department, reviewed the criteria for

student gifted identification at the Peel Board District School. Drawing from an equity and anti-

oppressive lens, the work was guided by recommendations from the Special Education Advisory

Committee (SEAC):

Recommendations from Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC)

Recommendations #1 (Review of Gifted Identification Statistics):

For students identified as Gifted, review the available student census, Social Vulnerability Index

(SVI), and CCAT data to:

● Determine which self-identified groups are under-represented and the extent of their

under-representation.

● Determine the impact of social vulnerability (using SVI data) on gifted identification.

● Determine the impact of English Language Learner (ELL) status on gifted identification.

21



April 2021

4

Recommendation #2 (Portfolio Approach to Gifted Identification):

Develop a portfolio approach that includes data from:

● Psychoeducational Assessment

● Academic Achievement

● Parent input

● Teacher input

● Self-identification data

● SVI data

● ELL data

● Social-emotional data

● Artifacts

Recommendation #3 (Pertaining to the GRS):

Ensure that the Gifted Rating Scale-School Age (GRS-S) is not a barrier to the identification

process.

Recommendation #4 (Outcome Data):

All ability-related data to be examined against the following criteria:

● Do the data demonstrate an unusually advanced degree of general intellectual ability?

● Do the data demonstrate that the student requires differentiated learning experiences of

a depth and breadth beyond those normally provided in the regular school program to

satisfy the level of educational potential indicated?

Current Gifted Identification Process

The current screening process for Gifted identification involves three aspects: cognitive data,

teacher data, and academic data.

● For cognitive data, students participate in the group-administered Canadian Cognitive

Ability Test (CCAT) and then, if necessary, an individual psychoeducational assessment

of cognitive skills (WISC, SB, WJ).

● For teacher data, teachers complete the Gifted Rating Scale - School Age (GRS-S).

● For academic data, students complete reading and math subtests of the WIAT or KTEA.

Points are assigned to each of these data points, and then the points are entered into a matrix

with cut-off scores to determine eligibility for formal Identification, Placement, and Review

Committee (IPRC) identification and program supports, including the In-School Enhanced

Learning Program (ISELP) or Enhanced Learning Class (ELC) as determined by an IPRC. A

student may be eligible for ISELP without a formal IPRC identification of Intellectual - Gifted.

22



April 2021

5

A review of the current gifted identification process has indicated concerns in several key areas,

a number of which contribute to an elevated degree of potential bias in the selection progress:

● CCAT results are recalculated such that the Quantitative and Nonverbal scores are

averaged, which may disadvantage certain students such as those who are ELL, math

talented, or from marginalized backgrounds.

● The teacher-completed GRS-S serves as a gating or blocking mechanism in the process.

A student cannot proceed further in the formal screening process if GRS-S thresholds are

not first met.

● Academic achievement results are heavily weighted and serve as a gating or blocking

mechanism. A student cannot proceed further in the formal identification process if the

academic achievement threshold is not first met. As a result, gifted and talented students

with learning disabilities, with low motivation, or from disadvantaged backgrounds may be

screened out.

● Parent and student voices are not included.

● ELL students working within the Steps 1-3, which represent approximately 15% of Grade

4 students, are exempted from writing the CCAT each year. These students have no

pathway to the gifted screening process.

Review of Gifted Identification Statistics at the Peel District School Board

The Research and Accountability Department at the Peel District School Board completed an

analysis of the gifted identification statistics as detailed by Recommendation #1 (Review of Gifted

Identification Statistics). A report Equity Issues in the Gifted Identification Process (PDSB, 2021)

(Appendix A) was completed. The Summary of Findings from the report is reproduced below and

highlight clear disproportionality in students identified under the gifted exceptionality at the Peel

District School Board:

Summary of Findings:

The current PDSB gifted identification process is associated with disproportionalities in the

composition of gifted education programs along gender, race, and class lines. In particular:

● Male students are overrepresented and female students are underrepresented among

gifted students.

● Black students are four times less likely and Middle Eastern students are three times less

likely to be identified as gifted than their presence in the overall PDSB student population

would predict.

● East Asian students are almost six times more likely and White students are one and a

half times more likely to be identified as gifted than their presence in the overall PDSB

student population would predict.

23



April 2021

6

● Gifted students are more likely to live in areas where the median household income is

higher, poverty rates are lower, and rates of home ownership and educational attainment

are higher than PDSB averages.

● Students who were never identified as being English language learners (ELLs) are nearly

equitably represented among gifted students compared to their presence in the overall

PDSB student population.

● Students who were identified as being English language learners (ELL) at STEPS 0-3 are

seven times less likely to be identified as gifted than their presence in the overall PDSB

student population would predict.

Gifted Identification at Ontario School Boards

Based on a recent review of publicly funded school boards in Ontario (76 in total), fewer than half

(37), including PDSB, have criteria as to how students are identified and/or placed in a program

with a Gifted designation available on their website. Of these school boards, 19 use some sort of

group screening measure (most often the CCAT) to either move directly to IPRC or to qualify for

an individual Psychoeducational Assessment. Some boards use an overall portfolio approach,

which might include teacher and parent information, in addition to student characteristics and

performance. Most often, teacher and parent input is gained in a non-standardized way.

When scores (either from the CCAT or from individual assessment) are considered in the

identification and placement decision, overall performance at the 98 th percentile is the most

common standard. Some school boards additionally have variations based on age, second

language, learning disability, or procedures for ensuring gender balance and classroom

representation.

Appendix B - Summary of Ontario School Board Gifted Criteria

Definitions

The Ontario Ministry of Education, through the Education Act, defines Giftedness under the broad

category of an Intellectual Exceptionality: An unusually advanced degree of general intellectual

ability that requires differentiated learning experiences of a depth and breadth beyond those

normally provided in the regular school program to satisfy the level of educational potential

indicated (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2017).

24



April 2021

7

The National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC, 2019) defines giftedness by the following:

Students with gifts and talents perform - or have the capability to perform - at higher levels

compared to others of the same age, experience, and environment in one or more domains. They

require modification(s) to their educational experience(s) to learn and realize their potential.

Students with gifts and talents:

● Come from all racial, ethnic, and cultural populations, as well as all economic strata.

● Require sufficient access to appropriate learning opportunities to realize their potential.

● Can have learning and processing disorders that require specialized intervention and

accommodation.

● Need support and guidance to develop socially and emotionally as well as in their areas

of talent.

● Require varied services based on their changing needs.

Review of the Gifted Literature - Effective Practices to Address Inequity

Currently, a large portion of the literature on gifted identification is focused on equity and

addressing under-representation of certain racialized students. Indeed, the research has

identified significant inequities where the students in gifted education programs do not represent

proportionality relative to the student population (Grissom & Redding, 2016). When gifted

identification data was reviewed by the Research and Accountability Department at the Peel

District School Board, disproportionality was clearly confirmed on specific characteristics within

the Gifted Exceptionality at the Peel District School Board (PDSB, 2021; Appendix A).

As a result, the focus on equity has contributed to a re-conceptualization of traditional definitions

of giftedness such that there is now an emphasis on identifying students with talent and

achievement potential. This perspective has also encouraged researchers to identify bias in the

traditional gifted identification processes and make recommendations to combat bias and promote

more equitable practices. These practices include:

1. Multiple Sources of Information

Much of the research literature focused on identifying inequities in gifted identification indicates

that bias is most prevalent in processes that utilize only one or two criteria. For example, teacher

nomination as a primary determinant for gifted identification has been implicated in the under-

representation of marginalized students in gifted education programs (Grissom & Redding, 2016;

Lamb, Boedeker, & Kettler, 2019). Therefore, the literature is quite clear in the recommendation

that effective practices that promote equity in gifted identification require multiple sources of

information based on the need for special education services (McBee, Peters, & Waterman,

2014). This recommendation is consistent with the direction provided by SEAC for this Gifted

Review.

25



April 2021

8

Multiple sources of information may include both quantitative and qualitative information including

formal IQ tests, academic achievement tests, student work samples, social-emotional information,

and feedback from teachers, parents, and students. The convergence of this data should be

viewed as sources of information rather than “criteria” (Boreland, 1986).

However, information from multiple sources needs to be interpreted as discrete units of

information because the practice of combining scores from a variety of measures into a single

composite score (e.g., IQ score combined with an achievement score and a rating scale), violates

sound statistical methods and should not be performed to inform decision-making (Frasier, 1997).

Appendix C - Sample Summary and Decision-Making Tools

Recommendations

● Inherent biases within the current gifted identification process be addressed with use of

a portfolio approach, which includes multiple sources of quantitative and qualitative data

information from:

○ Intellectual measures (Group and/or Individual)

○ Academic achievement

○ Parent Input

○ Teacher input

○ Self-identification data

○ SVI data

○ ELL data

○ Social-emotional data

○ Artifacts


● Each school to establish an in-school gifted committee to review students eligible for

gifted consideration.

● The final composition of the committee to be determined by stakeholder consultation

but the following groups should be included:

○ School Administrator, Psychoeducational Consultant, Special Education

Resource Teacher, In-School Support Program teacher.

● All students meeting intellectual thresholds (see Sections #2 and 3) should be reviewed

at the In-School-Review Committee (ISRC) to discuss next steps (including possible

referrals to psychology and/or gathering of additional sources of information) to

complete a portfolio for each student being considered for gifted screening.

● School-based gifted committees to utilize materials (Appendix B & C) to guide the review

of the various sources of information to assist with the gifted screening process.

26



April 2021

9

2. Universal or Group Administered Measures

In the gifted identification process, universal measures are typically group administered to all

students in a defined cohort. For example, at the Peel DSB, the Canadian Cognitive Abilities

Test-7th Edition (CCAT-7) is administered to all students in Grade 4 (with some exceptions).

Universal measures may include cognitive tests and/or rating scales of behaviour or gifted traits.

These universal measures are viewed as less biased because all students are administered the

measure without being nominated by a teacher or parent. However, universal measures, such as

the CCAT-7, can have inherent biases that disadvantage certain students. For example, when

examining the Peel DSB CCAT-7 statistics, Peel students are performing less well on the Verbal

Score compared to National norms, such that only 1 percent of Peel students are performing

within the 98th percentile according to National norms (where 2 percent of the norm sample should

reside within this percentile threshold). This discrepancy may be reflective of the large number of

ELL students in Peel DSB. Therefore, any decision-making algorithms involving the CCAT will

need to mitigate some of these biases.

A) Use of Local Norms

When using standardized, group-administered measures of intelligence to screen for potential

gifted candidates, some researchers recommend the use of “building level local norms” to

increase the diversity of students identified (Peters, Rambo-Hernandez, Makel, Matthews, &

Plucker, 2019). Using this process, schools rank the performance of students within their school

building and allow students to meet the gifted criteria using either national norms (e.g., 96th

percentile on the screening measure) or building norms (e.g., top 5% of building). Peters et al.

(2019) reported an increase in identification of both Black and Latinx students when using building

norms, with the greatest effect in schools with higher racial diversity. This method does identify

more students than a strict cut-off score. The advantage of building norms over local norms (e.g.,

for an entire district) is to adapt for racial and income differences across a school board region

(Ford, 2015).

Appendix D - Sample CCAT Processes

Recommendations

● Continue the practice of using the CCAT-7 as a universal measure but implement

additional procedures to reduce bias in the identification process including:

○ A new algorithm which increases the number of pathways for students to

demonstrate their intellectual abilities on the CCAT and adjustments to score

thresholds to better capture a wider range of gifted students.

○ Consider the option of using Local Norms or Building Norms if, after a period of

time, disproportionality continues to be a concern (see Appendix D - Option B)

27



April 2021

10

○ A recommendation to include ELL students (Steps 1 to 3) in the gifted screening

process by providing these students/schools with an option to complete the

Nonverbal and Quantitative sections of the CCAT only.

○ To closely monitor and evaluate new group intellectual measures that

specifically target bias and disproportionality as they become available [e.g., The

Naglieri General Ability Test (Verbal, Nonverbal, and Quantitative)].

● To enhance system responsiveness to student needs:

○ Removal of the requirement for an individual psychological assessment once a

CCAT score threshold has been met. (See Appendix D)

○ Consider a review to determine:

■ any system challenges that may be contributing to inefficiencies and

delays in the gifted screening/identification process.

■ the benefits and challenges associated with an earlier (e.g., grade 3)

administration of the CCAT.

● At the central level, an in-depth review of Riverside’s CCAT Data Manager platform to

fully utilize capabilities with respect to data analysis.

○ Consider more involvement of psychology in the review of this centralized data.


● Intellectual information from the CCAT-7 to include a review of the following scores:

○ Verbal Index

○ Nonverbal Index

○ Quantitative Index

○ Full Composite

○ Quantitative/Nonverbal Composite

○ Verbal/Nonverbal Composite

● No additional individual Cognitive/Psychological Assessment required if CCAT-7 score

is at or greater than the 98th percentile in: a) Full Composite or QN Composite or VN

Composite, OR b) TWO other Indices (Verbal, Nonverbal, Quantitative).

● Psychological Assessment for students whose CCAT-7 scores are at least the 96th

percentile but do not meet the threshold above: a) Full Composite or QN Composite or

VN Composite, OR b) TWO other indices (Verbal, Nonverbal, Quantitative).

● Decision-making algorithm provided (Appendix D - Option A) and, should Top 5 % of

Building Norms be considered, Appendix C - Option B is provided.

3. Individual Psychological Assessment

One of the most important pieces of information to be considered is the individual Intelligence (IQ)

test: “In terms of reliability and validity, standardized intelligence tests are usually the most

psychometrically sound instruments available” (Sparrow et al, 2005). Individual

28



April 2021

11

psychoeducational assessments should continue to play a key role in the gathering of the

quantitative AND the qualitative data. According to the National Association for Gifted Children

(NAGC), psychology staff trained in this area are sensitive to and experienced with both the

administration of standardized tests, and the social-emotional, cultural, familial and linguistic

factors that may affect test performance. Psychology staff are also in the best position to

determine which specific assessment instruments should be used in order to be sensitive to the

inclusion of under-represented groups, culturally and linguistically diverse students, and twice-

exceptional students (Gifted-LD or Gifted-ASD).

A) Use of Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children - 5th Edition (WISC-V)

Some students are gifted across all areas (“omnibus gifted students”), but the majority of gifted students are not and show distinctive patterns of strengths and relative weaknesses.

In general, broad patterns of gifted learners reflect higher mean scores on the indices loaded for

abstract reasoning (Verbal Comprehension Index [VCI], Visual-Spatial Index [VSI], Fluid

Reasoning Index [FRI]) and relatively lower mean scores on cognitive proficiency (Working

Memory Index [WMI] and Processing Speed Index [PSI], especially PSI). These latter two indices

are typically lower than their performance in the first three indices.

Furthermore, unlike the CCAT verbal tests that load on reading and written responses, the verbal

subtests on the WISC require verbal/oral expressive responses, which are more in line with

measuring higher level verbal conceptualization and reasoning abilities.

Silverman (2018) recommends that the Expanded Indices should be calculated when assessing

for giftedness. Specifically:

● the Verbal Expanded Crystallized Index (VECI) should always be calculated, as this most

closely resembles the verbal IQ from previous WISC versions and is a strong measure of

general intelligence, commonly referred to as “g.”

● The WISC-V Vocabulary is the only core subtest with good g-loading. Information and

Arithmetic, which also have good g-loadings, are both secondary subtests that do not

contribute to FSIQ. This means only one out of seven subtests comprising the FSIQ is a strong

measure of general intelligence.

● All 15 subtests should be administered in order to derive the three expanded composite scores

that provide better estimates of giftedness (the VECI, EFI, and EGAI).

● g-loadings for Processing Speed subtests are poor and should not be used as part of the

measure of giftedness.

A new “Gifted Index” for the WISC-V has been developed (the EGAI), which is an expanded

version of the General Ability Index or GAI and is recommended by NAGC. In the WISC-V

Technical Report #5 produced by the test publisher, Pearson, Raiford et al. (2019) note that, “The

NAGC provides the guidance in order to ensure that gifted education is accessible to gifted

children who are twice-exceptional, culturally diverse, disadvantaged, highly gifted, or bilingual;

or who experience asynchronous development in other ways and may exhibit striking patterns of

29



April 2021

12

strengths in higher-order reasoning and weaknesses in working memory and processing speed."

They further note that the EGAI was created to provide a broader measure of higher-order

reasoning compared to the GAI, as it derives from the three cognitive domains that load highly on

the general intelligence factors (i.e., verbal comprehension, nonverbal fluid reasoning and visual-

spatial processing). As a result, it provides a broader measure of multiple areas of intelligence,

including crystallized intelligence, fluid intelligence, verbal concept formation, categorical and

associative reasoning, learning, practical or commonsense judgment, visual and visual-spatial

reasoning, and quantitative reasoning. It is composed of the GAI plus Information,

Comprehension, and Arithmetic, which balances verbal, visual-spatial and mathematical

subtests. It will allow for interpretation of scores compared to norms for other gifted students, and

thereby, further differentiate gifted learners at the high end of the gifted range.

For broad investigation of cognitive skills, the NAGC recommends review and consideration of all

of the following Composite and Index scores (list of subtests included in calculation in

parentheses) (NAGC, 2018; Engi Raiford, Courville, Peters, Gilman, & Silverman, 2019):

a) Verbal (Expanded Crystallized) Index (VECI) (SI, VC, IN and CO),

b) Nonverbal Index (NVI) (BD, MR, CD, FW, VP, and PS)

c) Expanded Fluid Index (EFI) (MR, FW, PC, and AR)

d) General Ability Index (GAI) (BD, SI, MR, VC and FW)

e) Full Scale IQ Score (FSIQ) (BD, SI, MR, DS, CD, VC, and FW)

f) Expanded General Ability Index (EGAI) (SI, VC, IN, CO, BD, MR, FW and AR)

g) Quantitative Reasoning Index (QRI) (FW and AR)

This team recommends not using the QRI as an overall measure, as it is the only index score

listed above that includes only two subtests and therefore does not show broad use of intelligence.

Appendix E - Expanded General Ability Index Computation

B) Use of Nonverbal Measures

Use of traditional intelligence tests among diverse populations may result in invalid scores, as

they may not accurately measure the strengths of students from diverse ethnic and cultural

backgrounds (Carman et al., 2010). As a result, some researchers have advised exclusive use of

nonverbal tests with English Language Learners (ELL) to decrease the linguistic and cultural

demands. As well, nonverbal measures have been frequently assumed to be unbiased and

“culture-free.” However, the research is inconsistent with respect to the efficacy of using strictly

nonverbal assessments of intelligence as a way to increase diversity in gifted programs, including

with ELLs and students of racialized groups (Lakin, 2011; Ecker-Lyster and Niileksela, 2017).

While nonverbal measures are more culturally sensitive because they place greater emphasis on

fluid reasoning ability, there are problems with their use as the sole measure to screen for

giftedness (Ecker-Lyster and Niileksela, 2017).

30



April 2021

13

The removal of language content in an intelligence measure, so it is nonverbal in format, does

not necessarily decrease selection bias. One main reason is that socioeconomic status is

positively correlated with performance on intelligence tests (Carman et al., 2010). And, to further

complicate matters, socioeconomic status is often confounded with, or associated but not

necessarily related to, ethnicity (Carman et al., 2010).

Although nonverbal reasoning tests alone may be good measures of general ability (g), they do

not measure the specific verbal and quantitative abilities that add to the prediction of academic

success for students from all ethnic backgrounds (Lohman et al., 2008). Research continues to

show that verbal tests are the best predictors of reading achievement, while quantitative and

visual-spatial tests are more effective in predicting math achievement (Lohman et al., 2008).

However, Naglieri & Ford (2015, p. 235) argue that “the purpose of a nonverbal measure of

general ability is to measure ability with tests that do not require verbal, social, and quantitative

knowledge, especially considering that the aforementioned minority students often have not had

the opportunity to acquire the academic information these tests require to the same degree as

White students, especially those who are higher income, academically privileged, and socially

advantaged.” Given the tools available, it is recommended that assessments continue to use a

combination of verbal and nonverbal tasks with opportunities for primarily nonverbal scoring when

needed.

C) Use of Social-Emotional Measures

Research studies show that gifted students often face high levels of stress, perfectionism, social

difficulties, hyperactivity, and inattention (Haberlin, 2015). High stress levels seem to come from

academic challenges (e.g., workload, competition with peers), peer relationships (e.g., social

difficulties like not fitting in and bullying), school transitions, and overcommitment to extra-

curricular activities (Peterson, Duncan, Canady, 2009). Increased perfectionism in gifted students

often leads to increased feelings of sadness and anxiety, as well as reduced feelings of happiness

(Stornelli, Flett, & Hewitt, 2009). Moreover, since there are several overlapping characteristics

between giftedness and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), ADHD symptoms can

mask giftedness (leading to academic underachievement and lower IQ scores) and giftedness

can mask ADHD (making it hard to identify symptoms using traditional checklists) (Mullet & Rinn,

2015; Wood, 2012). Furthermore, behaviours such as excitability, hyperactivity, boredom,

inattention, and questioning authority are more likely to be seen as symptoms of ADHD rather

than symptoms of giftedness (Rinn & Reynold, 2012).

Accordingly, in order to obtain a comprehensive learning profile of the gifted student, a social-

emotional screening tool should be completed by parents and teachers (Appendix F). This will

provide a better understanding of the strengths and needs of each student. It will also allow for

better program planning to ensure that gifted programs are meeting students’ needs.

Appendix F - Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)

31



April 2021

14

Recommendations

● Individual Psychological Assessment to continue to be an aspect of the gifted

identification process for students, with the more inclusive use of expanded indices.

● Utilize and interpret nonverbal measures as appropriate in the CCAT and WISC-V.

● Psychology Department to use the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ),

which is a brief behavioural screening questionnaire for 3–16-year-olds, with parents

and teachers (the SDQ forms are available in many different languages).


● Psychology Staff to receive additional training in:

○ All aspects of the new gifted identification process (when approved).

○ The use of WISC-V expanded indices and expanded gifted norms to further

differentiate students at the high end of the gifted range.

○ SDQ administration and interpretation.

● Messaging needed for third party psychologists to be aware of Peel DSB’s use of WISC-

V expanded indices.

4. Degrees of Giftedness Based on Intellectual Levels

There is a need to recognize that there are levels of Giftedness, and various levels may require

differentiated educational approaches. According to Wasserman (2013), there may be 3 or 4

standard deviations of difference between students who are moderately versus profoundly gifted,

yielding large individual differences within the range of gifted learners. Similarly, students who are

identified based on more mild gifted presentations may require additional support in domains such

as academic skills, executive functions (e.g., planning and organization), etc.

Most school boards focus on servicing the students who are mildly or moderately gifted,

while the students who are at extreme ends of the continuum may need more differentiated

programming to address special education needs. There is a need to consider that gifted

students who are functioning well in a mainstream program will benefit from integrated enhanced

programming to meet their individual needs, while more highly gifted students may need a

completely different model.

32



April 2021

15

Recommendations

● Special Education to review Gifted programming, with consideration to how to support

the wide range of gifted students whose needs are not being met in mainstream or

regional programs.

● In addition to cognitive functioning, student’s social-emotional functioning, and parent

and teacher consultation should be considered to gain a deeper sense of the child's

learning profile and support whether the student’s needs are being met within the

mainstream program.

5. Matching Measures to Program Emphasis

Identification measures that are relevant to the program emphasis should be a crucial

consideration in determining which measures to use.

● NOT Best Practice

○ Use of verbal measures to decide on which students would be most successful in

a math program.

○ Select students with strong quantitative abilities to go into a program that

emphasizes verbal reasoning.

● The identification system (criteria) needs to be geared to the nature of the program

intervention. We also need to be mindful of the fact that researchers have determined the

majority of gifted programs place heavy demands on students’ verbal and linguistic

abilities in English.

It is essential to recognize that, “if a school [board] is going to alter its identification practices

from what is already in place, it must also alter the services it provides to identified students”

(Matthews and Peters, 2018).

There needs to be differentiation of instruction in the delivery of that Special Education

intervention to ensure that highly gifted students have their needs met, while the students who

can have their needs met in the mainstream with extensions are not caused anxiety because they

cannot keep up with the pace of the curriculum.

Recommendations

● This should be a part of the gifted screening committee at the school level.

● Use available intellectual data (e.g., CCAT or Psychological Assessments) to help link

individual student profiles to differentiate instruction.

33



April 2021

16

● See Lakin, J. & Driver, V. Using the Canadian Cognitive Abilities Test (CCAT) Score

Profiles to differentiate instruction.


Identification needs to be the means by which appropriate Special Education services are

secured in order to meet the needs of the individual student – testing should not be an end in

itself.

● Assessment should not be conducted for the sake of an IPRC identification alone.

● Assessment should be conducted to meet the unique needs of the gifted student that

are not being met in the regular school program.

● The Gifted Special Education Identification Summary can be a resourceful tool to

support appropriate referrals for identification.

6. Use of Academic Measures

Use of academic measures of achievement in the gifted identification/screening process is

generally not supported. Students from low SES are often excluded by academic demands for

gifted education, even if meeting the cognitive requirements (Winsler, 2013). A variety of tools for

identifying students is recommended for culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse (CLED)

students, such as work portfolios, probationary placements, or observations during enriched

lessons (Briggs, 2008), as well as allowing for flexibility and special consideration (e.g., a student

not exactly meeting criteria but still showing potential). Instead, academic achievement data can

be used as another source of valuable information, as long as this specific information is not used

as a gating or blocking mechanism for the gifted identification/screening process.

Academic achievement data can be helpful in identifying areas of strength and need to assist with

program planning, as well as helping to identify those students who may be underachieving when

compared to their potential. For example, poor reading accuracy and fluency skills can impede

academic achievement. However, these skills are not strongly correlated with intellectual ability.

Recommendations

● Continue to use standardized academic achievement measures to inform a student’s

strengths and needs.

● Academic achievement data should not be used in a “gating” or “blocking” fashion in the

gifted identification/screening process.

● Academic achievement measures can be administered by teachers or psychology staff.

34



April 2021

17


● One of the following measures to be used as programming information, scored with age-

based norms.

○ Kaufman Tests of Educational Achievement - 3rd Edition (KTEA-3):

■ Comprehensive Form - Reading and Math subtests

■ Administered by teachers

■ Caution to interpretation due to American norm set

○ Wechsler Individual Achievement Test - 3rd Edition (WIAT-3)

■ Reading and Math subtests

■ Administered by psychology staff

■ Use of Canadian norms

● Examination of students’ report cards to better understand their school performance.

● Consideration, in particular, of academic achievement challenges related to poor

reading accuracy and fluency (which are not strongly related to intellectual ability).

7. Teacher Information and Training

As an initial selection process, teacher nomination of potential gifted students has had widespread

use in school boards across North America because they are well positioned to provide

information about students’ learning skills, academic proficiency, motivation, and leadership skills

in the school setting. Teacher nomination is typically based on observations, questionnaires,

and/or rating scales. An examination of Ontario school boards reveals that there are three main

methods to obtain teachers’ feedback: teacher referral/nomination, teacher compiled academic

portfolio/profile, and teacher completed gifted rating scales.

Strong empirical evidence, however, shows there is teacher bias and misunderstanding about

student gifted characteristics. Teachers tend to overvalue high academic achievement and

positive learning behaviours as characteristics that determine potentially gifted students (Siegle

& Powell, 2004). Additionally, teachers are less likely to nominate girls, ethnically and linguistically

diverse students, and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds; all of which are major

causes of underrepresentation of these students in gifted identification and placement (Allen,

2007, Bianco, et al., 2011, Ford, Grantham, and Whiting, 2008; McBee, 2006, 2010; Ricciardi,

Haag-Wolf, & Winsler, 2020; Yoon & Gentry, 2009). For example, a recent longitudinal study, with

a nationally representative sample of elementary students, found Black students with high

standardized test scores were less likely to be assigned to gifted services even when

socioeconomic status, health, and characteristics of classrooms and schools were controlled

(Grissom & Redding, 2016). Furthermore, non-Black teachers were less likely to identify Black

and Latinx students for gifted programming (Grissom & Redding, 2016; Lamb, Boedeker, &

Kettler, 2019).

35



April 2021

18

Therefore, by using teacher nomination or input as a gating measure in the identification process

potential students (especially diverse students) are eliminated at the nomination or ground level.

A) Teacher Understanding of Giftedness

As indicated above, teachers often have misconceptions about the characteristics of giftedness.

Educators’ perceptions appear to be influenced by published behaviour characteristics of

giftedness, which will likely result in a failure to identify students who do not fit the predetermined

listed criteria (Siegel & Powell, 2004).

Of concern, teachers who attended in-services about gifted characteristics and who taught gifted

students continued to have misconceptions about giftedness in multiple ways (Speirs et al., 2007).

Teachers expected gifted students to enjoy reading, be self-motivated, learn easily, show above

average comprehension, and be creative. Few teachers recognized learning patterns from

minority or economically disadvantaged students or brought up less positive aspects, such as

boredom and underachievement. Teachers appear to link productivity with giftedness without

consideration of underachievement in culturally and linguistically diverse students (Ford, 2002).

Teachers also did not appreciate that weak learning skills (e.g., executive functioning skills) in

gifted students occurred as a result of their ease with schoolwork completion (Speirs et al., 2007).

Characteristics of gifted students, as identified by educators, are affected by race, language, and

gender. In a study by Siegel and Powell (2004), teachers received one of twelve vignettes

describing students with typical gifted characteristics who were female or male students who:

did/did not complete homework, had/did not have an interest in reading, and completed traditional

paper-and-pencil math computations or mental computations. Completion of schoolwork,

enjoyment of reading, and broad knowledge base (vs. narrower passion about a single subject)

were all considered indicative of giftedness, which is contrary to the research on characteristics

of actual gifted students. In addition, teachers often conflate good academic performance or high

grades with strong learning skills (Rothenbusch, Voss, Golle, & Zettler, 2018).

B) Gifted Rating Scale - School Age (GRS-S)

The Gifted Rating Scale - School Age (GRS-S) is a well-known norm-referenced rating scale

completed by teachers to assist with identification of potentially gifted students. The current Gifted

Identification/Screening at the Peel District School Board uses the GRS-S. The GRS-S shows

relatively strong correlation with standardized intellectual measures and is thought to reduce bias

when compared with teacher nomination to gifted and talented programming. Closer examination

of empirical results, however, shows the GRS-S tends to highlight students who are high

achievers and not students who are low achievers and/or from diverse backgrounds.

Some GRS-S research literature holds promise in identification of students who have a high or

very high likelihood of being gifted irrespective of differences for gender, race, and/or age (Pfeiffer,

Petscher, and Kumptepe,2008). However, research validation studies across race, gender, and

culture with the GRS-S are limited. Methodological problems, such as small samples of racial and

36



April 2021

19

ethnic groups, raise concerns about the utility of the GRS-S in racially diverse samples. For

example, some validation studies have collapsed the racial categories into “white” and “minority,”

despite research showing that Asian-American students actually perform better than both white

and other racialized groups.

Finally, the GRS-S is still largely a strengths-based scale, so it has limitations in its ability to

capture students who are underachievers or who do not present as typically motivated-to-achieve

students. As such, GRS-S may limit the selection of Black students for consideration of giftedness

due to actual or perceived underachievement. Research suggests that psychological factors and

peer pressures play a large role in underachievement among a majority of Black students (Ford,

1993).

C) Teacher Training

Teacher training is essential in order to address teachers’ biases and misconceptions about

giftedness (Grissom & Redding, 2016). Teacher training, or in-service, has shown positive effects

(Rizza and Morrison, 2003; Geake and Gross, 2008), and correlated with more students being

identified across culture, gender, socio-economic, and social emotional factors.

Input from educators is essential in the assessment of possible gifted students, as well as in the

development of appropriate academic supports and interventions. With purposeful training and

direct development of understanding of giftedness, educators can continue to participate in the

process. Strong understanding of characteristics associated with gifted students, including those

most often seen in culturally, ethnically, and linguistically diverse populations, will support

educators in using the tools recommended in this review.

Teacher in-service is recommended to decrease misconceptions and biases and provide

information about the characteristics of giftedness in students regardless of gender, ethnic,

cultural, or socio-economic differences. In tandem with teacher training, the use of a structured

teacher observation tool is recommended. With an observational tool, educators can observe

students and gather information for specific gifted characteristics.

.Appendix G - Teacher Observation Tool

Recommendations

To further mitigate sources of bias in the gifted screening/identification process, we recommend:

● Teacher training sessions to target increasing knowledge about characteristics of

giftedness, particularly in ethnically diverse and lower socioeconomic students.

● Regular (e.g., yearly) practice for teachers involved in the gifted identification process to

recognize and reduce bias in their understanding of giftedness, and promote principals

of anti-racism and anti-oppression in relation to individual student learning profiles

37



April 2021

20

● Replace GRS with the Observational Scale Tool for teacher input (Appendix G).

● Continue to investigate other tools and measures in development by test publishers.


● Multidisciplinary review of student profiles, including classroom, subject, and ISSP

teachers.

● Yearly staff review at ISRC level to evaluate both areas of strength and need with

respect to staff awareness/knowledge of gifted characteristics in students.

8. Parent Input

In the spirit of engaging parents more in the process of gifted assessment and identification, a

writing team composed of Administrators, Educators, Special Education Resource Teachers, and

Psychology staff met in the summer of 2020 to create a Parent Input Questionnaire. The writing

team focused on the need for inclusion of parent input when students present with intellectual

strengths, as well as when students present with behavioural and academic concerns. Through

asking direct questions of parents and guardians, the school team is able to gather information

about skills and characteristics that may not be as clear in the school environment. The Parent

Input Questionnaire is intended to be used in a variety of situations, including:

● The school or parent expresses the need for special education supports, including if a

parent provides a private psychoeducational assessment report indicating need for special

education supports (such as program extensions in a particular subject);

● The student is presenting with behaviour or academic concerns (strengths and/or needs)

that may be present in part due to the need for programming or environmental changes;

● The student demonstrates disengagement while presenting strong cognitive abilities; or

● When CCAT results indicate the need for further investigation.

This questionnaire is intended to invite parent voice and advocacy at all stages of the assessment

and identification process. In addition, purposeful involvement of parent input is recommended

during psychoeducational assessment and consultation for possible gifted students.

Recommended tools are the Strengths and Challenges Questionnaire, as well as the parent

interview created for this purpose.

Appendix H - Parent Questionnaire

Appendix I - Parent Interview for Psychology

38



April 2021

21

Recommendations

● Inclusion of parent voice and input earlier in the assessment and identification process

through interview or questionnaire when students are brought to ISRC.

● Inclusion of parent voice and input through conversation and interview with psychology

staff.


● Practice within school teams for the administration of the Parent Input Questionnaire

verbally, to gain familiarity with the content.

● Adaptation of questionnaires to different developmental levels (e.g., for secondary vs.

elementary students), as well as translation to languages used by families.

9. Student Input

Student input is an important component of the portfolio approach to the gifted screening progress

(NAGC, 2021). This input can be in the form of student work samples and interest rating scales

and/or questionnaires. Additionally, a set of questions intended to elicit information about gifted

characteristics, as broken down on the Teacher Observation Protocol, was created to obtain

firsthand information from students about their interests and talents.

Appendix J - Student Interest Interview and Questionnaire

Recommendations

• Include student work samples and interest questionnaires as part of the gifted

screening process.


● Various resource materials to be provided centrally to school committees.

● Adaptation of questions for different ages and/or languages as needed.

39



April 2021

22

10. Disproportionality Targets

Several researchers (Ford, 2015; Ford, Wright, & Scott, 2020) recommend setting minimal goals

for representation as a way of promoting diversity. A school board should look at its own racial

makeup and compare that to the actual enrolment of students in gifted education. For example,

in Peel, 10.1% of students are Black, it would be expected that around 10% of students in Gifted

programming would also be Black.

Some researchers recommend the use of an equity allowance of about 20% (Ford, 2015). Using

this calculation, we would take 20% of the targeted group’s actual size and subtract it from the

expected representation. In the example of 10.1% of the board population being Black, the overall

amount expected to be in Gifted programming would be 8.1% (20% of 10.1% is 2%; 10.1 minus

2 = 8.1%).

Rather than a quota, a representation goal reminds educators and administrators to be aware of

the students in their programs and consider the barriers when certain groups do not have an

adequate share. Ford’s recommendations for improving equity in gifted education also include

early screenings, ongoing opportunities for screening and placement, talent development,

screening based on one subscale rather than on composites, and the use of local and/or building

norms.

Recommendations to the System

● Regular data collection and analysis, in concert with the student census, to evaluate the

effectiveness of the current changes.

● Disproportionality Targets may need to be considered if recommended changes to the

gifted screening process do not yield improvements.

● Stakeholder feedback is essential.

40



April 2021

23

References

Allen, J.K. (2007). Exploring the Role Teacher Perceptions Play in the Underrepresentation of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students in Gifted Programming. Gifted Child Today, 40(2), 77-86.

Biano, M., Harris, B., Garrison-Wade, G., & Leech, N. (2001). Gifted Girls: Gender Bias in Gifted Referrals, Roeper Review, (33)3, 170-181, DOI:10.1080/02783193.2011.580500

Boreland, J.H. (1986). IQ tests: Throwing out the bathwater, saving the baby. Roeper Review, 8(3), 163-167.

Briggs, C. J., Reis, S. M., & Sullivan, E. E. (2008). A national view of promising programs and practices for culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse diverse gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 131-145. DOI: 10.1177/0016986208316037

Carman, C.A. & Taylor, D.K. (2010). Socioeconomic status effects on using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) to identify the gifted/talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(2), 75-84

Ecker-Lyster, M. & Niileksela, C. (2017). Enhancing gifted education for underrepresented students: Promising recruitment and programming strategies. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(1), 79-95. DOI: 10.1177/0162353216686216

Ford, D. Y. (1993). Support for the achievement ideology and determinants of underachievement as perceived by gifted, above-average, and average Black students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(3), 280-293

Ford, D. Y. (2002). Beyond deficit thinking: Providing access for gifted African American students. Roeper Review, 24(2), 52–58.

Ford, D. Y. (2015). Recruiting and retaining Black and Hispanic students in gifted education: Equality versus equity schools. Gifted Child Today, 38(3), 187-191. DOI: 10.1177/1076217515583745

Ford, D. Y., Wright, B. L., & Scott, M. T. (2020). A Matter of Equity: Desegregating and integrating gifted and talented education for under-represented students of color. Multicultural Perspectives, 22(1), 28-26. DOI: 10.1080/15210960.2020.1728275

Ford, D.Y, Grantham, TC., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 289-306.

Frasier, M. M. (1997). Multiple criteria: The mandate and the challenge. Roeper Review, 20(2), A4–A6.

Geake, J. G. & Gross, M. U. M. (2008). Teachers’ negative affect toward academically gifted students: An evolutionary psychological study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(3), 217-231.

41



April 2021

24

Goodman, R. (n.d.) Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. https://www.sdqinfo.org/

Grissom, J. A. & Redding, C. (2016). Discretion and Disproportionality: Explaining the Underrepresentation of High-Achieving Students of Color in Gifted Programs. AERA Open, 2(1), 1–25. DOI: 10.1177/2332858415622175

Haberlin, S. (2015) Don’t stress: What do we really know about teaching gifted children to cope with stress and anxiety? Gifted and Talented International, 30 (1-2), 146-151. DOI: 10.1080/15332276.2015.1137465

Lakin, J. M. & Lohman, D. F. (2011). The predictive accuracy of verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal reasoning tests: Consequences for talent identification and program diversity. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(4), 595-623.

Lamb, K.N., Boedeker, P., & Kettler, T. (2019). Inequities of Enrollment in Gifted Education: A Statewide Application of the 20% Equity Allowance Formula. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(4), 205–224. DOI: 10.1177/0016986219830768

Lohman, D. F., Korb, K. A., & Lakin, J. M. (2008). Identifying academically gifted English-Language Learners using nonverbal tests. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(4), 275-296. DOI: 10.1177/0016986208321808

Matthews, M.S. & Peters, S.J. (2018). Methods to increase the identification rate of students from traditionally underrepresented populations for gifted services. In S.I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), APA Handbook of giftedness and talent, 317-331.

McBee, M.T. (2006). A Descriptive Analysis of Referral Sources for Gifted Identification Screening by Race and Socioeconomic Status. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(2), 103–111.

McBee, M. (2010). Examining the Probability of Identification for Gifted Programs for Students in Georgia Elementary Schools: A Multilevel Path Analysis Study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(4), 283–297.

McBee, M., Peters, S., & Waterman, C. (2014). Combining Scores in Multiple-Criteria Assessment Systems: The Impact of Combination Rule. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213513794

Mullet, D. R. & Rinn, A.N. (2015). Giftedness and ADHD: Identification, Misdiagnosis, and Dual Diagnosis, Roeper Review, 37(4), 195-207, DOI:10.1080/02783193.2015.1077910

National Association of Gifted Children. (2021). Position Statement - Identifying and Serving Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Gifted Students. https://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Position%20Statement/Identifying%20and%20Serving%20Culturally%20and%20Linguistically.pdf

National Association of Gifted Children. (2019). Position Statement - A definition of giftedness that guides best practice. Retrieved from the National Association of Gifted Children website:

42

https://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Position%20Statement/Identifying%20and%20Serving%20Culturally%20and%20Linguistically.pdf

https://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Position%20Statement/Identifying%20and%20Serving%20Culturally%20and%20Linguistically.pdf



April 2021

25

https://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Position%20Statement/Definition%20of%20Giftedness%20%282019%29.pdf

National Association of Gifted Children. (2018). Position statement - Use of the WISC-V for gifted and twice exceptional identification. Retrieved from the National Association of Gifted Children website: https://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Misc_PDFs/WISC-V%20Position%20Statement%20Aug2018.pdf

Naglieri, J., & Ford, D. (2015). Misconceptions About the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test: A Commentary of Concerns and Disagreements. Roeper Review, 37(4), 234–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2015.1077497

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2017). Special Education in Ontario: Kindergarten to grade 12. Policy and resource guide. Retrieved from the Legislative Assembly of Ontario website: Special Education in Ontario, Kindergarten to Grade 12: Policy and Resource Guide (gov.on.ca)

Peel District School Board (2021). Equity issues in the gifted identification process.

Peters, S. J., Rambo-Hernandez, K., Makel, M. C., Matthews, M. S., & Plucker, J. A. (2019). Effect of local norms on racial and ethnic representation in gifted education. Aero Open, 5(2), 1-18. DOI: 10.1177/2332858419848446

Peterson,J., Duncan, N., & Canady, K. (2009). A Longitudinal Study of Negative Life Events, Stress, and School Experiences of Gifted Youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53 (1), 34-49.

Pfeiffer, S. I. (2012). Current Perspectives on the Identification and Assessment of Gifted Students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1), 3-9.

Pfeiffer, S. I., Petscher, Y., & Kumtepe, A. (2008). The Gifted Rating Scales-School Form: A Validation Study Based on Age, Gender, and Race. Roeper Rev. 30(2), 140–146.

Raiford, S. E., Courville, T., Peters, D., Gilman, B.J., Silverman, L. (November, 2019). WISC-V Technical Report #6: Extended Norms. https://www.pearsonassessments.com/content/dam/school/global/clinical/us/assets/wisc-v/wisc-v-technical-report-6-extended-norms.pdf

Ricciardi, C., Haag-Wolf, A., & Winsler, A. (2020). Factors Associated With Gifted Identification for Ethnically Diverse Children in Poverty. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1–16. DOI: 10.1177/0016986220937685

Rinn, A.N. & Reynold, J. (2012). Overexcitabilities and ADHD in the Gifted: An Examination. Roeper Review, 34(1), 38-45, DOI: 10.1080/02783193.2012.627551

Rizza, M. J. & Morrison, W. F. (2003). Uncovering stereotypes and identifying characteristics gifted students and students with emotional/behavioral disabilities. Roeper Review. (25) 2, 73-77.

43



https://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Misc_PDFs/WISC-V%20Position%20Statement%20Aug2018.pdf

https://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Misc_PDFs/WISC-V%20Position%20Statement%20Aug2018.pdf

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/policy/os/2017/SpecEdFinal2018.pdf

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/policy/os/2017/SpecEdFinal2018.pdf

https://www.pearsonassessments.com/content/dam/school/global/clinical/us/assets/wisc-v/wisc-v-technical-report-6-extended-norms.pdf

https://www.pearsonassessments.com/content/dam/school/global/clinical/us/assets/wisc-v/wisc-v-technical-report-6-extended-norms.pdf



April 2021

26

Rothenbusch, S., Voss, T., & Golle, J., & Zettler, I. (2018). Linking Teacher and Parent Ratings of Teacher-Nominated Gifted Elementary School Students to Each Other and to School Grades. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 230–250.

Siegle, D. & Powell, T. (2004). Exploring Teacher Biases When Nominating Students for Gifted Programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(1), 21-29.

Silverman, L.K., (2018). Assessment of giftedness. In S.I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: psychoeducational theory, research and best practices, second edition, 183-207.

Sparrow, S. S., Pfeiffer, S. I., & Newman, T. M. (2005). Assessment of children who are gifted with the WISC-IV. In A. Prifitera, D. H. Saklofske, & L. G. Weiss (Eds.), WISC-IV clinical use and interpretation: Scientist-practitioner perspectives (pp. 281–298). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press. As cited in: Silverman, L.K., (2018). Assessment of giftedness. In S.I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: psychoeducational theory, research and best practices, second edition, 183-207. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77004-8_12

Speirs Neumeister, K.L., Adams, C.M., Pierce, R.L., Cassady, J.C., & Dixon, F.A. (2007). Fourth-Grade Teachers’ Perceptions of Giftedness: Implications for Identifying and Serving Diverse Gifted Students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 30(4), 479–499.

Stornelli, D., Flett, G.L., & Hewitt, P.L. (2009). Perfectionism, Achievement, and Affect in Children: A Comparison of Students From Gifted, Arts, and Regular Programs. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24(4), 267– 283. DOI: 10.1177/0829573509342392

Wasserman, J. D. (2013). Identification of gifted learners: Traditional assessment models. In C. S. Neville, M. M. Piechowski, & S. S. Tolan (Eds.), Off the charts: Asynchrony and the gifted child (pp. 292–346). Unionville, NY: Royal Fireworks Press.

Winsler, A., Karkhanis, D. G., Kim, Y. K., & Levitt, J. (2013). Being Black, male, and gifted in Miami: Prevalence and predictors of placement in elementary school gifted education programs. The Urban Review, 45, 416-447. DOI 10.1007/s11256-013-0259-0

Wood, S.C. (2012) Examining Parent and Teacher Perceptions of Behaviors Exhibited by Gifted Students Referred for ADHD Diagnosis Using the Conners 3 (An Exploratory Study), Roeper Review, 34(3), 194-204, DOI: 10.1080/02783193.2012.686426

Yoon, S. Y., Gentry, M. (2009). Racial and Ethnic Representation in Gifted Programs: Current Status of and Implications for Gifted Asian American Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(2), 121-136.

44

Page 27

Appendix A - Equity Issues in the Gifted Identification Process

Research & Accountability

Equity Issues in the Gifted Identification Process

putting research into practice

Introduction

There is considerable evidence in the literature of disproportionalities in the composition of gifted education programs along race, class, and gender lines (e.g., Ford, 2010; Grissom, Redding, & Blieburg, 2019; Parekh, Brown, & Robson, 2018; Peterson, 2013). A recent review of secondary gifted education at PDSB (Glisic & Naismith, 2019, December) found that male students were overrepresented in gifted programming in Grade 8 and Grade 9 and that Grade 8 and Grade 9 students who were identified as Exceptional Intellectual: Gifted were more likely to live in areas of lower socioeconomic vulnerability than the PDSB average.

The purpose of this analysis is to determine the extent to which these and other disproportionalities impact the gifted identification process at PDSB. The three specific aims are:

1. Determine which self-identified groups are underrepresented; 2. Determine the impact of social vulnerability on gifted identification; 3. Determine the impact of English language learning on gifted identification.

Data Sources and Methodology

Table 1 presents the aims together with the corresponding data sources analyzed. All analyses are based on the total population of students at the PDSB who were identified as Exceptional Intellectual: Gifted in 2018- 19.

45

Page 28

Table 1: Data Analysis Overview

Aim

Variables and Data Sources

1. Underrepresentation of self- identified groups

• Gender (female, male) - SIS

• Racial background - Student Census

2. Impact of social vulnerability • Postal Code – SIS • Socioeconomic vulnerability index – PDSB Research

database

3. Impact of English language learning (elementary only)

• ESL Status - SIS • Current English language learner STEP

The Disproportionality Index is used to report disproportionality rates by measuring whether a specific group’s representation in a program, service, or function is proportional to their representation in the overall population.

• Disproportionality index above 1 signifies overrepresentation in a particular program

• Disproportionality index equal to 1 signifies equal representation • Disproportionality index below 1 signifies underrepresentation

Results

Aim 1: Underrepresentation of self-identified groups

46

Page 29

47

Page 30

Aim 2: Impact of social vulnerability on gifted identification

48

Page 31

Aim 3: Impact of English language learning on gifted identification

Summary of Findings

The current PDSB gifted identification process is associated with disproportionalities in the composition of gifted education programs along gender, race, and class lines.

In particular:

• Male students are overrepresented and female students are underrepresented among gifted students.

• Black students are four times less likely and Middle Eastern students are three times less likely to be identified as gifted than their presence in the overall PDSB student population would predict.

• East Asian students are almost six times more likely and White students are one and a half times more likely to be identified as gifted than their presence in the overall PDSB student population would predict.

• Gifted students are more likely to live in areas where the median household income is higher, poverty rates are lower, and rates of home ownership and educational attainment are higher than PDSB averages.

• Students who were never identified as being English language learners (ELLs) are nearly equitably represented among gifted students compared to their presence in the overall PDSB student population. Students who were identified as being English language learners (ELL) at STEPS 0-3 are seven times less likely to be identified as gifted than their presence in the overall PDSB student population would predict.

49

Page 32

References

Ford, D. Y. (2010). Underrepresentation of culturally different students in gifted education: Reflections about current problems and recommendations for the future. Gifted Child Today, 33(3), 31-35.

Glisic, M., & Naismith, L. (2019, December). Secondary gifted education program review. Mississauga, ON: Peel District School Board. Retrieved from: https://www.peelschools.org/parents/specialed/enhancedlearning/Documents/Secondary%20Gifted%2 0Education%20Program%20Review.pdf

Grissom, J. A., Redding, C., & Bleiburg, J. F. (2019). Money over merit? Socioeconomic gaps in receipt of gifted services. Harvard Educational Review, 89(3), 337-369. Retrieved from: https://hepgjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.17763/1943-5045-89.3.337

Parekh, G., Brown, R. S., & Robson, K. (2018). The social construction of giftedness: The intersectional relationship between whiteness, economic privilege, and the identification of gifted. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 7(2). Retrieved from:

https://cjds.uwaterloo.ca/index.php/cjds/article/view/421

Peterson, J. (2013). Gender differences in identification of gifted youth and in gifted program participation: A meta-analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 342-348.

50

https://www.peelschools.org/parents/specialed/enhancedlearning/Documents/Secondary%20Gifted%20Education%20Program%20Review.pdf



https://hepgjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.17763/1943-5045-89.3.337

Appendix B - Summary of Ontario School Board Gifted Criteria

TABLE SUMMARY OF ONTARIO SCHOOL BOARDS’ GIFTED CRITERIA1

SCHOOL BOARD Group Administered

Screening2 Individual Assessment

Cognitive Criteria3 Academic Criteria

Specified Teacher Input4

Specified Parent and/or Student Input

Dufferin Peel Catholic x

WEST ↓

Halton District x x x x

Halton Catholic x

Upper Grand District x x x

Waterloo Catholic x x

Thames Valley x x x

Avon Maitland District x x

Huron-Perth Catholic District x x x x

Lambton-Kent District x x x

Greater Essex District x x

1 Of the 75 Ontario non-private school boards aside from PDSB, 39 do not have specific info on their website regarding specific criteria for gifted identification 2 Of the 18 Ontario boards that have a group screening, 12 use the CCAT, 3 use OLSAT, 1 uses Insight, and 2 refer to non-specific board-wide screening. Of the

18 Ontario boards using some form of group screening, 11 of them have a mechanism that allows going from the group screening to identification without a psych assessment; for the remainder, the group screening results contribute to a decision to offer a psych assessment. 3 Of the Ontario boards that have information stated on their website about individual psych assessment, most are not specific about whether it is the FSIQ or GAI

that is considered (making just a general reference to 130/98th). 7 boards specifically note that either FSIQ or GAI are acceptable, while 4 state “overall score” or FSIQ, and 6 specifically state GAI. A few boards have variations of what they accept in terms of specific standard score, combinations of index scores, NVI, etc. 4 Of the 11 Ontario boards that gain some type of teacher input, 8 use some type of non-standardized method. TDSB uses the GRS as a gateway to identification

(1 score of six subscales T score 60+) and HDSB uses GRS as a gateway (minimum 3 subscale T scores 65+). Ottawa Catholic uses Renzulli scale but it is not a gateway; it gains points on their complex system, but there are other ways to gain enough points to meet criteria without the teacher scale.

51

GOLDEN HORSESHOE ↓

Hamilton-Wentworth District x

Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic

x

Grand Erie District (Brantford)

x x x

Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic (Grand Erie)

x

NORTH ↓

York Region x x x x

York Catholic x x x x

Simcoe Region5 x x x x

Bruce-Grey Catholic District x

Sudbury Catholic x

Huron-Superior Catholic District (Algoma)

x

DSB Ontario North East (Timmins)

x

James Bay Lowlands Secondary SB

x

Superior North Catholic District

x x

Rainy River District (Fort Frances)

x x

5 Only Simcoe DSB has any kind of equity criteria specified on their website. Schools are expected to nominate at least 15% of Gr 3s with a distribution of male and

female reflective of the grade composition. Each Gr 3 Teacher must have participated in in-service and complete a specific gifted-characteristics form. Nominations are expected from every Gr 3 class and should not reflect only the students with the highest marks.

52

Northwest Catholic District (Fort Frances, Kenora)

x x

Keewatin-Patricia District (Kenora)

x x x x

Kenora Catholic District x x

EAST ↓

Toronto District x x x

Toronto Catholic x x x

Durham District x x x

Hastings & Prince Edward (Belleville)

x6 x

Limestone District (Kingston) x

Peterborough […] District Catholic

x x x x

Renfrew County District (Pembroke)

x x x

Ottawa-Carleton District x x

Ottawa Catholic x x x x

Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario (Brockville)

x

OTHER LARGE CANADIAN BOARDS ↓

Calgary Board of Education x

Vancouver School Board x x x

6 CCAT administered individually based on teacher nomination, not as a broad screening measure.

53

Page 36

Appendix C - Sample Summary and Decision-Making Tools

Gifted Special Education Identification Summary

Name:

School: Grade:

Student Number: DOB: Date of Review:

Completed by:

⬜ Classroom teacher ⬜ISSP ⬜Administrator ⬜Psychoeducational Consultant

Intellectual Functioning

CCAT-7 ❑ Pathway 1 - one composite OR two Index scores ≥ 98th percentile

WISC-V

EFI ❑ 93rd to 95th ❑ 96th to 97th ❑ 98th or above

EGAI ❑ 93rd to 95th ❑ 96th to 97th ❑ 98th or above

FSIQ ❑ 93rd to 95th ❑ 96th to 97th ❑ 98th or above

GAI ❑ 93rd to 95th ❑ 96th to 97th ❑ 98th or above

NVI ❑ 93rd to 95th ❑ 96th to 97th ❑ 98th or above

VECI ❑ 93rd to 95th ❑ 96th to 97th ❑ 98th or above

Other (specify) ❑ ❑ ❑

Gifted Characteristics

Teacher Observation Protocol ❑ 4-5 ❑ 6-7 ❑ 8-10

Parent Report ❑ Mild ❑ Moderate ❑ High

Student Interview ❑ Mild ❑ Moderate ❑ High

Psychoeducational Examiner Obs. ❑ Mild ❑ Moderate ❑ High


Social-Emotional

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

Teacher Report ❑ Average ❑ Slightly High ❑ High, Very High

Parent Report ❑ Average ❑ Slightly High ❑ High, Very High

Self-Report (11+) ❑ Average ❑ Slightly High ❑ High, Very High

54

Page 37

Psychoeducational Examiner Obs. ❑ Mild ❑ Moderate ❑ High


Portfolio

Academics

WIAT/KTEA ❑ 93rd to 95th ❑ 96th to 97th ❑ 98th or above

Grades ❑ Average ❑ Above Average ❑ Very High

Teacher Report ❑ ❑ ❑

Program ❑ Mainstream ❑ French

Immersion ❑ ISELP

❑ Regional (e.g.,

Sci-Tech, IB)

Extracurricular

Clubs (e.g., Scouts, EcoClub):

Sports: Tutoring (e.g., Kumon):

Lessons (e.g., dance, French)


Demographics

Gender ❑ Female ❑ Male ❑ Other:______________________

ESL ❑ Step 1-3 ❑ Step 4+ ❑ Not ESL ❑ Other:________

Racial Background

❑ South Asian ❑ White ❑ Black ❑ Middle Eastern

❑ East Asian ❑ First Nations/

Inuit/ Métis ❑ Other: ______________________

School Social Vulnerability Index (circle) 1 2 3 4 5 6

55

Gifted Criteria for Identification and Placement

Name:

School: Grade:

Student Number: Gender: Female ☐ Male ☐

Other:

ELL: Step 1-3 ☐ Step 4+ ☐ Not ELL ☐

DOB: Race: South Asian ☐ White ☐ Black ☐ Middle Eastern ☐ East Asian ☐

First Nation/Inuit/ Metis ☐ Other:

While identification is appropriate for a broader range of student profiles, placement in an enhanced learning class is evaluated

primarily based on need, not quantitative measures. Students who are functioning well in mainstream classes may not require

more intensive or restrictive placement in order to have their needs met.

In-School Enhanced Learning Program (ISELP) is available to students across the school board, separate from enhanced learning

classes. Decisions about the creation of an ISELP IEP are made at the ISRC table with relevant staff.

Identification and Class Placement Identification and ISELP

Intellectual Functioning CCAT ≥98th percentile on Composite (VQN/QN/VN)

or 2 Index scores

OR

WISC-V FSIQ/GAI/EGAI/NVI ≥93rd percentile

or 2 Expanded Indices (VECI, EFI)

CCAT ≥98th percentile on Composite (VQN/QN/VN)

or 2 Index scores

OR

WISC-V FSIQ/GAI/EGAI/NVI ≥93rd percentile

or 2 Expanded Indices (VECI, EFI)

Gifted Characteristics At least 7 gifted characteristics both at home and

school

At least 4 gifted characteristics both at home and

school

56

Social-Emotional Functioning

Priority is given to students who present with the

following:

● Social difficulties (e.g., fitting in)

● Boredom

● Hyperactivity/Inattention

● Satisfactory/Needs Improvement in at least

two Learning Skills and Work Habits

Students have:

● Mostly Excellent and Good in Learning Skills

and Work Habits

● No social difficulties at home and school

● Engagement in class

● Good attention and concentration

● Benefitted from program extensions

● High levels of Perfectionism/Anxiety

Academic Profile Priority given to students underachieving in Math,

Reading, or Writing on standardized assessment

(Average or below) or school performance/grades

(mostly Bs or below)

As and Bs in most subject areas

Standardized assessment High Average and above

Opportunities for Enrichment

Priority given to students:

● From Mainstream (English) classrooms

● From Schools in SVI Cluster 5 and 6

● Without or with minimal access to

extracurricular activities or tutoring

Students participate in:

● Mainstream, FI, or regional programs

● Extracurricular activities or tutoring

Culturally, Linguistically, Ethnically

Diverse (CLED)

Special consideration will be given to

underrepresented groups in PDSB’s gifted

programming (i.e., girls, Black, South Asian, Middle

Eastern, and ELL students)

Special consideration will be given to

underrepresented groups in PDSB’s gifted

programming (i.e., girls, Black, South Asian, Middle

Eastern, and ELL students)

57

Page 40

Appendix D - CCAT Process Chart

58

Page 41

59

Appendix E - Expanded General Ability Index

60

61

Page 44

Appendix F - Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)

SDQ is a brief behavioural screening questionnaire for 3–16-year-olds, with parents and teacher forms (the

SDQ forms are available in many different languages). The SDQ has 25 items with a General Difficulties

score and it is also divided into 5 scales: emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity/inattention,

peer relationship problems, and prosocial behaviour.

62

Appendix G - Teacher Observation Tool

Teacher Observation Tool

Adapted from Frazier et al., (1992; TABS); Manning (2006); Alberta Learning (2004); Castellano 2010 as cited by Albretch (2008); Castellano (1998); Anderson (2020); Iowa Department of Education (2008); New South Wales, Australia, Department of Education and Training (2004)

Name of Student: DOB: Grade:

Gender: Male ☐ Female ☐ Other (Specify):

First Language: English ☐ Punjabi ☐ Urdu ☐ Hindi ☐ Arabic ☐ Other (Specify):

Language Spoken at Home: English ☐ Punjabi ☐ Urdu ☐ Hindi ☐ Arabic ☐ Other (Specify):

Racial Background: South Asian ☐ White ☐ Black ☐ Middle Eastern ☐ East Asian ☐ Other (Specify):

Ethnic/Cultural Background: Indian ☐ Canadian ☐ Pakistani ☐ Jamaican ☐ Chinese ☐ Other (Specify):

General Comments:

63

Reasoning/Problem-Solving Logical approaches to figuring out solutions; Effective, often inventive, strategies for recognizing, solving problems

Inquiry Questions, experiments, explores

Memory Large storehouse of information on school or non-school topics

Insight Quickly grasps new concepts and makes connections; deeper sense of meaning

Communication Skills Highly expressive; effective use of words, numbers, and symbols

Student May: ● Be an abstract thinker at an

earlier age than peers

● Transfer knowledge and apply it to new situations

● Have an unusual grasp of logic and often use logical thinking

● Devise or adapt systemic problem-solving strategy and change it if it’s not working

● Have ability to manipulate a code system

● Think of new ways to do things

● Make high level connections between ideas

● Show interest in cause effect relationships

● Easily grasps new ideas and concepts, and understand them more deeply than same-aged peers

● Make generalizations

● Think critically

Student May: ● Want to know the reason for

everything

● Ask a lot of questions, argue, or debate the logic of rules, consequences, etc.

● Demonstrate exploratory behaviours to elicit information about things or situations

● Be curious

Student May: ● Easily memorize facts, lists,

dates, and names

● Retain large amounts of information

● Need only 1-2 repetitions for mastery

● Pay attention to details

Student May: ● Demonstrate exceptional

ability to draw inferences

● Appear to be a good guesser ● Be very observant ● Have heightened capacity to

see unusual relationships ● Integrate ideas

Student May: ● Have an expanded, advanced

vocabulary

● Have high levels of language development and verbal ability

● Have unusually mature sense of humour

● Use complex sentence structures

● Have difficulty talking with and being understood by age peers

● Use good examples, illustrations, metaphors, elaborations

● Learn multiple languages at an accelerated pace

● Translate for others

● Have superior knowledge of phrases and heritage dialects along with the ability to translate meanings in English

● Have a grasp on jokes related to cultural differences

Examples:

Evident ⬜ Not Observed ⬜ Evident ⬜ Not Observed ⬜ Evident ⬜ Not Observed ⬜ Evident ⬜ Not Observed ⬜ Evident ⬜ Not Observed ⬜

64

Imagination/Creativity Produces many ideas; highly original

Social Skills Empathy; peer and adult relationships

Emotional Skills Empathy, intense emotions, humour

Interests/Academic Skills Highly proficient in literacy, math, or science; Intense (sometimes unusual) interests

Work Habits Motivation, sustaining attention, executive functioning skills

Student May: ● See unusual relationships

among disciplines or objects ● Have creative problem-solving

● Be adept at generating original ideas and solutions to problems

● Invent games, toys, etc. ● Like to create by drawing,

building, designing, etc. ● Escape into fantasy ● Come up with new ideas and

concepts and apply them in creative and interesting ways

● Make up elaborate stories ● Think “outside the box” ● Have artistic ability

Student May: ● Be impatient with peers ● Prefer to work alone ● Be easily frustrated by others’

limitations in thinking, humour

● Have problems getting along with peers

● Be impatient with others’ speed

● Be critical or intolerant of views of others

● Question authority ● Lead peers ● Display cross-cultural

flexibility ● Be adept at code-switching ● Balance behaviors expected in

both the heritage and Canadian cultures

● Prefer collaboration – lead and work with others well

● Take responsibility seriously at school or at home; have strong family ties

● Tend to have older playmates and easily engage adults in lively conversation

Student May: ● Have a high sense of social

justice, fairness, and morals ● Want to know the reasons for

rules and the reasons behind those reasons

● Be empathetic ● Be intuitive ● Have emotional

sensitivity/intensity ● Have high expectations of self

and others ● Have emotional depth ● Be resilient; able to cope with

situations better than most age peers

● Be independent/or bossy ● Display perfectionism

(avoidance, slow work, perfect work at excessive effort)

● Act like a show-off or know-it-all

● Use words to manipulate others

● Evade responsibility for own behaviours

Student May: ● Be an early reader ● Have high math ability ● Learn things at an earlier age

than peers ● Comprehend materials at

advanced levels ● Prefer complex and

challenging work

● Expresses concern about far-reaching issues such as politics, endangered animals, poverty, etc.

● Show exceptional talents in areas valued by their culture

● Be able to do more than one thing at a time

● Have interests that are more like those of older children.

● Complete inaccurate or sloppy work/writing because his/her hands cannot keep up with thoughts

● Readily share, or have a strong interest/pride in, culture

Student May: ● Be an enthusiastic learner ● Be persistent ● Be goal-oriented ● Be a self-starter ● Aspire to be somebody or do

something ● Possess high energy levels

and longer attention spans

● Spend a lot of time daydreaming or thinking

● Talk incessantly

● Make up elaborate excuses or find loopholes

● Have difficulty getting started

● Need constant stimulation ● Appear easily bored ● Avoid work that feels

repetitive or boring

● Have difficulty sustaining attention

● Be hyperactive and easily excited

Examples:

Evident ⬜ Not Observed ⬜ Evident ⬜ Not Observed ⬜ Evident ⬜ Not Observed ⬜ Evident ⬜ Not Observed ⬜ Evident ⬜ Not Observed ⬜

65

Page 48

Appendix H - Parent Input Questionnaire

Parent/Guardian Input Questionnaire for Student Profile

Child name:

Child age:

Child grade:

1. What is your child really good at?

2. What is your child passionate about? What, if any, are some ideas, issues, or concepts

that your child wants to explore in-depth? Do their interests change often or stay similar

for a long time?

3. When your child is curious about or interested in something, how do they show it? (e.g.,

asking you questions, looking in books/Internet/YouTube, wondering and thinking about it

themselves, etc.)

4. What does your child need to get better at? (e.g., controlling emotions, getting along with

others (peers and adults), making mistakes, managing worries, academic skills and

subjects, etc.)

5. How does your child approach new learning/experiences? (e.g., excited, eager, worried,

avoidance, freezes up, etc.)

6. How does your child respond to conflict, unfairness, or injustice?

7. What does your child say they like about learning? What does your child say frustrates

them about learning? (in or out of school)

8. Do you think your child is achieving their full academic potential at school?

9. Are there skills that your child does better at home or in other environments?

10. What does your child do when they think learning/an activity is too difficult or think they

will fail?

11. What else would you like us to know about your child? Is there anything we have not asked

about that you would like to share?

Person/People completing questionnaire Relationship to child / staff position

Date of completion: _____________________________________

Interpreter, if used: ______________________________________

66

Page 49

PIQ Letter to parents:

Dear Parent(s) and Guardian(s):

We are looking to learn more about your child so that we can support programming and better

understand your child’s individual strengths and needs. As the expert on your child, you or others

in your household (e.g., other primary caregivers or immediate family members) are the best

source of information. Home-school communication and building positive relationships help to

promote student success.

We are inviting you to complete the following questionnaire so we can understand more about:

● how your child presents at home and in the community

● the cultural and unique experiences of your family and child

● your child’s passions and interests

● your child’s academic and social-emotional strengths and needs

Please feel free to write as much as you would like. You may write the questionnaire responses

in either English or your first language. If writing in a language other than English, your responses

will be translated. Please contact your child’s school to arrange a time if you would prefer to

answer the questions over the phone, via videoconference or face to face. Our goal is to best

meet your needs.

The information provided will be shared with the In-School Review Committee team, which may

include the school administration, homeroom teacher, special education teacher, psycho-

educational consultant, speech language pathologist and social worker, at a meeting to which you

will receive an invitation. The questionnaire will be stored securely and destroyed after your child

leaves the school.

Peel District School Board strives to inspire success, confidence and hope in each and every

student it serves. Students learn in ways that are connected to background, language, family

structures and social or cultural identity (Ontario’s Education Equity Action Plan, 2017). We are

committed to the success of all learners, in a way that values the identity of students in accordance

with the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Thank you for completing the following/attached questionnaire. Please return at your earliest

convenience. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact your child’s teacher.

Sincerely,

PRINCIPAL NAME

SCHOOL

67

Page 50

Appendix I - Parent Interview for Psychology

Parent Interview

Demographics

1. What ethnic or cultural identity does your child most identify with? What is the family

culture/cultural background? Does your child easily switch between the demands of one culture

and another?

2. Was your child born in Canada?

3. Does your child speak and understand any other languages than English? If yes, what languages

and how proficient are they? Are they able to switch back and forth between languages easily?


1. Does your child participate in any extracurricular activities? If yes, what are they?

2. Does your child participate in tutoring or other academic activities? If yes, what are they?

3. Does your child participate in competitions or contests or has won any awards?

4. What does your child like to learn about?

5. What does your child like to do in their free time?


Reasoning/Problem Solving

1. Does your child often have logical and/or inventive ways to solve problems?

a. Was your child an abstract thinker earlier than peers? In what ways?

b. Does your child think of new ways to do things?

c. Does your child think critically and make high level connections between ideas? If so,

how?

Inquiry

2. Is your child curious and asks a lot of questions? Give examples

a. Does your child want to know the reason for everything?

b. Does your child often argue or debate the rules or reasons for consequences?

Memory

3. Please describe your child’s memory ability. (Does your child have a good memory? How do you

know?)

Insight

4. Does your child demonstrate an exceptional ability to make inferences and make a deeper sense

of meaning? Give examples.

Communication Skills

5. Describe your child’s vocabulary and language development? Was it expansive and well

developed? Give examples.

6. Did your child learn multiple languages at a fast pace?

7. Does your child have superior knowledge of phrases and heritage dialects along with the ability to

translate meanings in English?

68

Page 51

Imagination/Creativity

8. Describe your child’s creativity in problem-solving or artistic expression and imagination skills.

Social Skills

9. Describe your child’s social skills and peer relationships.

10. Does your child prefer to work alone or is impatient with peers? Does your child prefer the

company of older peers or adults?

11. Does your child often question authority?

Emotional Skills

12. Does your child have a high sense of social justice, fairness, and morals?

13. Is your child more intense or emotionally sensitive than peers?

14. Does your child have high expectations of self or display any perfectionism?

Interests/Academic Skills

15. Was your child an early reader? What is your child’s math ability?

16. Did your child learn things earlier than peers or prefer learning challenging work?

17. Does your child express concern about far-reaching issues such as politics, endangered animals,

poverty, etc.?

Work Habits

18. Describe their level of attention, activity level, and interest in school.

a. Is the child bored?

b. Is the child very active/talks excessively/ needs constant stimulation?

c. Appears inattentive or has a longer attention span than peers?

69

Page 52

Appendix J - Student Interest Interview and Questionnaire

Student Interview

Demographics

1. What is your ethnic or cultural identity? What is your family culture/cultural background? Is it easy

for you to switch between the demands of one culture and another?

2. Where were you born? (Were you born in Canada?)

3. Do you speak and understand any other languages than English? If yes, what languages and

how easy is it for you? Are you able to switch back and forth between languages easily?


1. Do you do any extracurricular activities? If yes, what are they?

2. Do you go to tutoring or other academic activities? If yes, what are they?

3. Do you participate in competitions or contests? Have you won any awards?

4. Are there any activities that you would do, if there were no (money, time) barriers?

5. What do you like to learn about?

6. What do you like to do in your free time?


Reasoning/Problem Solving

1. What makes learning fun for you?

a. Probe: Solving new problems, getting better grades, trying new things, being challenged,

working with my friends, getting answers right

2. How do you solve problems that are new to you? Like a word problem in math or a science

experiment without instructions. Do you find problem solving challenging or fun?

a. Probe: Ask teacher, ask friends, look online, look at book, guess, trial and error, think

about what I already know, make a plan

3. Do you often think of new ways to solve problems or do things? If yes, give an example.

Inquiry

4. What kinds of things are you curious about? What do you want to learn more about?

5. Has your parent or another adult ever commented that you ask a lot of questions?

6. What do you do when you disagree with an adult? (Wanting to go to bed later, have a special

activity at home, disagreeing on answer with teacher, with rules at school) [INQ]

a. Probe: yell, ask questions, debate, give in, ask for others to agree with me, find out more

about the adult’s reasons

Memory

7. If I wanted you to tell me a lot about something you’ve learned, what would you talk about?

a. Probe: video game, science concept, art idea, book they’ve read, sport

8. How well do you remember things you’ve heard? Things you’ve read? Things you’ve seen?

a. Probe: what was the last book you read about, what did you watch on TV yesterday, what

is your homework this weekend, what did you do last summer

Insight

9. Do you think you’re fast at learning? Do you find it easy to guess and be right, even on new

things?

70

Page 53

Communication Skills

10. Tell me a story about something you did this week. I want to hear how you talk and the kinds of

words you use.

11. Has a peer or adult ever commented that you use “big words”?

12. More than one language: Which language do you have the most words/vocabulary in? What

words are hard to explain across your languages?

Imagination/Creativity

13. Have you ever created something new or made a thing from scratch? Tell me about it.

14. Do you have an active imagination? What kind of things do you imagine? What do you daydream

or think about that’s not real life?

Social Skills

15. At school, do you like to work with others or by yourself, most of the time?

16. Is it easier for you to be a leader or a follower?

a. Probe: like to make rules, know what to do first, like to wait for others to make decisions,

worried about being wrong

17. If you had a choice, would you do a project with kids your age, older students, or adults? Why?

a. Probe: be with friends, older people know more, faster to get done, can tell people what

to do, adults are more fun

18. Do you feel like you “fit in” at school? Do you have friends at school?

Emotional Skills

19. Tell me about a time when things were unfair. What did it feel like? What did you do?

a. Probe: punished for something I didn’t do, had more work than someone else, lost a

game because of someone’s error, made a mistake but shouldn’t have gotten in trouble

20. How do you deal with strong emotions? In yourself, in others?

a. Probe: talk to adults, calming methods, writing, hitting things, talk to parents, talk to peers

21. Does your schoolwork have to be “perfect” or “just right”?

22. Do you find that you are more sensitive to others’ feelings or situations than peers your age?

Interests/Academic Skills

23. What are you good at, at school?

a. Probe: math computation, reading, explaining things, helping others, getting answers

right

24. Are there any issues or news topics that are interesting to you?

a. Probe: endangered animals, politics, poverty, environment

Work Habits

25. What would you change about school or your class to make it better?

a. Probe: shorter periods, more recess, more work, time with friends, more time to get

things done, typing instead of writing, more about home culture/language, less listening

without doing anything

26. Tell me about homework. Is there just enough, too much, not enough? Interesting or boring?

27. Describe your level of attention and interest at school.

Closing Questions

1. What are your goals? What do you want to do when you grow up?

2. What makes you frustrated? What makes you feel proud of yourself?

3. If you had three wishes, what would they be?

71

Page 54

Respond to the following questions by checking all of the responses that might apply

Would you enjoy... Yes, I would

do this. No, I would not do this.

I might be interested in

this.

I have had experience with this.

submitting one of your original writings for publication?

repairing a car, stereo, or household appliance?

conducting a scientific experiment?

establishing a school newspaper?

being a photographer for a magazine?

starting an astronomer’s nighttime observation group?

studying the stock market?

organizing a new school club or team?

starting a musical group/band?

acting in a theatrical production?

starting your own business?

creating your own comic strip?

painting or sketching people, objects, and landscapes?

working on a political campaign?

learning a handicraft such as jewelry making, pottery, or silk-screening?

designing costumes, clothing, or furniture?

designing a building?

designing your own invention?

having your own photo lab and developing your own photography?

visiting a museum or historical site?

keeping a personal journal or diary?

organic gardening?

developing & maintaining an online message board?

volunteering your time to a charitable organization?

Adapted from 2ary Inter-A-Lyzer (PM6.5) (uconn.edu); Assessing Students' Interests | The National Research Center on the Gifted

and Talented (1990-2013) (uconn.edu

72

https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/953/2015/07/cc_ialsecond.pdf

https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/underachievement_study/curriculum-compacting/cc_section11/

https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/underachievement_study/curriculum-compacting/cc_section11/



Audit of Special Education Fully Self-Contained Classes – December 2020

Recommendation: It is recommended that this oral report be received.

Background:

The objective of the Regional Internal Audit Team (RIAT) Audit is to assess the design and operational effectiveness of processes supporting fully self-contained special education classes. The audit assessed several factors including:

• Supporting policies, procedures, and organizational structure

• Placement of students in special education classes in comparison to other Toronto and Area Boards

• Programming and approval of special education classes for 2020-21

• Cost and data analysis of special education classes

The audit team found that the Peel District School Board serves a proportionally higher number of students in special education classes relative to four other boards in the Toronto Area Region. The team shares their observations in the form of findings with inherit risks associated to the finding. The Board provides a management response and action plan regarding these findings.

“Overall, the Board has implemented appropriate controls and processes in the areas reviewed, with no significant control weaknesses noted. However, there were some moderate risk findings noted.” (RIAT Audit, 2020) Prepared by:

Judy Richards, Coordinating Principal (Acting), Student Learning Support Services Nora Green, Staff Development Coordinator, Student Learning Support Services

Submitted by:


73

74



Vocational 2 Update

Recommendation: It is recommended that this oral report be received. Prepared by: Rasulan Hoppie, Coordinating Principal, Student Learning Support Services Submitted by: Liz Cook, Executive Superintendent, Student Learning Support Services

75

76



Memo from Ministry re: Federal Safe Return to Class Fund: 2020-21 Spring and Summer Learning Opportunities for School Boards Recommendation: It is recommended that this memo be received.

Submitted by:


77

78

Ministère de l'Éducation

Division du rendement des élèves

14e étage 315, rue Front Ouest Toronto ON M7A 0B8

1

This document contains both information and form fields. To read information, use the Down Arrow from a form field.

Ministry of Education

Student Achievement Division

14th Floor 315 Front Street W Toronto ON M7A 0B8

2021:SB04Date:

Memorandum to:

From:

March 25, 2021

Directors of Education Secretary/Treasurers of School Authorities

Yael Ginsler Assistant Deputy Minister (A) Student Achievement Division

Denys Giguère Assistant Deputy Minister French-Language Teaching, Learning and Achievement Division

Andrew Davis Assistant Deputy Minister Education Labour and Finance Division

Subject: Federal Safe Return to Class Fund: 2020-21 Spring and Summer Learning Opportunities for School Boards

We are writing to provide additional direction to support school boards on expanded spring and summer learning opportunities, including those outlined in the memo, 2021: B01: Federal Safe Return to Class Fund and Expanded Targeted Testing in Schools, issued on February 1, 2021.

Over the last several months, we have seen the extraordinary steps and flexibility school boards have shown to support learning for Ontario students. We would like to express our appreciation to Ontario’s teachers, education workers, school and board administrators and trustees for their leadership and innovation in ensuring continued learning for students.

While provincial health data continues to evolve, school boards are asked to continue to be innovative, creative, and flexible in their programming and plan for multiple delivery options that include in-person and/or remote teaching and learning.

Our priority remains on the health and safety of Ontario’s students, as well as access to quality learning opportunities.

79

2

Continuity of learning is critical to prepare students with the knowledge and skills for success in the next grade, course or postsecondary destination. We are aware that students may continue to face challenges leading to disengagement from learning during this school year. The spring and summer learning measures supported through this funding will support learning recovery by addressing learning gaps and focusing on literacy and mathematics. These opportunities will support all students, including students with special education needs, and provide supports for mental health and well-being. These supports will work to address learning recovery, so that Ontario students, including those who are disproportionally impacted by the pandemic, are able to continue their learning and achieve success for their future education and career pathways.

EXPANDED ENROLMENT IN SUMMER SCHOOL CREDIT AND NON-CREDIT PROGRAMS

Core Summer School Programming To accommodate student demand for summer credit courses, school boards should plan to expand existing summer school credit programming through multiple delivery modes: in-person, remote teacher-led learning, online learning, and through correspondence/self-study. Credit recovery courses for secondary students and Reach Ahead opportunities for elementary students should also continue to be offered. Funding for literacy and numeracy summer supports is also available directly to school boards through non-credit Literacy and Math Outside the School Day programs (Learning Outside the School Day).

Upgrading Courses School boards are encouraged to offer upgrading credit courses, which provide students in Grades 9 to 12 the opportunity to review and strengthen key learning in a course they passed during the 2020-21 school year. Upgrading credit courses can be offered in a 55-hour learning format and may be delivered through varying models. Key course concepts and overall expectations are to be reviewed in a flexible, accelerated manner that allows students to demonstrate knowledge and skills.

Support for Students from First Nation Schools For Summer 2021, school boards should register First Nations students who are already students of the school board via the Reciprocal Education Approach or Education Service Agreements, as well as First Nations students who will be registering with the school board in September, who may wish to participate in summer learning and credit courses at no charge. See Appendix 1 for additional detail on reporting for these students.

The table in Appendix 1 provides an overview of which enrolment register to use, based on the delivery method of the course or program. This approach provides a transition to in-person from online or remote learning when it is permissible to do so, and where a school board elects to change the method of delivery to best support their students’ needs.

80

3

TARGETED MATH AND LITERACY SUPPORT FOCUSED ON DE-STREAMING

Math and Literacy Transition Supports Funding will be available for targeted math and literacy transition supports for Grade 8 students to help prepare them to transition into the de-streamed Grade 9 math course in the 2021-22 school year. A focus will be on supporting students with learning gaps in math and literacy and/or from vulnerable and underserved population groups, including Indigenous, Black and otherwise racialized students, students from low income households, and students with special education needs.

Starting in Spring 2021, this funding can be used by school boards to support: • Grade 8 students who would benefit from additional math and literacy supports

including, for example, diagnostic and assessment tools to help determine learning needs, additional tutoring and intervention supports;

• Elementary and secondary school transition teams to develop targeted transition plans, particularly for vulnerable and underserved Grade 8 students;

• Planning for Indigenous students who are transitioning from federally funded First Nations elementary schools to provincially funded secondary schools; and

• Targeted outreach to students who may be disengaged from learning.

Please see Appendix 3 for board-level funding allocations for the Targeted Math and Literacy Support Focused on De-streaming.

Eurêka! virtual learning summer camp will be offered by le Centre franco to enhance learning in Numeracy and Literacy for students in Grades 5 to 8 attending French-language schools, with a focus on destreaming supports for Grade 8 students.

STEM SUMMER PROGRAMMING

The ministry will be working with partners to expand STEM summer programming. The ministry will share more information with school boards at a later date.

TARGETED PROGRAMS FOR UNDER-SERVED STUDENTS

School boards are asked to carefully consider student participation in targeted programs, identifying students who would most benefit from additional support this spring and summer.

Literacy and Numeracy Summer Programs Funding will again be available in Summer 2021 to support literacy and numeracy summer programs in partnership with third parties, such as the Summer Learning Program administered through the Council of Ontario Directors of Education (CODE) and summer support programs delivered by Frontier College. These programs will also provide support for students in Grades 7 and 8 targeted at preparing them for entering the de-streamed Grade 9 math program.

81

4

School boards are encouraged to begin outreach as soon as possible, to promote and expand participation, particularly for those students who would most benefit from these learning opportunities. Literacy and numeracy programs will have a tremendous benefit in supporting learning recovery and preparation for the 2021-22 school year.

Focus on Youth Participating school boards in the Focus on Youth program will have access to funding to support the continued delivery of programming this summer. School boards are encouraged to utilize flexible and innovative solutions to support youth through the delivery of adaptive and responsive programming to meet the needs of this target student population. Participating school boards will be contacted directly by ministry staff on how to access this funding.

Graduation Coach Program for Indigenous Students Funding will also be made available to selected school boards implementing the Indigenous Graduation Coach Program to offer continued supports to Indigenous students over the summer months, with a focus on supporting First Nation students transitioning from First Nation/federally operated schools to provincially operated schools for Grade 9. Participating school boards will be contacted directly by ministry staff on how to access this funding.

Graduation Coach Program for Black Students For school boards that are participating in the Graduation Coach Program for Black Students, additional summer supports will be provided to maintain engagement, work with transitioning students and offer culturally-responsive supports to Black students over the summer with the aim to help improve student well-being and academic achievement. Please see Appendix 3 for board-level funding allocations for this program.

Transportation and Stability Supports To improve the educational outcomes and well-being of children and youth in the care of Children’s Aid Societies, school boards will again be provided with summer funding for school boards that request Transportation and Stability Supports during the school year. Please see Appendix 3 for board-level funding allocations for these programs.

Provincial and Demonstration Schools Provincial and Demonstration Schools, including the Centre Jules-Leger, will be able to offer expanded summer learning opportunities focused on literacy, numeracy and skills building for their students. Schools will be contacted directly by ministry staff regarding this funding.

School Board Personal Support Worker Programs Funding will also be available for school boards to work with the Ontario Association of Adult and Continuing Education School Board Administrators (CESBA) to initiate new or expand existing Personal Support Worker (PSW) programs for Summer 2021. CESBA will be reaching out directly to interested school boards about this opportunity.

82

5

SUPPORTING STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION NEEDS AND SUPPORTING THE MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS OF ALL STUDENTS

Please see Appendix 3 for board-level funding allocations for these programs.

Supports for Students with Special Education Needs To support students with special education needs in summer program offerings in both credit and non-credit granting courses, this additional funding may be used by school boards for additional staffing resources such as special education resource teachers, and educational assistants.

Summer Transition Program School boards will be able to provide a summer program for students with high special education needs who may find the return to school challenging, with a focus on closing gaps in skills development, learning, and on establishing classroom routines prior to the opening of schools.

Mental Health Supports Mental health and well-being continue to be a critical priority. Funding will be provided to school boards to continue to support the mental health of all students and support the implementation of the new School Mental Health Ontario Action Kit which promotes student learning about mental health during the school year.

Funding will also be provided to allow for the ongoing provision of mental health support over the summer months to students who are struggling with mental health concerns. Providing a connection to school-based mental health professionals will also help to facilitate a smooth transition back to school for students for whom a return to school would be challenging.

School Mental Health Ontario will provide training and/or resources to mental health professionals, educators and system leaders to equip them with the information and resources they need to support the mental health of students over the summer months and to prepare for the return to school.

Evidence-Based Reading Intervention Programs School board programs/ programing can be offered for struggling readers who are at risk for falling behind due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Funding will be available to support this group of students during the remainder of the 2020-21 school year as well as for the delivery of summer programs.

NEXT STEPS

Transfer payment agreements will be provided to all school boards where appropriate.

83

6

In order to monitor enrolment and implementation progress of the summer programs, interim reporting on both core and specialized programming will be required.

• Interim reporting on GSN-funded programming is described in Appendix 1A. • Ministry staff responsible for each specialized program will reach out to school

board program leads on this requirement.

Appendix 2 provides contact information for application-based programs.

Appendix 3 provides the board-by-board allocations for allocation-based programs.

We look forward to working with you to continue and expand summer learning programs so that every student, should they wish to participate, has the opportunity to do so. Should you have ideas for additional Spring or Summer programming within your allocation that would best meet the needs of students in your board, please connect directly with the ministry. Thank you once again for your collaboration and commitment as we work together to continue to support Ontario’s students.

Sincerely,

Yael Ginsler Assistant Deputy Ministry (A)

Denys Giguère Assistant Deputy Ministry

Andrew Davis Assistant Deputy Ministry

c.c: Senior Business Officials Executive Secretaries to Directors of Education Regional Office Managers, Field Services Branch, Student Support and Field Services Division Director, Field Services Branch, Student Support and Field Services Division

84

7

APPENDIX 1: REGISTRATION AND STUDENT ELIGIBILITY FOR GRANTS FOR STUDENT NEEDS (GSN) FUNDING

School boards should continue to register students electronically to support access to 2021 summer school and summer learning programs.

Per the 2020-21 Enrolment Register Instructions for Continuing Education Programs, school boards should add students to the appropriate enrolment register, once they participate. School boards should continue this practice during summer school remote learning.

Given the extenuating circumstances, schools boards should not charge tuition fees for First Nations students who are already students of the board via the Reciprocal Education Approach (REA) or Education Service Agreements (ESA), as well as First Nations students who will be registering with the school board in September. For the purposes of the 2020-21 school board fiscal year, the ministry will be proposing changes to the GSN regulations to provide that school boards shall not charge summer school and continuing education fees to students attending a school of the board under the REA or an existing ESA, as well as students for whom written notice has been provided under the REA for the purposes of attending a school of the school board starting in September 2021. Such students would be treated as pupils of the board for purposes of reporting in the applicable enrolment registers for summer 2021.

The following table provides an overview of which enrolment register to use, based on the delivery method of the course. This approach provides a seamless transition to the potential offering of in-person learning if it is permissible to do so, and where a school board elects to change the method of delivery to best support their students’ needs.

Summer 2021 In-person Learning

Remote Learning

Lesson / Unit based Learning

Credit courses (including credit recovery and transfer courses) and non-credit programs for pupils with developmental disabilities Summer School Register

Register of Enrolment in Correspondence / Self Study / Online Learning Courses Upgrading Credit Course (55 hour)

International & Indigenous Languages Elementary (IILE) Program

Register of Enrolment in the IILE Program

N/A Adult Indigenous Languages Instruction

Register of Enrolment in Adult Indigenous Languages Instruction

Literacy & Numeracy Program (Literacy and Math Outside the School Day Allocation)

Register of Enrolment in the Literacy & Numeracy Program

85

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/forms/enrol/enrolment_register_administrators.pdf

8

Determining Average Daily Enrolment (ADE) for GSN Funding

For the purposes of determining a student’s ADE for funding:

• If in-person learning is provided, students’ participation, as per the 2020-21 Enrolment Register Instructions for Continuing Education Programs, continues to be the primary driver of the ADE calculation.

• If remote learning is provided, students’ participation will also be the primary driver of the ADE calculation. The principal should record the student’s participation in the appropriate enrolment register based on school board approved mechanisms (e.g., through emails or another electronic means). At a minimum, students should check in with their teachers/instructors once per week and teachers/instructors should check in with their students at least once per week. Increased engagement is recommended, particularly for the shorter upgrading course.

• For students reported in the Register for Enrolment in Correspondence/Self-Study/Online Learning Courses, funding continues to be based on the number of lessons/units marked (to a maximum of 20 units for a full credit course).

• Where the upgrading credit course is pursued through this delivery method, the maximum units marked should be based on the full course, and not just the units selected for the upgrading course. For example, if a student is taking a course that normally has 20 units (full course), the school board may decide that only 10 units are required for the upgrading course. If the student completes all 10 units, the student should be reported as completing 10/20 units and not 10/10 units on the register.

APPENDIX 1A - INTERIM REPORTING ON GSN-FUNDED PROGRAMMING

Consistent with the prior year’s data collection requirements, the ministry is seeking information on the summer 2021 summer programming, funded through the Grants for Student Needs. This request complements, but does not replace, regular OnSIS and EFIS reporting.

To assist you in the process, the ministry has developed the attached template (“2021 Summer Learning Tracker”) and ask that the completed template be returned to [email protected] at each of the reporting dates below:

1) June 25, 2021 2) August 27, 2021

For any questions, please contact Kyle Paranuik at [email protected] or Diana Jalloul at [email protected].

86

mailto:[email protected]



9

APPENDIX 2: INFORMATION FOR ENHANCEMENTS TO EXISTING PROGRAMS AT PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS

Ministry staff will contact relevant school board leads to discuss expanded funding for existing programs where appropriate.

Program Application Link (if available)

Ministry Contact Name Email

Enhancement of Indigenous Graduation Coach Program

NA Taunya Paquette [email protected]

Focus on Youth Program NA Patrick Byam [email protected] and Demonstration Schools NA Karyn Bruneel [email protected]

87




10

APPENDIX 3: BOARD BY BOARD ALLOCATIONS FOR ALLOCATION BASED PROGRAMS

DSB Board

No. DSB Board Name

De-streaming Transition Support Program

Transportation and Stability Supports for Children and Youth in Care

Graduation Coach

Program for Black

Students

Additional In-Year Mental Health

Supports

Summer Mental Health

Supports

Summer Staffing

Supports: Special

Education Needs

Summer Transition Programs:

Special Education

Needs

Summer Evidence-

Based Reading Intervention

Programs

In-Year Evidence-


Programs

Board Totals

($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($)

1 DSB Ontario North East 23,886.06 89,970 86,818 72,437 70,164 52,121 42,718 438,114.06

2 Algoma DSB 26,860.57 9,824.56 94,068 89,621 77,550 74,343 57,104 45,891 475,262.13

3 Rainbow DSB 28,491.76 9,824.56 99,708 93,478 84,587 80,094 63,963 50,257 510,403.32

4 Near North DSB 26,572.72 9,824.56 94,531 89,938 78,128 74,815 57,668 46,250 477,727.28

5 Keewatin-Patricia DSB 23,118.44 86,614 84,523 68,251 66,744 48,042 40,121 417,413.44

6 Rainy River DSB 21,823.09 83,393 82,320 64,232 63,459 44,125 37,626 396,978.09

7 Lakehead DSB 25,517.24 9,824.56 92,942 88,851 76,145 73,195 55,736 45,019 467,229.80

8 Superior-Greenstone DSB 20,815.59 9,824.56 81,877 81,284 62,342 61,914 42,282 36,453 396,792.15

9 Bluewater DSB 31,898.06 9,824.56 106,076 97,833 92,531 86,586 71,705 55,187 551,640.62

10 Avon Maitland DSB 30,362.82 9,824.56 102,938 95,687 88,616 83,387 67,890 52,758 531,463.38

11 Greater Essex County DSB 46,242.89 9,824.56 28,020 137,190 119,111 131,346 118,308 109,535 79,274 778,851.45

12 Lambton Kent DSB 35,064.48 9,824.56 113,161 102,678 101,369 93,809 80,319 60,672 596,897.04

13 Thames Valley DSB 77,139.46 9,824.56 204,724 165,295 215,596 187,162 191,647 131,556 1,182,944.02

14 Toronto DSB 184,413.88 9,824.56 84,060 457,809 338,373 531,323 445,193 499,361 327,484 2,877,841.44

15 Durham DSB 70,950.55 9,824.56 192,487 156,927 200,329 174,685 176,768 122,083 1,104,054.11

16 Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB 43,028.50 9,824.56 131,823 115,440 124,650 112,836 103,009 75,119 715,730.06

17 Trillium Lakelands DSB 31,226.39 104,240 96,577 90,240 84,714 69,473 53,766 530,236.39

18 York Region DSB 114,944.58 9,824.56 56,040 279,651 216,535 309,068 263,553 282,746 189,561 1,721,923.14

19 Simcoe County DSB 57,805.12 9,824.56 162,962 136,735 163,496 144,583 140,869 99,225 915,499.68

20 Upper Grand DSB 42,404.81 9,824.56 133,979 116,915 127,339 115,034 105,630 76,788 727,914.37

21 Peel DSB 134,950.59 9,824.56 56,040 322,973 246,162 363,112 307,721 335,419 223,099 1,999,301.15

22 Halton DSB 71,766.14 9,824.56 181,417 149,356 186,519 163,399 163,308 113,512 1,039,101.70

23 Hamilton-Wentworth DSB 55,934.05 9,824.56 28,020 158,108 133,416 157,441 139,634 134,967 95,468 912,812.61

24 DSB of Niagara 46,098.96 9,824.56 139,525 120,707 134,258 120,688 112,373 81,081 764,555.52

25 Grand Erie DSB 37,895.06 9,824.56 120,563 107,740 110,603 101,356 89,319 66,402 643,702.62

26 Waterloo Region DSB 66,152.95 9,824.56 180,443 148,690 185,305 162,406 162,124 112,759 1,027,704.51

27 Ottawa-Carleton DSB 69,031.51 9,824.56 56,040 195,249 158,815 203,775 177,501 180,125 124,220 1,174,581.07

88


DSB Board

No. DSB Board Name



Graduation Coach

Program for Black

Students


Supports


Supports

Summer Staffing

Supports: Special

Education Needs


Special Education

Needs

Summer Evidence-


Programs

In-Year Evidence-


Programs

Board Totals

11

28 Upper Canada DSB 37,847.09 9,824.56 120,147 107,455 110,083 100,931 88,812 66,080 641,179.65

29 Limestone DSB 33,577.22 9,824.56 109,844 100,409 97,231 90,427 76,286 58,104 575,702.78

30 Renfrew County DSB 25,949.03 9,824.56 93,608 89,306 76,976 73,874 56,545 45,534 471,616.59

31 Hastings and Prince Edward DSB 30,458.78 9,824.56 102,591 95,450 88,183 83,033 67,468 52,489 529,497.34

32 Northeastern Catholic DSB 21,967.02 83,469 82,372 64,328 63,537 44,218 37,685 397,576.02

33 Nipissing-Parry Sound Catholic DSB 21,919.04 9,824.56 84,081 82,791 65,091 64,161 44,962 38,160 410,989.60

34 Huron-Superior Catholic DSB 23,310.35 9,824.56 86,467 84,422 68,067 66,593 47,862 40,006 426,551.91

35 Sudbury Catholic DSB 24,653.68 9,824.56 89,455 86,466 71,795 69,640 51,496 42,320 445,650.24

36 Northwest Catholic DSB 21,007.50 81,882 81,287 62,347 61,918 42,288 36,457 387,186.50

37 Kenora Catholic DSB 21,103.45 82,006 81,372 62,502 62,045 42,439 36,553 388,020.45

38 Thunder Bay Catholic DSB 25,421.29 9,824.56 91,204 87,662 73,978 71,423 53,623 43,674 456,809.85

39 Superior North Catholic DSB 20,671.66 80,911 80,623 61,137 60,929 41,108 35,706 381,085.66

40 Bruce-Grey Catholic DSB 22,734.63 87,197 84,922 68,978 67,337 48,750 40,571 420,489.63

41 Huron Perth Catholic DSB 23,022.49 9,824.56 87,280 84,978 69,082 67,422 48,851 40,636 431,096.05

42 Windsor-Essex Catholic DSB 34,056.98 9,824.56 111,400 101,473 99,172 92,014 78,178 59,308 585,426.54

43 London District Catholic School Board 33,817.10 9,824.56 113,789 103,107 102,153 94,450 81,083 61,158 599,381.66

44 St. Clair Catholic DSB 25,613.20 9,824.56 93,708 89,374 77,101 73,976 56,667 45,612 471,875.76

45 Toronto Catholic DSB 83,088.49 9,824.56 220,131 175,832 234,816 202,870 210,379 143,484 1,280,425.05

46 Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic DSB 29,931.04 9,824.56 103,055 95,766 88,761 83,505 68,031 52,848 531,721.60

47 York Catholic DSB 58,092.97 9,824.56 159,614 134,445 159,319 141,169 136,798 96,633 895,895.53

48 Dufferin-Peel Catholic DSB 69,847.10 9,824.56 28,020 200,950 162,714 210,887 183,313 187,057 128,634 1,181,246.66

49 Simcoe Muskoka Catholic DSB 34,344.84 9,824.56 114,578 103,647 103,136 95,253 82,041 61,769 604,593.40

50 Durham Catholic DSB 35,544.24 9,824.56 113,920 103,197 102,316 94,583 81,242 61,259 601,885.80

51 Halton Catholic DSB 43,364.33 9,824.56 138,271 119,850 132,694 119,410 110,849 80,111 754,373.89

52 Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic DSB 38,806.61 9,824.56 126,410 111,739 117,897 107,317 96,428 70,929 679,351.17

53 Wellington Catholic DSB 25,901.05 92,478 88,533 75,566 72,721 55,171 44,660 455,030.05

54 Waterloo Catholic DSB 36,024.00 9,824.56 118,111 106,063 107,544 98,856 86,337 64,504 627,263.56

55 Niagara Catholic DSB 34,248.88 9,824.56 111,442 101,502 99,224 92,056 78,229 59,341 585,867.44

89


DSB Board

No. DSB Board Name



Graduation Coach

Program for Black

Students


Supports


Supports

Summer Staffing

Supports: Special

Education Needs


Special Education

Needs

Summer Evidence-


Programs

In-Year Evidence-


Programs

Board Totals

12

56 Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic DSB 26,620.69 9,824.56 96,414 91,225 80,477 76,735 59,957 47,707 488,960.25

57 Catholic DSB of Eastern Ontario 30,170.92 9,824.56 100,681 94,143 85,800 81,085 65,145 51,010 517,859.48

58 Ottawa Catholic DSB 50,704.66 9,824.56 28,020 150,254 128,045 147,643 131,627 125,419 89,388 860,925.22

59 Renfrew County Catholic DSB 23,406.30 9,824.56 87,611 85,205 69,494 67,759 49,253 40,892 433,444.86

60 Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic DSB 27,724.14 9,824.56 97,429 91,919 81,743 77,769 61,191 48,493 496,092.70

61 Conseil scolaire de district du Nord-Est de l'Ontario 21,535.23 9,824.56 83,503 82,395 64,370 63,571 44,259 37,712 407,169.79

62 Conseil scolaire public du Grand Nord de l'Ontario 21,679.16 9,824.56 84,035 82,759 65,034 64,114 44,906 38,124 410,475.72

63 Conseil scolaire Viamonde 27,772.12 100,565 94,064 85,656 80,967 65,005 50,921 504,950.12

64 Conseil des écoles publiques de l'Est de l'Ontario 31,034.49 28,020 106,608 98,197 93,194 87,128 72,352 55,599 572,132.49

65 Conseil scolaire de district catholique des Grandes Rivières 23,646.18 88,638 85,907 70,776 68,807 50,503 41,687 429,964.18

66 Conseil scolaire de district catholique Franco-Nord 22,014.99 9,824.56 84,173 82,854 65,206 64,255 45,074 38,231 411,632.55

67 Conseil scolaire de district catholique du Nouvel-Ontario 24,509.75 9,824.56 89,991 86,833 72,464 70,187 52,148 42,735 448,692.31

68 Conseil scolaire de district catholique des Aurores boréales 20,671.66 81,384 80,947 61,727 61,411 41,683 36,072 383,895.66

69 Conseil scolaire catholique Providence 27,148.43 95,574 90,650 79,428 75,878 58,935 47,056 474,669.43

70 Conseil scolaire catholique MonAvenir 33,193.41 9,824.56 106,944 98,426 93,613 87,470 72,760 55,859 558,089.97

71 Conseil scolaire de district catholique de l'Est ontarien 27,244.38 9,824.56 96,056 90,981 80,031 76,370 59,522 47,430 487,458.94

72 Conseil scolaire de district catholique du Centre-Est de l'Ontario 37,367.33 9,824.56 120,251 107,526 110,213 101,037 88,939 66,160 641,317.89

Total DSBs 2,857,164.17 559,999.92 392,280 8,916,531 7,918,658 8,257,821 7,538,216 6,717,877 4,963,650 48,122,197.09

1 James Bay Lowlands Secondary School Board 10,000.00 20,281 20,192 15,350 15,286 10,341 8,967 100,417.00

2 Moose Factory Island District School Area Board 10,000.00 20,465 20,318 15,580 15,474 10,565 9,110 101,512.00

3 Moosonee District School Area Board 10,000.00 20,423 20,289 15,528 15,431 10,514 9,078 101,263.00

4 The Protestant Separate School Board of the Town of Penetanguishene 10,335.83 20,580 20,396 15,723 15,591 10,705 9,199 102,529.83

Centre Jules-Léger 2,500.00 2,500.00

Provincial Schools 2,500.00 2,500.00

Total Isolate Boards and Provincial Schools 45,335.83 81,749 81,195 62,181 61,782 42,125 36,354 410,721.83

Provincial Total 2,902,500.00 559,999.92 392,280.00 8,998,280.00 7,999,853.00 8,320,002.00 7,599,998.00 6,760,002.00 5,000,004.00 48,532,918.92

90



Letter from Director of Education re: Urgent Request for COVID-19 Vaccine Prioritization for Education Workers Recommendation: It is recommended that this letter be received.

Submitted by:


91

92

Trustees

Carrie Andrews David Green

Susan Benjamin Sue Lawton

Stan Cameron Brad MacDonald

Robert Crocker John Marchant

Nokha Dakroub Kathy McDonald

Will Davies Balbir Sohi

Director of Education and Secretary to the Board Colleen Russell-Rawlins

Associate Director – Operations & Equity of Access Jaspal Gill

Associate Director – Instruction & Equity Poleen Grewal

Associate Director – School Improvement & Equity Camille Logan

Associate Director– School Improvement & Equity Lynn Strangway

March 26, 2021 Dr. David Williams Chief Medical Officer of Health, Public Health CC: Dr. Lawrence Loh, Medical Officer of Health, Peel Public Health Nancy Naylor, Deputy Minister of Education Re: Urgent Request for COVID-19 Vaccine Prioritization for Education Workers

Dear Dr. Williams, Please accept this letter as an urgent request for the prioritization of the COVID-19 vaccination for all education workers in the Peel District School Board. The publicly stated timelines initially indicated the availability of vaccinations for education staff to take place in March of 2021, and the delays have been concerning. Since the pandemic began in March 2020, education workers have committed themselves to providing safe, engaging, and equitable learning environments for all PDSB students. Staff have diligently complied daily with Enhanced Safety Protocols as guided by public health authorities and they have been understanding and dedicated, since schools re-opened in September, to adapting to safety requirements as they continue to evolve. As you know, Peel has been one of the most significantly impacted regions in the Province of Ontario during this pandemic. Peel Public Health has confirmed that we are currently in a third wave, and while the spread of the virus in schools has been slower than that of community spread, we have seen a rise in case counts within our schools. We understand that the variants of concern are still COVID-19, and our Enhanced Safety Protocols remain effective in limiting spread, however these more contagious strains require additional vigilance on our already fatigued PDSB communities.

93

Dr. Williams Re: Urgent Request for COVID-19 Vaccine Prioritization for Education Workers

March 26, 2021 Page 2 Staff, students, and families have taken extraordinary efforts to change their routines and carry out collective actions to limit the spread of COVID-19 and keep our school communities safe. It is imperative that those efforts are met with the respect of meeting our obligations of prioritizing education workers, and those supporting in-school learning especially, in vaccination distribution. We are committed to supporting Peel Public Health to facilitate our request to prioritize education workers, in any way that we can, including sharing our schools as administration sites. Providing staff with this layer of protection is necessary so that they can continue to focus on student wellness and learning and we can keep schools open. Over the course of the past year we have asked education workers to carry out a vital task on behalf of our society. As frontline workers, they have been pillars in our communities ensuring student learning has continued throughout the pandemic while attending to both the physical and mental well-being of students. We appreciate your time and consideration to prioritize education workers, and especially those supporting in-school learning and students with complex medical needs, in the facilitation of this immunization process.

Sincerely,

Colleen Russell-Rawlins Director of Education Peel District School Board 5650 Hurontario Street Mississauga, ON L5R 1C6 [email protected]

94



Letter from Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board Special Education Advisory Committee re: Prioritization of Vaccinations during Phase II in Support of Students with Special Needs and their Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that this letter be received.

Submitted by:


95

96

156 Ann Street, Belleville ON K8N 3L3 613-966-1170 | 1-800-267-4350

www.HPEschools.ca

February 19, 2021 Dr. Piotr Oglaza, Medical Officer of Health Hastings Prince Edward Public Health 179 North Park Street Belleville ON K8P 4P1 Dear Dr. Oglaza: Re: Prioritization of vaccinations during Phase II in support of students with Special Education Needs and their staff As staff and students in Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board (HPEDSB) and the rest of the province pivot between face-to-face and remote learning, members of the Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) would like to request the Ministry of Health and our local health unit to strengthen its commitment to ensuring the health and safety of students and HPEDSB employees who work directly with students with high special needs, in regional and self-contained placements. Further, we wish to impress upon the Ministry and our local health experts the urgent need to provide students who are of appropriate age and their staff, with access to vaccinations as quickly as possible.

It is important to note that many students within our regional programs are adults and not children. These adult learners often have underlying health conditions, comorbidities (e.g., developmental disabilities such as Down’s syndrome, spina bifida etc.) and would benefit from vaccines whether they reside in group home settings, or at home with parents/guardians.

Employees who work on a day-to-day basis within regional classrooms are at high risk for potential infection due to the proximity they must have with students and other staff. Students often routinely require assistance with eating, bathroom support, and transferring or lifting in order to access their programming. Employees are in effect, required to be in close proximity to their students, which adds to the risk of transmission. We value the added responsibilities that these individuals take on and feel they should have access to vaccination programs and information as early as possible.

In conclusion, we stress to the Ministry that, while we understand that there is a phased approach being employed and that resources have been put in place to ensure that vulnerable populations receive their vaccines in a priority sequence, we would also appreciate that our district leaders be informed of procedural steps as soon as possible so that these can be shared with our employees and families. Sincerely,

Kelly Allan Jason Sweet

Kelly Allan, Chair, Jason Sweet, Vice-chair Special Education Advisory Committee Special Education Advisory Committee Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board c.c. Christine Elliott, Minister of Health Stephen Lecce, Minister of Education Daryl Kramp, MPP Hastings-Lennox & Addington Todd Smith, MPP Bay of Quinte Lucille Kyle, Chair of the Board Lee-Anne Kerr, Chair, Parent Involvement Committee

Chairs of all Ontario Special Education Advisory Committees

97

98



Memo from Minister re: Ministry of Education Update Recommendation: It is recommended that this memo be received.

Submitted by:


99

100

April 12, 2021 Memorandum to: Chairs of District School Boards

Directors of Education School Authorities

From: Stephen Lecce Minister of Education Nancy Naylor Deputy Minister

Subject: Ministry of Education Update

As you know, our Chief Medical Officer of Health has confirmed that the transmission of COVID-19 in schools has remained low, and schools remain a place for students to learn safely with appropriate measures in place. However, the COVID-19 situation continues to evolve rapidly, and we recognize that the students and staff in the education system play an important role in supporting efforts to stop the spread of COVID-19. Cases across Ontario communities are rising quickly, and the new COVID-19 variants pose a serious threat. In consultation with Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health it has been determined that elementary and secondary school students province-wide will participate in remote learning following the April Break. The government will continue to listen to the advice of public health experts, and we will update parents once a safe return to in-person learning is recommended.

This approach does not apply to First Nation and federally operated schools. Remote Learning Remote learning will be provided for all students in alignment with Policy/Program Memorandum (PPM) No.164: Requirements for Remote Learning. This PPM makes clear very specific standards for instruction of synchronous learning so that parents and students know what to expect and there is a consistent approach across the province to ensure students are fully engaged in their learning. School boards are asked to distribute technology to students and staff to support remote learning, as required. To support the Stay-At-Home order all staff who are able will work from home. Staff who are unable to provide remote instruction from home will be permitted to do so in schools, only where rationale has been provided and approved by the school board.

101

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/extra/eng/ppm/164.html

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/extra/eng/ppm/164.html

Any staff required to provide remote instruction in schools must not congregate with other staff and avoid use of school space outside the classroom. Student Supports As in previous shifts to remote learning, boards must ensure that plans are in place to support students with special education needs to learn remotely that leverage the capacity of education workers and board professionals (e.g. behavioural experts, speech language pathologists, and other professionals) to support remote learning. As part of our Government’s efforts to protect the most vulnerable, boards are expected to make provisions for in-person support for students with special education needs who cannot be accommodated through remote learning based on student needs. Most students with special education needs will be learning remotely during this period. In-person learning should be reserved for students who cannot be accommodated through remote learning. School boards are best positioned to determine which students with special education needs may require this accommodation. School boards have flexibility in determining how to deliver in-person instruction in such circumstances, based on local conditions. However, consideration should be given to limiting overall movement and limiting the number of sites that will be open. With students moving to remote learning, prioritization of education staff who provide direct support to students with complex special education needs across the province, and all education workers in select hot spot areas in Toronto and Peel will continue. Starting today, these elementary and secondary school staff that have received the relevant information from their school boards will be eligible to register for vaccination. The ministry continues to encourage school boards to work closely with local First Nations and take steps to ensure continuity of learning for enrolled First Nation students who may live on reserve and/or require additional supports. It is important that school boards have safety plans in place for those students who are experiencing or could be expected to experience mental health challenges. Safety plans should include provisions for students to have continued remote access to services, through the school, community child and youth mental health or local healthcare partners. In addition, students and families should be provided with information about the mental health resources that are available to them, including Kids Help Phone, which offers 24/7 counselling and referral services across the province. To use this free resource, children can call 1-800-668-6868, or text CONNECT to 686868.

102

School Mental Health Ontario also has a number of great resources for students, parents and families on their website at www.smho-smso.ca. In addition, child and youth mental health agencies across the province continue to provide services. Learning Resources The Ministry of Education recently announced the launch of two new portals, TVO Learn and TFO IDÉLLO, apprendre à la maison, which provide supports for students learning remotely by accessing additional educational resources developed by Ontario certified teachers. In addition, secondary students can continue to access TVO’s Independent Learning Centre (ILC) Open House and Portes ouvertes pour les cours TVO ILC in French-language, which provide access to 144 Grade 9 to 12 courses. These ILC resources are designed to provide flexible learning opportunities to help students keep up with their learning or deepen their understanding of a specific subject. Eurêka is a service available to French-language students and families that provides resources and supports for all subjects, Grades 1-12. Boards are encouraged to share links to these resources with all students and families, as well as educators who may choose to incorporate these resources in their lessons. Student Transportation

While elementary and the secondary panels are learning remotely, student transportation services will only be provided for special needs students who cannot be accommodated through remote learning based on student needs. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and Cleaning Supplies and Equipment (CSE) Shipments The ministry will continue to work with you to support your PPE needs throughout this period. Child Care Centres in Schools We recognize that the closure of schools will have an impact on families who may be unable to care for their child at home. In light of this, we are directing schools to continue to provide access to their on-site child care centres and to authorized recreational and skill building programs, when those programs are permitted to operate. The ministry is working with our Consolidated Municipal Service Managers and District Social Service Administration Boards to provide Emergency Child Care (ECC) programs for school-aged children for health care and other frontline workers, free of charge for parents.

103

http://www.smho-smso.ca/

https://tvolearn.com/

https://tvolearn.com/

https://www.idello.org/fr/apprendre-a-la-maison

https://tvolearn.com/collections/courses

https://tvolearn.com/collections/courses

https://moneureka.ca/

Thank you for the ongoing partnership. We are encouraged that the availability of high-quality remote learning across Ontario will ensure the success of student learning during this time. Sincerely, Stephen Lecce Nancy Naylor Minister Deputy Minister c: President, Association des conseils scolaires des écoles publiques de l'Ontario

(ACÉPO)

Executive Director, Association des conseils scolaires des écoles publiques de l'Ontario (ACÉPO)

President, Association franco-ontarienne des conseils scolaires catholiques (AFOCSC) Executive Director, Association franco-ontarienne des conseils scolaires catholiques (AFOCSC) President, Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association (OCSTA)

Executive Director, Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association (OCSTA) President, Ontario Public School Boards' Association (OPSBA) Executive Director, Ontario Public School Boards' Association (OPSBA) Executive Director, Council of Ontario Directors of Education (CODE) President, Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens (AEFO)

Executive Director and Secretary-Treasurer, Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens (AEFO) President, Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA)

General Secretary, Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA) President, Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO) General Secretary, Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO)

President, Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF) General Secretary, Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF)

Chair, Ontario Council of Educational Workers (OCEW) Chair, Education Workers’ Alliance of Ontario (EWAO) President of OSBCU, Canadian Union of Public Employees – Ontario (CUPE-ON) Co-ordinator, Canadian Union of Public Employees – Ontario (CUPE-ON) Executive Director, Association des directions et directions adjointes des écoles franco-ontariennes (ADFO) Executive Director, Catholic Principals' Council of Ontario (CPCO) Executive Director, Ontario Principals' Council (OPC)

104



Questions from Members at a Previous SEAC Meeting

Recommendation: It is recommended that this report be received. Prepared and Submitted by: Liz Cook, Executive Superintendent, Student Learning Support Services

105

106

Question 1 At the March 22, 2021 meeting, a question was asked about assessments at Roy McMurty School. Students attending Roy McMurtry SS receive Psychology, Social Work or Speech Pathology services from staff through the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services as the agency responsible for the care of students within the centre. Question 2 At the March 22, 2021 meeting a question was asked plans to start the Innovation Hub at Central Peel Secondary School, considering the phase out of Vocational 2 programs. The following are the tentative timelines proposed for the Central Peel Annex Building Addition and Renovation: Construction Start: May 24, 2021 Construction Completion: December 16, 2021 The project is going out to tender in the month of April.

107

108



Special Education Advisory Committee, Pending Motion/Action Log and Completed Motion/Action Items Recommendation: It is recommended that the Pending Motion/Action Log and Completed Motion/Action Items be received. Submitted by:


109

110

Special Education Advisory Committee Pending Action/Motion Log

April 22, 2021

SEAC Meeting Date

Agenda Item and Title

Follow-Up Required Motion/Action Status

Mar 22, 2021 9.2 Data

Reporting Ontario

School Information

System (OnSIS)

2020

A report on OnSIS data by gender population and type will be brought to a future meeting

In progress

Mar 22, 2021 9.2 Data

Reporting Ontario

School Information

System (OnSIS)

2020

SVI race based data in regard to various exceptionalities will be brought to SEAC following completion of the Equity & Accountability Report Card

In progress

Mar 22, 2021 9.3 Impact of the

Ministry Directives

on Special

Education

An Inclusion Implementation Report will be brought to back to a SEAC Meeting

In progress

June 16, 2020 9.6 Update On Process of Collecting Census Information from students with Special Needs

With regard to a further breakdown of Census data by racial background, as well as by city, disaggregated data by special programs and exceptionality will be brought to SEAC over fall/winter 2020 meetings

In progress

111

Special Education Advisory Committee Pending Action/Motion Log

April 22, 2021

SEAC Meeting Date



Oct 15, 2019 9.4 Parent Input into the Gifted Identification and Placement Process

“After consultation with SESS staff members and ABC Peel, the following action items has been created:

- SESS staff develop in consultation with ABC Peel, a parent input for (checklist and open-ended response) that will be used at the ISRC to better understand student needs from a holistic perspective

- SESS staff develop, in consultation with ABC Peel, a consistent method of collecting data from parents during the psychoeducational assessment process. Professionals conducting private psychoeducational assessments will be strongly encouraged to collect data from parents using this method. This data will be used to inform both identification and placement

- These changes will take place by September 2020 at the latest.”

In progress Work on this project in December 2019 stopped as a result of the ETFO/OSSTF job sanctions. A writing team will work on this during the summer of 2020.

112

Special Education Advisory Committee Completed Motion/Action Items

April 22, 2021

SEAC Meeting Date



Mar 22, 2021 9.3 Impact of the Ministry Directives on Special Education

An update report will be brought back regarding contained classes and placements in the Gifted Program

Completed April 9.3

Mar 22, 2021 9.3 Impact of the Ministry Directives on Special Education

Regional Internal Audit Team Report on Special Education Fully Contained Classes will be brought to the next meeting

Completed April 9.4

Mar 22, 2021 14.0 Questions asked of/by Committee Members

A member asked about assessments at the Roy McMurtry facility

Completed April 14.1

Mar 22, 2021 14.0 Questions asked of/by Committee Members

A member asked about plans to start the Innovation Hub at Central Peel Secondary School, considering the phase out of Vocational 2 programs

Completed April 14.1

Mar 22, 2021 15.1 Action and Motion Log

Presentations to be sent out to SEAC members Completed March 25 P Smalley emailed SEAC members

Feb 16, 2021 9.1 Associate Director’s Report

Bring back a report on supporting DD students through a more inclusive lens.

Completed March 9.4

Feb 16, 2021 9.3 Gifted Identification Process Update

Status report and next steps re impact of COVID-19 on students doing CCAT will be brought back to the Committee

Completed March 9.1

Feb 16, 2021 9.3 Gifted Identification Process Update

A report re Gifted Identification process will be brought back in April

Completed April 9.3

Feb 16, 2021 9.4 Vocational 2 Update

Draft letter of support to the Board of Trustees re phasing out of VOV 2 program will be brought back to the next meeting

Completed March 10.4

Feb 16, 2021 12.1 Response to Request from Barbara Cyr’s Written Request for OnSIS Data

A report on student census data by racial background will be brought back to the next meeting

Completed March 9.2

113


April 22, 2021

SEAC Meeting Date



Feb 16, 2021 14.0 Questions asked of and by Committee Members

Provide follow up information on possibility of providing Eye Gaze equipment for home use



Request for assistive technology, and technical educational resources be brought back to the Committee when the updates have been completed



Information regarding accommodations for students with ADHD will be reviewed and brought back to a future SEAC meeting



A response about delivery of the DD/ASD program and level of consistency during COVID-19 pandemic will be provided


Jan 19, 2021 4.0 Chairs Request for Written Questions from Committee Members

SEAC members’ contact list will be circulated Completed January 25 C. Barnes emailed SEAC Members

Jan 19, 2021 9.1 Associate Director’s Report

Associate Director Grewal will follow up as to whether educators are included in Phase 2 of the COVID 19 vaccine roll-out

Completed February 14.1

Jan 19, 2021 9.2 Ministry Funding for Mental Health and Special Education Projects

Report Back to SEAC regarding access to data for summer programs for mental health supports and call-in centres


Jan 19, 2021 9.4 Special Education Amount (SEA) – Assistive Technology Projects

Superintendent VanHooydonk will check with Speech Language Pathologists regarding use and allocation of eye tracking equipment and technology


114


April 22, 2021

SEAC Meeting Date




Staff will review resources, e.g., webinars, for training on technology tools to be posted on public website



Assistive Technology Updates PowerPoint presentation will be sent to SEAC members

Completed January 25 C. Barnes emailed SEAC members

Jan 19, 2021 13.0 Reports from Representatives on Councils/ Associations

Request that OnSIS data on the number of students receiving special education programs and services, including a breakdown of students by exceptionality and placement be provided to SEAC.


Dec 15, 2020

9.1 Vocational Programs Review - oral

Associate Director Grewal will be bringing ongoing reports on implications of programming with a focus on communications as well as a plan for students who are currently in VOC programs to SEAC

Completed January 9.4 Updated monthly

Dec 15, 2020 9.1 Vocational Programs Review

Request for a report on students with moderate to severe disability indicating impact similar to the one done for VOC programs. Associate Director will look into feasibility and bring back a response


Dec 15, 2020 10.1 TPA for students with Mental Health and/or Special Education Needs

Request for an update on back log of assessments. Associate Director Grewal will bring back a report in February 2021


Dec 15, 2020 10.1 TPA for students with Mental Health and/or Special Education Needs

Question by Trustee McDonald if funds will be set aside to increase assessments for students with high social risk. Associate Grewal will bring a report on assessments in February 2021


115


April 22, 2021

SEAC Meeting Date



Dec 15, 2020 10.2 Communications for action or receipt

Question on use of Plexiglas and strategies for safe environment in music class. Shirley-Ann Teal responded as to the recommend guidelines. Associate Grewal offered to bring back a response

Completed January SEAC 12.1

Dec 15, 2020 13 Reports from Reps on Councils/ Associations

Associate Director Grewal to invite Executive Director of LDAPR to present in early 2021. Follow up with Carol Ogilvie.

Completed

Nov 17, 2020 9.1 Associate Director’s Report - oral

Associate Director Grewal will answer the question regarding data-driven decisions that will ensure diverse representation in the Regional Learning Choices programs

Completed January 9.1

Nov 17, 2020 9.1 Associate Director’s Report - oral

Associate Director Grewal highlighted work being done to track students at home by mutual consent and will bring back a report to the next SEAC meeting

Completed December SEAC 9.3

Nov 17, 2020 9.2 Analysis of Ontario Human Rights Commission Letter

A report will be brought back outlining the locations that have experience increase in social work referrals compared to last year.


Nov 17, 2020 12.1 Response of Administration to Former Questions

Data on different identifying factors for programs, including Behaviour, and VOC 1 and VOC 2 programs will be brought back to SEAC


Nov 17, 2020 15. Questions asked of/by Committee Members

Associate Director Grewal will follow up regarding October ONSIS report for SEAC members


Oct 20, 2020 9.1 New Math Curriculum

Admin will bring back a report on how parents are going to understand the different format, comments and information they will receive

Completed January SEAC 12.1

116


April 22, 2021

SEAC Meeting Date



Oct 20, 2020 9.2 Contained Classes

Poleen Grewal to follow up with regard to the disproportionality of contained classes in North and South PDSB

Completed November SEAC response 12.1

Oct 20, 2020 9.3 Organization Chart

Poleen Grewal offered to bring back an organizational chart to SEAC members

Completed November SEAC 9.1

Oct 20, 2020 9.4 Hybrid Class Success Tracking

Poleen Grewal will look into tracking of success and barriers to hybrid classes and bring back a response

Completed Oral report

Sept 15, 2020 9.1 Camp Possible Report

Data on the number of students who attended Camp Possible will be brought to the October 20, 2020 SEAC meeting


Sept 15, 2020 9.1 Draft Schedule for Agenda Items

Superintendent Moynihan shared this document with SEAC members during his oral report

Completed Emailed to SEAC members September 15

Sept 15, 2020 9.4 Hybrid Model

Casimir McGeown, Coordinator, Assistive Technology Resource Teacher, was asked to document the pros and cons of Google Classroom and Brightspace to be shared with members and to connect with Down Syndrome Association of Peel representative, Mary Wright.

Completed Casimir McGeown emailed Mary Wright and SEAC members

Sept 15, 2020 10.1 Communications for action or receipt

Response on PDSB’s performance against obligations outlined in the Letter from Raj Dhir


Sept 15, 2020 13. Questions asked of/by Committee Members

A response will be provided as to whether student will be able to download worksheets and lessons discussed during online class time asked by Mary Wright

Completed Casimir McGeown spoke to Mary Wright in October

117


April 22, 2021

SEAC Meeting Date




Members were asked to review the Motion/Action Log before the September SEAC meeting. Jennifer Knight and Carole Ogilvie confirmed that they will meet with Shawn Moynihan to review the Log, which will be added to SEAC Meeting Agendas

Completed Sent to members September 15 and added to SEAC Agenda items as item 15


Members asked if STOPR would provide training for staff regarding mask exemptions for some students that are bussed. Poleen Grewal would speak to STOPR and bring back to SEAC in October

Completed Shared with members in October SEAC 9.1


A member asked for information regarding the status of CCAT tests in PDSB

Completed Shared with members October SEAC

June 16, 2020 13. Questions asked of/by Committee Members

A member requested that agenda for the two meeting that fall on a Monday be sent out a day earlier

Completed October SEAC 9.1

118

Date post:	26-Nov-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	khangminh22
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times