AI TRANSCRIPTION OF JUNE 8, 2026 TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee MEETING

 

This was prepared by AI and may well have errors in it. Text of motions was pasted into the body of this transcription.

 

Chair: David Lepofsky

David Lepofsky: All right, good evening, everyone.

0:00:00 – 0:00:04

 

My name is David Lepofsky, I’m chair of the Toronto District School Board Special Education

0:00:04 – 0:00:11

 

Advisory Committee and also the representative on SEAC for the Ontario Parents of Visually

0:00:11 – 0:00:17

 

Impaired Children.

0:00:17 – 0:00:18

 

I’m calling to order, or disorder as the case may be, the June meeting of SEAC, welcoming

0:00:18 – 0:00:27

 

everybody, whether you’re due to SEAC or you’ve been here before.

0:00:27 – 0:00:32

 

What I’d like to do, as I always do, is go around the room and have everyone who’s in

0:00:32 – 0:00:37

 

the room introduce themselves, tell us what organization, if you’re a SEAC member or staff,

0:00:37 – 0:00:44

 

and if you’re a SEAC member, who you represent, starting on my right.

0:00:44 – 0:00:49

 

Jordan Glass, I’m the vice chair of SEAC and I am also the learning center to regional

0:00:49 – 0:00:54

 

representative.

0:00:54 – 0:00:58

 

My name is Nora Green and I represent Inclusion Action in Ontario.

0:00:58 – 0:01:03

 

Good evening, everyone.

0:01:03 – 0:01:05

 

Nandi Palmer, executive superintendent for special education programs and equitable outcomes.

0:01:05 – 0:01:11

 

And I’m going to pass it over to our newly appointed CEO, who will introduce himself.

0:01:11 – 0:01:19

 

Thank you.

0:01:19 – 0:01:20

 

Good evening, everyone.

0:01:20 – 0:01:22

 

My name is Camillo Cipriano, and as Nandi indicated, I’m the new chief executive officer

0:01:22 – 0:01:26

 

for the TDSB, and today is my first day in the role.

0:01:26 – 0:01:31

 

It gets better.

0:01:31 – 0:01:34

 

Thank you.

0:01:34 – 0:01:35

 

Good evening, Stacey Zucker, CFO and COO.

0:01:35 – 0:01:42

 

Welcome back.

0:01:42 – 0:01:43

 

Good evening.

0:01:43 – 0:01:44

 

My name is Stephanie Harris, and I’m the acting executive officer of business services.

0:01:44 – 0:01:52

 

And Leo here for Autism Ontario.

0:01:52 – 0:01:54

 

Right.

0:01:54 – 0:01:55

 

That’s everyone in the room, but Jean-Paul just walked in.

0:01:55 – 0:01:59

 

Jean-Paul, just the time to introduce yourself.

0:01:59 – 0:02:03

 

Hello, everyone.

0:02:03 – 0:02:06

 

I’m Jean-Paul Ngana and community rep.

0:02:06 – 0:02:14

 

Great.

0:02:14 – 0:02:16

 

Thank you.

0:02:16 – 0:02:17

 

And welcome back.

0:02:17 – 0:02:18

 

It’s good to have you here.

0:02:18 – 0:02:19

 

So and welcome to everybody who’s online.

0:02:19 – 0:02:22

 

We will proceed to the additional steps of our meeting.

0:02:22 – 0:02:27

 

First, land acknowledgement, all rise who are able, and Vice Chair Jordan Glass will

0:02:27 – 0:02:33

 

lead us in it.

0:02:33 – 0:02:35

 

We acknowledge we live on the lands of the Mississaugas of the Anishinaabe, the Haudenosaunee,

0:02:35 – 0:02:41

 

Confederacy, and the Wendat.

0:02:41 – 0:02:43

 

We also recognize the enduring presence of all First Nations, Metis, and Inuit people.

0:02:43 – 0:02:48

 

Feel free to be seated.

0:02:48 – 0:02:53

 

And a particular welcome to our new CEO, and looking forward to your being here and to

0:02:53 – 0:03:01

 

doing whatever we can do to help you land smoothly, safely, and enjoyably in your new

0:03:01 – 0:03:07

 

role.

0:03:07 – 0:03:09

 

Let’s go through our opening procedures.

0:03:09 – 0:03:12

 

First, we have an agenda proposed for tonight.

0:03:12 – 0:03:16

 

Can I ask if we have a motion to approve the agenda?

0:03:16 – 0:03:23

 

Leo.

0:03:23 – 0:03:27

 

Leo moves.

0:03:27 – 0:03:28

 

Leo moves it, and who would be prepared to, Dora’s seconding it.

0:03:28 – 0:03:32

 

All in favor.

0:03:32 – 0:03:35

 

Tell me if it’s approved.

0:03:35 – 0:03:42

 

For here, Leigh Ann.

0:03:42 – 0:03:45

 

Yes, that’s approved.

0:03:45 – 0:03:49

 

All right, thank you.

0:03:49 – 0:03:51

 

And does anyone have a conflict of interest to declare in relation to anything on the

0:03:51 – 0:03:58

 

agenda?

0:03:58 – 0:03:59

 

Please speak now if you do.

0:03:59 – 0:04:02

 

We have no conflicts, great.

0:04:02 – 0:04:05

 

Approving the minutes, I’m going to propose doing this in reverse order.

0:04:05 – 0:04:09

 

First May meeting minutes.

0:04:09 – 0:04:12

 

May I ask if there could be a motion to approve the May meeting minutes?

0:04:12 – 0:04:17

 

Jordan’s moving it, seconder, Leo.

0:04:17 – 0:04:26

 

Any revisions anyone wants to ask for, or should we proceed to a vote?

0:04:26 – 0:04:31

 

Nothing?

0:04:31 – 0:04:33

 

All right, all in favor of approving the minutes of our May meeting.

0:04:33 – 0:04:43

 

Five here, Leigh Ann.

0:04:43 – 0:04:47

 

Sorry, four.

0:04:47 – 0:04:48

 

David, I don’t see.

0:04:48 – 0:04:49

 

Five.

0:04:49 – 0:04:50

 

Five, Leigh Ann.

0:04:50 – 0:04:51

 

I keep forgetting if I could vote.

0:04:51 – 0:04:56

 

Those are approved.

0:04:56 – 0:04:57

 

All right, the March meeting minutes.

0:04:57 – 0:05:01

 

I’d like first a motion to approve them, and then I’m going to propose the amendments

0:05:01 – 0:05:07

 

to them that are set out in my chair’s report, which I don’t think we have to read out.

0:05:07 – 0:05:12

 

They’re all spelled out.

0:05:12 – 0:05:14

 

But first we need a motion to get the minutes on the table.

0:05:14 – 0:05:18

 

Okay, Jordan’s moving it, Nora’s seconding it.

0:05:18 – 0:05:23

 

I’m moving the addition of my amendments to the minutes as set out in my chair’s report,

0:05:23 – 0:05:31

 

or I’m entertaining a motion.

0:05:31 – 0:05:33

 

Could someone move that for me, please?

0:05:33 – 0:05:37

 

Leo, second?

0:05:37 – 0:05:39

(Note: the following are the amendments to the minutes:

1. In the discussion of TDSB staff refusing to send to other Ontario SEACs copies of my February letter to the Minister, I proposed to add this:

 

“The Chair noted that the Associate Director, Student Learning & Equitable Outcomes had previously advised him that TDSB’s policy or protocol was that when SEAC writes a letter to the Minister of Education and copies it to Ontario’s other SEACs, TDSB would forward that letter to the other school boards to deliver it to their SEAC. The Associate Director, Student Learning & Equitable Outcomes stated that TDSB has decided to revise that policy or protocol.”

 

2. In the discussion about the Supervisor not seeking SEAC input before making certain decisions, staff eliminated the following:

 

“SEAC members also noted that the trustees on SEAC used to regularly report to SEAC about issues that the trustees are considering, and that the TDSB website only includes a few actions by the supervisor. Presumably he is doing much more that is not recorded there.”

 

3. In the discussion of TDSB’s decision to eliminate the maximum size of any individual Grade 4 to 8 class, I had added the following, which senior staff disallowed:

 

“SEAC members expressed serious concern that TDSB was not told about this increase afterwards, or consulted on it in advance, and that it can create further barriers to effective inclusion of students with disabilities/special education needs in the regular classroom.”

 

4. In the discussion of SEAC’s objections to the TDSB parents’ survey that that gave parents the option of supporting or opposing special education as a budget priority:

 

“As well, at last June’s SEAC meeting, the TDSB Associate Director, Student Learning & Equitable Outcomes had apologized on behalf of TDSB to its having been included in that year’s budget survey.

TDSB’s Interim Director of Education stated that this year’s survey was different, because last year’s survey asked about priorities for budget cuts while this year’s survey asked for priorities about budget spending. SEAC members provided the feedback that this is a distinction without a difference. In both cases, TDSB parents are offered the chance to choose to prefer deprioritizing special education as a budget spending priority. They also stated that special education is required to be a spending priority. This budget is misleading parents by suggesting or implying that it could be otherwise.”)

 

Okay, very good.

0:05:39 – 0:05:42

 

Jordan’s second it.

0:05:42 – 0:05:45

 

Can we just have a vote on it?

0:05:45 – 0:05:46

 

All in favor?

0:05:46 – 0:05:48

 

Raising my hand.

0:05:48 – 0:05:53

 

How are we, Leigh Ann?

0:05:53 – 0:06:05

 

Five here.

0:06:05 – 0:06:07

 

I have seven online, so that would pass.

0:06:07 – 0:06:10

 

All right.

0:06:10 – 0:06:11

 

Leigh Ann, that means we could dispense with my motion regarding the minutes.

0:06:11 – 0:06:17

 

The next item on the agenda is my chair’s report.

0:06:17 – 0:06:20

 

I am going to move mighty fast.

0:06:20 – 0:06:22

 

I am going to move at the end that the committee receive my chair’s report, because I can’t

0:06:22 – 0:06:28

 

cover all of it, and I’ve given all the other important items we have to deal with.

0:06:28 – 0:06:32

 

First, welcome to our new CEO.

0:06:32 – 0:06:35

 

We are a lively bunch, and I look forward personally to meeting with you and getting

0:06:35 – 0:06:41

 

to know you and working collaboratively.

0:06:41 – 0:06:44

 

We got a good bunch of people here.

0:06:44 – 0:06:46

 

They don’t agree on everything, but they have a very healthy and vigorous debate on things.

0:06:46 – 0:06:52

 

They agree on lots of things, and when they disagree, it’s on items of principle, and

0:06:52 – 0:06:56

 

you can learn from all sides of those debates.

0:06:56 – 0:06:59

 

I sure do.

0:06:59 – 0:07:01

 

I want to just focus on a couple of major high points.

0:07:01 – 0:07:06

 

First, this committee has held a town hall a year and a half ago for parents of kids

0:07:06 – 0:07:12

 

with special education needs, and a public forum last April, both were tremendous successes.

0:07:12 – 0:07:20

 

The community has learned from our example, and I’m proud to tell you that the Ontario

0:07:20 – 0:07:25

 

Autism Coalition and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance,

0:07:25 – 0:07:30

 

which I have the privilege of chairing, will be hosting a virtual town hall for parents

0:07:30 – 0:07:36

 

of students with disabilities and special education needs for across Ontario on the

0:07:36 – 0:07:42

 

18th of June.

0:07:42 – 0:07:44

 

The Minister of Education has publicly stated that he wants to take a look at how to deal

0:07:44 – 0:07:51

 

with the inconsistencies in the delivery of special education around the province.

0:07:51 – 0:07:56

 

We felt that we could assist by inviting him to come to a virtual town hall where he can

0:07:56 – 0:08:00

 

hear directly from parents, and we’re going to be using the exact approach that this committee

0:08:00 – 0:08:06

 

used.

0:08:06 – 0:08:07

 

We’re not going to edit who speaks, as long as they’re a parent, and as long as they’re

0:08:07 – 0:08:11

 

prepared to follow the principles that we’ve set out.

0:08:11 – 0:08:15

 

Tell us about your barriers, tell us what can be done to fix it.

0:08:15 – 0:08:19

 

Don’t name the school, don’t name the child, don’t name the teacher.

0:08:19 – 0:08:23

 

We will ask if they’re open to naming their school board, but that’s up to them.

0:08:23 – 0:08:28

 

Please sign up, please encourage others to, if you have any social media networks or association,

0:08:28 – 0:08:36

 

please share this because we want to get as wide a representation as we can.

0:08:36 – 0:08:44

 

Let me mention briefly that I brought a freedom of information application several months

0:08:44 – 0:08:54

 

ago because then interim director of education, Stacey Zucker, here with us, always great

0:08:54 – 0:09:01

 

to have you here, and made an announcement in January about a change, a detailed announcement

0:09:01 – 0:09:08

 

about a change to the special education review that had been underway for a year and a half,

0:09:08 – 0:09:13

 

announcement about which the staff had described themselves as being very excited.

0:09:13 – 0:09:19

 

I had asked for a copy of the statement read out.

0:09:19 – 0:09:22

 

It was not provided.

0:09:22 – 0:09:24

 

I brought a freedom of information application asking for it and a couple more things.

0:09:24 – 0:09:30

 

It was refused.

0:09:30 – 0:09:31

 

I brought another one just asking for the text that was read out.

0:09:31 – 0:09:35

 

It was refused on grounds, well, they’re set up in my report, but essentially it would

0:09:35 – 0:09:40

 

reveal things that aren’t public, except every word that I was seeking was read out in public.

0:09:40 – 0:09:48

 

Rather than appeal to the information privacy commissioner, which is a pile of work, I’ve

0:09:48 – 0:09:52

 

done it.

0:09:52 – 0:09:53

 

I think I’d be successful.

0:09:53 – 0:09:56

 

I simply have, with the assistance of a member of this committee, an AI, you’ll see in my

0:09:56 – 0:10:01

 

report a word for word transcription of what was said at that meeting.

0:10:01 – 0:10:05

 

It’s exactly what I was trying to get, so unfortunately we had to go through those steps.

0:10:05 – 0:10:09

 

Now, with that, there are other items in my chair’s report.

0:10:09 – 0:10:14

 

I’d like them reflected in the minutes.

0:10:14 – 0:10:16

 

I don’t want to take your time to go through them.

0:10:16 – 0:10:19

 

Can I entertain a motion that my report be received and appended to the minutes?

0:10:19 – 0:10:25

 

Nora, seconder?

0:10:25 – 0:10:28

 

Leo.

0:10:28 – 0:10:30

 

All in favor?

0:10:30 – 0:10:39

 

There’s five of us in the room.

0:10:39 – 0:10:55

 

Leanne?

0:10:55 – 0:10:57

 

I have seven online, so that’s 12, so that pass.

0:10:57 – 0:11:01

 

All right, thank you.

0:11:01 – 0:11:04

 

I have posted that report on my Facebook page and on several other ones, which will total

0:11:04 – 0:11:11

 

about 45,000 people subscribing, so it’s quite public.

0:11:11 – 0:11:16

 

I would hope it can be reflected in the minutes.

0:11:16 – 0:11:21

 

Let’s move to the budget topic.

0:11:21 – 0:11:24

 

We will have a motion at the end of this that a SEAC member wanted to bring and which is

0:11:24 – 0:11:29

 

set up in my report, but first I think we should deal with the budget process as is.

0:11:29 – 0:11:35

 

In fact, we may have two motions, but this is in fulfillment of the board’s legal obligation

0:11:35 – 0:11:44

 

to consult special education advisory committee on the special education budget.

0:11:44 – 0:11:49

 

The board could only give us general information up to now what it thought it wanted to spend,

0:11:49 – 0:11:55

 

but up until the time after our May meeting, the board learned for the first time from

0:11:55 – 0:12:01

 

the province what money they can expect from the province.

0:12:01 – 0:12:06

 

We will be having a presentation on it now.

0:12:06 – 0:12:08

 

I want to begin by noting that I, in my chair’s report and at earlier meetings, have asked

0:12:08 – 0:12:14

 

for us to get some kind of written information that we’re able to digest well before the

0:12:14 – 0:12:21

 

meeting.

0:12:21 – 0:12:22

 

That was not received, and I am very concerned that if there is going to be effective consultation

0:12:22 – 0:12:30

 

on budget, especially under the timelines available now, without the opportunity to

0:12:30 – 0:12:36

 

read the details in advance is not effective consultation, but let’s do the best we can

0:12:36 – 0:12:42

 

with our time.

0:12:42 – 0:12:45

 

I’ll punt it over to TDSB staff and you figure out who goes in what order, and we’re all

0:12:45 – 0:12:50

 

ears.

0:12:50 – 0:12:51

 

Good evening.

0:12:51 – 0:12:52

 

Thank you very much.

0:12:52 – 0:12:53

 

As mentioned, my name is Stephanie Harris, and I’m the interim executive officer of finance

0:12:53 – 0:13:01

 

and here to present an update on the 26-27 budget.

0:13:01 – 0:13:06

 

We do have some slides, but I can’t see them in the room.

0:13:06 – 0:13:12

 

So Liane, can you share the budget slides, please?

0:13:12 – 0:13:21

 

And as in the past, because I’m blind, I have not gotten these in advance to read.

0:13:21 – 0:13:25

 

I’m wondering if whatever’s on the screen, if it’s available to my colleagues, if it

0:13:25 – 0:13:28

 

could be read out to me.

0:13:28 – 0:13:38

 

We seem to have leveled the playing field, but not in the way anyone wanted.

0:13:38 – 0:14:02

 

I’m wondering if staff would like me to proceed to the next agenda item while we work through

0:14:02 – 0:14:32

 

the slides?

0:14:32 – 0:14:33

 

I’m going to try to share a screen.

0:14:33 – 0:14:36

 

Liane, I’ll try.

0:14:36 – 0:14:37

 

Sure.

0:14:37 – 0:14:38

 

I am trying.

0:14:38 – 0:14:42

 

So apologies, everyone.

0:14:42 – 0:14:44

 

We were supposed to be in committee room eight today because they just upgraded the IT system

0:14:44 – 0:14:50

 

in the boardroom, so we’re having a bit of technical troubles, but I am sharing screen

0:14:50 – 0:14:55

 

right now.

0:14:55 – 0:14:56

 

Thanks.

0:14:56 – 0:14:57

 

Thanks, Nandy, so if we can just move to slide two.

0:14:57 – 0:15:08

 

So the 26-27 budget, there is a requirement under the Education Act for the board to submit

0:15:08 – 0:15:15

 

a balanced budget, and that balanced budget means that our estimated expenses exceed our

0:15:15 – 0:15:24

 

or are equal to our, our estimated revenues are equal to or more than our estimated expenses.

0:15:24 – 0:15:33

 

This year, because the TDSB is under supervision, budget decisions will be approved by the supervisor,

0:15:33 – 0:15:40

 

and then the budget will be submitted to the ministry, and we have to submit our 26-27

0:15:40 – 0:15:46

 

budget by the end of June.

0:15:46 – 0:15:50

 

Next slide.

0:15:50 – 0:15:54

 

So as mentioned in the presentation at the last meeting, there are several, three key

0:15:54 – 0:15:59

 

high-level steps to the budget process.

0:15:59 – 0:16:01

 

The first step revolves around planning, so the board assesses what our staffing, our

0:16:01 – 0:16:07

 

educational needs, facility needs are for the upcoming year.

0:16:07 – 0:16:11

 

As part of that planning, we take into consideration our high-level assessment of what our enrollment

0:16:11 – 0:16:18

 

will be, as well as what our high-level expectation for inflation will be.

0:16:18 – 0:16:23

 

The second part of this process is that we engage the public.

0:16:23 – 0:16:28

 

This year, the public was engaged through a budget, online budget survey, and the purpose

0:16:28 – 0:16:32

 

of that engagement is to provide feedback on the budget priorities.

0:16:32 – 0:16:37

 

And the third step in the budget process is to balance the budget, so to bring expenses

0:16:37 – 0:16:42

 

in line with estimated revenues by reducing any shortfalls.

0:16:42 – 0:16:52

 

As mentioned, we did engage the public this year in a budget survey.

0:16:52 – 0:16:57

 

The survey was issued between March 2nd and 16th, and we had over 5,000 respondents who

0:16:57 – 0:17:05

 

responded to the survey.

0:17:05 – 0:17:07

 

The survey respondents were asked to rank out of a list of 10 what they thought their

0:17:07 – 0:17:13

 

top five budget priorities should be, and the priorities that were selected the most

0:17:13 – 0:17:21

 

based on those responses, and these are in alphabetical order.

0:17:21 – 0:17:26

 

Our first one is classroom resources and materials, second literacy and numeracy development,

0:17:26 – 0:17:33

 

third mental health and well-being, fourth school facilities and maintenance, and lastly

0:17:33 – 0:17:39

 

special education support and resources.

0:17:39 – 0:17:47

 

The majority of the funding that the board receives annually comes from the Ministry

0:17:47 – 0:17:51

 

of Education, and the ministry funding supports all areas of board activities.

0:17:51 – 0:17:57

 

So that includes staffing, learning resources, special education, transportation, facilities,

0:17:57 – 0:18:04

 

and administration.

0:18:04 – 0:18:07

 

Our funding levels are largely dependent on enrollment, and enrollment is expected in

0:18:07 – 0:18:13

 

26-27 to decline by about 5,000 students at the TDSB.

0:18:13 – 0:18:22

 

The next slide is a slide depicting the projected core education funding across the province.

0:18:22 – 0:18:30

 

In 26-27 the provincial funding for core education is about $30.5 billion, and the special education

0:18:30 – 0:18:39

 

fund makes up roughly 12% of that total across the province at approximately $3.8 billion.

0:18:39 – 0:18:49

 

The special education funding comes to the board primarily through four allocations,

0:18:49 – 0:18:56

 

and I’ll just at a very high level talk on how each of those allocations are calculated.

0:18:56 – 0:19:04

 

So the first allocation, and I’ll just flip to the next slide.

0:19:04 – 0:19:12

 

The first allocation is a per-pupil allocation.

0:19:12 – 0:19:15

 

This is the largest allocation of funding to the board.

0:19:15 – 0:19:19

 

That’s about 53% of the total funding that we receive, and this funding is calculated

0:19:19 – 0:19:24

 

on a per-pupil basis based on our average daily enrollment, and there’s an amount funded

0:19:24 – 0:19:31

 

depending on the grade level of the students.

0:19:31 – 0:19:34

 

So from JK to grade three, the funding amount is roughly $1,217, and then it declines down

0:19:34 – 0:19:43

 

to $616 for grade nine to 12 students.

0:19:43 – 0:19:49

 

This funding is intended to cover all costs associated with special education supports

0:19:49 – 0:19:56

 

within the board, including teachers, learning materials, and professional development.

0:19:56 – 0:20:05

 

The next allocation is the differentiated needs allocation, and this allocation accounts

0:20:05 – 0:20:11

 

for 34% of the total special education funding that the board receives.

0:20:11 – 0:20:17

 

The purpose of this funding allocation is to address variation among school boards with

0:20:17 – 0:20:23

 

respect to students’ special education needs and the school board’s ability to meet those

0:20:23 – 0:20:29

 

needs, and it appreciates that those needs vary due to geographic factors, language factors,

0:20:29 – 0:20:36

 

and socio-demographic factors.

0:20:36 – 0:20:42

 

The differentiated needs allocation relies on a statistical formula, and the statistical

0:20:42 – 0:20:49

 

formula attempts to estimate the total number of students who require special education

0:20:49 – 0:20:55

 

supports and programming, and it takes into account information from the census data as

0:20:55 – 0:21:02

 

well as the Ministry of Education’s data, and it looks at predictors of special education

0:21:02 – 0:21:08

 

need, including parent education level, median household income, recent immigration, et cetera.

0:21:08 – 0:21:17

 

There’s also a board-specific formula, which uses seven criteria to determine what the

0:21:17 – 0:21:22

 

board-specific portfolio of special education needs is, and this allocation takes into account

0:21:22 – 0:21:30

 

things such as the number of students within the board receiving special education supports,

0:21:30 – 0:21:36

 

EQAO participation, and the number of credits that are accumulated by special education

0:21:36 – 0:21:42

 

students.

0:21:42 – 0:21:44

 

There’s also a number of other components within this allocation that look to support

0:21:44 – 0:21:49

 

the board in funding collaborative approaches to special education needs students, to supporting

0:21:49 – 0:21:59

 

multidisciplinary needs, math interventions, professional assessments, and also there’s

0:21:59 – 0:22:05

 

funding provided to support transitions to students as they move between grades, schools,

0:22:05 – 0:22:11

 

and as they leave the board.

0:22:11 – 0:22:15

 

The next allocation is the complex supports allocation, which is approximately 10% of

0:22:15 – 0:22:22

 

the total special education funding, and this envelope is to support very specialized supports

0:22:22 – 0:22:29

 

for students with extraordinarily high needs.

0:22:29 – 0:22:36

 

So within the complex supports allocation, there’s three high-level factors that help

0:22:36 – 0:22:44

 

calculate how much funding TDSB receives.

0:22:44 – 0:22:48

 

The first is the special incidents portion, and this portion is specifically meant to

0:22:48 – 0:22:53

 

provide funding for students who have high needs, and high needs are defined as those

0:22:53 – 0:22:59

 

students who require more than two full-time staff members.

0:22:59 – 0:23:04

 

The second is an education and community partnerships program allocation, and this funding is meant

0:23:04 – 0:23:10

 

to support those students who can’t attend regular school for a variety of reasons, including

0:23:10 – 0:23:17

 

court-ordered facility stays and those who might be in very specialized care.

0:23:17 – 0:23:22

 

And the final component is a behavioral expertise component, and this is funding for the board

0:23:22 – 0:23:28

 

to hire applied behavior professionals, both to train staff and to support students directly

0:23:28 – 0:23:35

 

with autism and other behavioral exceptionalities.

0:23:35 – 0:23:41

 

And finally, the last portion is the specialized equipment allocation, representing about 3%

0:23:41 – 0:23:47

 

of the total funding of the board.

0:23:47 – 0:23:50

 

This funding is meant to assist the board to purchase specialized equipment, which directly

0:23:50 – 0:23:55

 

supports special education needs within the board, and each board receives a base allocation

0:23:55 – 0:24:02

 

of $200,000 and then an additional $51.10 per ADE.

0:24:02 – 0:24:10

 

And this funding is meant to purchase equipment that would support such things as sensory

0:24:10 – 0:24:15

 

and physical assistance, hearing and vision aids, and technology, software, and hardware.

0:24:15 – 0:24:27

 

So using the information that we’ve been provided as part of the core education announcement,

0:24:27 – 0:24:33

 

TDSB expects to receive $396.5 million in special education funding in 26-27.

0:24:33 – 0:24:43

 

And this is about a $6.4 million decrease from the amount we received in 25-26, primarily

0:24:43 – 0:24:50

 

due to the decrease in enrollment that I mentioned.

0:24:50 – 0:24:57

 

The school-based staffing for 26-27 has already been finalized, and the staffing incorporates

0:24:57 – 0:25:05

 

the fact that we will need less teachers next year due to the lower enrollment that we’re

0:25:05 – 0:25:10

 

projecting of 5,000 students.

0:25:10 – 0:25:13

 

Despite the fact that overall enrollment within the board will decline next year, special

0:25:13 – 0:25:18

 

education school-based staffing will remain unchanged across the district.

0:25:18 – 0:25:28

 

So the next steps as we finalize the budget, we are still working on the 26-27 budget.

0:25:28 – 0:25:34

 

However, all of the staffing decisions have already been finalized.

0:25:34 – 0:25:39

 

When our work is completed, the TDSB will submit our final budget to the ministry by

0:25:39 – 0:25:45

 

the June 30 timeline.

0:25:45 – 0:25:48

 

So I thank you very much for the opportunity to present this high-level update.

0:25:48 – 0:25:53

 

And we are happy to receive any feedback or questions.

0:25:53 – 0:25:59

 

Thank you.

0:25:59 – 0:26:01

 

Jordan will take a speaker’s list, and while he’s doing so, I’ll lead off if I can.

0:26:01 – 0:26:08

 

Can you tell me of the – you’ve said that there is a projected 5,000 – a reduction

0:26:08 – 0:26:14

 

in the total 5,000 students that will be at TDSB next year.

0:26:14 – 0:26:20

 

As of last meeting, as I recall, we were told that the percentage reduction in the number

0:26:20 – 0:26:30

 

of students with disabilities or special education needs was expected to be lower than pro rata.

0:26:30 – 0:26:38

 

Do you know whether the number of students with disabilities or special education needs

0:26:38 – 0:26:43

 

this fall is going to go up, we’re going to go down, and if it goes down, by how many,

0:26:43 – 0:26:48

 

or if it goes up, by how many?

0:26:48 – 0:26:50

 

Thanks, David.

0:26:50 – 0:26:51

 

I’ll take that one.

0:26:51 – 0:26:53

 

And at this time, we do not have numbers in terms of decrease or increase, particularly

0:26:53 – 0:27:00

 

for students with disabilities or special education needs.

0:27:00 – 0:27:04

 

We will know more when school starts.

0:27:04 – 0:27:06

 

We get new registrations over the summer.

0:27:06 – 0:27:10

 

We get families moving over the summer well into the fall, so we don’t have those numbers

0:27:10 – 0:27:16

 

right now.

0:27:16 – 0:27:17

 

And similarly, do you know whether the profile of the student population of students with

0:27:17 – 0:27:24

 

disabilities is going to be more students with higher needs or lower needs?

0:27:24 – 0:27:30

 

I take it if you don’t know how many, you probably don’t know the profile either until

0:27:30 – 0:27:34

 

the fall.

0:27:34 – 0:27:35

 

Correct.

0:27:35 – 0:27:36

 

All right, so then how is it that we could be told that the staffing will remain the

0:27:36 – 0:27:42

 

same when, in effect, that may mean there will be, if there was, for example, a reduction,

0:27:42 – 0:27:51

 

or if there was an increase in the number of students with disabilities or special education

0:27:51 – 0:27:55

 

needs, or if a reduction at a lower rate, then cutting staff pro rata for all students

0:27:55 – 0:28:05

 

would be actually a bigger cut for students with disabilities or special education needs.

0:28:05 – 0:28:11

 

Can you help me out?

0:28:11 – 0:28:13

 

So I’ll start and ask my colleagues to supplement.

0:28:13 – 0:28:17

 

So through the chair, we do know that our enrollment is going down by 5,000.

0:28:17 – 0:28:23

 

Although we do not expect the number of students that have special education needs to decrease

0:28:23 – 0:28:28

 

by 5,000, we expect it to be lower, we still do expect a decrease.

0:28:28 – 0:28:34

 

Just based on the fact that we will have a decrease in enrollment.

0:28:34 – 0:28:39

 

And so based on that, as we keep the staffing exactly the same as it currently is, or was

0:28:39 – 0:28:44

 

in October, then we would expect there to be actually proportionately an increase in

0:28:44 – 0:28:50

 

the level of support for students with special education needs.

0:28:50 – 0:28:54

 

And so like we do every year, we will use because our funding is even for special education

0:28:54 – 0:29:00

 

is mostly based on our overall enrollment, it obviously impacts how much funding we have

0:29:00 – 0:29:06

 

available in order for us to meet the needs of students with special education needs.

0:29:06 – 0:29:13

 

Even though we know that our funding is going down by 6.4 million, we did not decrease our

0:29:13 – 0:29:18

 

expenditure.

0:29:18 – 0:29:19

 

In fact, it will be higher just based on increases in salary levels.

0:29:19 – 0:29:24

 

So that our commitment to special education and to students with special education needs

0:29:24 – 0:29:31

 

is that even though our enrollment is decreasing and it is expected that our number of students

0:29:31 – 0:29:35

 

that have special education needs will decrease, we have kept the staffing level the same.

0:29:35 – 0:29:41

 

So I would say that that is in comparison to every other staffing level that we have

0:29:41 – 0:29:49

 

seen including centrally, we have maintained the school level support for students with

0:29:49 – 0:29:56

 

special education needs again based on the fact that we know how important those supports

0:29:56 – 0:30:02

 

are and it was again indicated as a priority through the survey.

0:30:02 – 0:30:08

 

The other short thing and then we’ll go to our list.

0:30:08 – 0:30:13

 

Obviously to reach a balanced budget, they’re going to have to cut something.

0:30:13 – 0:30:16

 

What areas are planned for cuts because even though they’re not in the special education

0:30:16 – 0:30:21

 

envelope, beyond that 6 million, they can affect our students.

0:30:21 – 0:30:27

 

So can you tell us what areas are going to be cut?

0:30:27 – 0:30:32

 

So we are, through the chair, still working through the budget and it is still to be determined

0:30:32 – 0:30:39

 

whether or not we will reach a completely balanced budget for 26-27.

0:30:39 – 0:30:45

 

That being said, we do know that school-based staffing, like classroom teachers for example,

0:30:45 – 0:30:50

 

decreases with a decrease in enrollment.

0:30:50 – 0:30:51

 

So that will, the decrease in school-based staffing based on enrollment will have impacted

0:30:51 – 0:30:59

 

our overall budget.

0:30:59 – 0:31:01

 

In addition, as I’ve shared that many people have seen through media, we did decrease by

0:31:01 – 0:31:09

 

309 central staff and so that will be able to help us offset some of the decrease in

0:31:09 – 0:31:21

 

grants as a result of decrease in enrollment and we are still looking at other areas because

0:31:21 – 0:31:28

 

again we haven’t finalized our budget yet that we would look in order to move towards

0:31:28 – 0:31:33

 

a balanced budget.

0:31:33 – 0:31:34

 

Leo?

0:31:34 – 0:31:41

 

Thanks David.

0:31:41 – 0:31:42

 

And Nora and then Jean -Paul.

0:31:42 – 0:31:43

 

Yep.

0:31:43 – 0:31:44

 

Thank you.

0:31:44 – 0:31:45

 

I have two quick topics that are intricately linked and I know we’ve spoken about this

0:31:45 – 0:31:49

 

before but it’s a surprise that it always comes up so I have to say it again.

0:31:49 – 0:31:53

 

About the survey, right?

0:31:53 – 0:31:54

 

Special education should never have been in that survey and we’ve said this, we’ve gone

0:31:54 – 0:31:58

 

to the media about it.

0:31:58 – 0:31:59

 

When you ask someone to do a prioritization exercise, you’re implying that the categories

0:31:59 – 0:32:03

 

are discretionary, optional.

0:32:03 – 0:32:05

 

So it is completely irrelevant whether or not the special education was selected by

0:32:05 – 0:32:09

 

respondents as a priority.

0:32:09 – 0:32:11

 

I’m happy that it was but it’s irrelevant.

0:32:11 – 0:32:13

 

Special education is not optional, it’s not discretionary, it’s a legal right protected

0:32:13 – 0:32:17

 

under the Education Act, Ontario’s Human Rights Code and consolidated by the Supreme Court

0:32:17 – 0:32:21

 

of Canada in Moore versus British Columbia.

0:32:21 – 0:32:23

 

They ruled that it’s not a dispensable luxury but a means by which disabled students access

0:32:23 – 0:32:27

 

education itself.

0:32:27 – 0:32:29

 

You don’t put fire safety in the survey so why do you put this?

0:32:29 – 0:32:33

 

It’s exactly the same thing.

0:32:33 – 0:32:35

 

When you list it in the survey, it seems to be an attempt to get stakeholders more open

0:32:35 – 0:32:39

 

to the illegal idea of considering special education as subject to a vote.

0:32:39 – 0:32:43

 

It is not.

0:32:43 – 0:32:44

 

Please kindly stop including it in these surveys.

0:32:44 – 0:32:46

 

It’s already the third time that this happens.

0:32:46 – 0:32:48

 

And the second topic, thank you for presenting the special education funding envelopes but

0:32:48 – 0:32:53

 

again a quick reminder as always, special education envelope does not define the board’s

0:32:53 – 0:32:57

 

legal obligation.

0:32:57 – 0:32:58

 

It exists, the obligation exists, regardless of whether provincial funding is sufficient.

0:32:58 – 0:33:03

 

If the envelope falls short, the legal duty to accommodate students does not disappear

0:33:03 – 0:33:07

 

with it.

0:33:07 – 0:33:08

 

Thank you.

0:33:08 – 0:33:10

 

Right, Nora and then Jean-Paul and then Richard.

0:33:10 – 0:33:17

 

Thank you.

0:33:17 – 0:33:18

 

So Leo commented on something I was going to comment about.

0:33:18 – 0:33:23

 

Last year we received an apology about the survey and putting students with disabilities

0:33:23 – 0:33:27

 

on a survey and letting the public weigh in a bit whether or not they were important enough

0:33:27 – 0:33:32

 

and this year unfortunately that apology never came.

0:33:32 – 0:33:35

 

So I think I appreciate that Leo brought that forward.

0:33:35 – 0:33:39

 

I won’t touch on it again.

0:33:39 – 0:33:41

 

I want to thank also that staff probably did go through extensive data to show evidence

0:33:41 – 0:33:49

 

to try and maintain staffing levels.

0:33:49 – 0:33:52

 

That must have been a meticulous looking at IPR seed students, non-identified students

0:33:52 – 0:33:57

 

and making sure that despite declining enrollment there were going to be needs in the system.

0:33:57 – 0:34:03

 

So I want to thank staff for fighting to put that together because I’m sure you had to

0:34:03 – 0:34:08

 

make evidence to make a case that we needed the same staffing levels.

0:34:08 – 0:34:12

 

I do warn that losing central staff can impact students.

0:34:12 – 0:34:19

 

I think sometimes people aren’t aware that those are experts that are deployed to situations

0:34:19 – 0:34:24

 

where schools are struggling and need capacity building.

0:34:24 – 0:34:27

 

So I hesitate to say it’s a total win.

0:34:27 – 0:34:30

 

I appreciate you had to find the money somewhere but sometimes those things can affect how

0:34:30 – 0:34:36

 

students experience school so I worry about that.

0:34:36 – 0:34:38

 

And then lastly I guess I’m very disappointed about the lack of transparency about the budget.

0:34:38 – 0:34:48

 

So we and I’ve been here quite some time as you’re aware and we’ve had financial facts

0:34:48 – 0:34:54

 

my entire time here and so it’s appreciated that somehow you’re telling us how we get

0:34:54 – 0:35:00

 

the money which I appreciate that was a really great explanation but it’s information I can

0:35:00 – 0:35:06

 

get online because it’s public.

0:35:06 – 0:35:10

 

I don’t know anything about your expenditures really.

0:35:10 – 0:35:13

 

I don’t know how much money is going to ISPs, I don’t know how much money is going to EAs,

0:35:13 – 0:35:18

 

I don’t know how much money is going to special education teachers, busing, transportation.

0:35:18 – 0:35:24

 

At one time this entire committee would have had a document showing that.

0:35:24 – 0:35:30

 

So it’s very difficult for us to say that this is consultation when we have nothing

0:35:30 – 0:35:36

 

to consult about other than this is the pot of money we get it’s not enough and we fought

0:35:36 – 0:35:40

 

to make sure we didn’t cut it.

0:35:40 – 0:35:42

 

And so I am on one hand eternally grateful that you did that but on the other hand this

0:35:42 – 0:35:46

 

isn’t truly a partnership then because we don’t have data to even help inform you.

0:35:46 – 0:35:52

 

So I wanted to make that comment because we would have liked to have seen that before

0:35:52 – 0:35:56

 

we were asked to say anything about budget but for me and my historic time here this

0:35:56 – 0:36:01

 

does not constitute consultation thanks.

0:36:01 – 0:36:06

 

Thank you, Jean-Paul.

0:36:06 – 0:36:14

 

I think Laura touched on one of the points that I wanted but I have a question not just

0:36:14 – 0:36:24

 

touching on and you indicated that the special education school based staff will be status

0:36:24 – 0:36:32

 

school next year, I think that is one question that I mean you have two questions, does it

0:36:32 – 0:36:41

 

mean that the status school even this year was no problem with that level of staffing?

0:36:41 – 0:36:49

 

That’s the first question.

0:36:49 – 0:36:50

 

I think I’m turning myself to Nandi who is special education expert and the second question

0:36:50 – 0:36:57

 

is if you say that you make it precision saying that the special education base, the school

0:36:57 – 0:37:08

 

based staff will be status school, what happened with the central base staff?

0:37:08 – 0:37:14

 

Does it mean that there will be some cuts there?

0:37:14 – 0:37:20

 

Because we know that there were this central base special education staff for a reason

0:37:20 – 0:37:29

 

because if there is a cut there it will probably have some ripple effect you know impacting

0:37:29 – 0:37:37

 

you know even the provision of special education.

0:37:37 – 0:37:41

 

Want to know if there is a potential cut at the central level, how would you be making

0:37:41 – 0:37:49

 

sure that this has not negative impact on the special education in schools?

0:37:49 – 0:37:59

 

Thank you very much.

0:37:59 – 0:38:00

 

Good evening Jean-Paul, thank you for the question.

0:38:00 – 0:38:03

 

I’m not done, sorry.

0:38:03 – 0:38:05

 

Oh I’m sorry, carry on sir.

0:38:05 – 0:38:08

 

Yeah I mean my last question is the one that I’ve been asking you know Craig, your predecessor

0:38:08 – 0:38:17

 

for many years and also academy staff, think we always put dollar at the beginning at the

0:38:17 – 0:38:26

 

foundation of budget and you said that here that the board is required to balance the

0:38:26 – 0:38:34

 

budget.

0:38:34 – 0:38:35

 

At the same time I’m asking myself you know what is the purpose of education built into

0:38:35 – 0:38:43

 

that foundation you know of the work that you, we all know that and you cite you know

0:38:43 – 0:38:51

 

rightly the education act and the same education act you know tell us what is the purpose of

0:38:51 – 0:38:56

 

education.

0:38:56 – 0:38:57

 

What is to provide student with the opportunity to realize full potential?

0:38:57 – 0:39:03

 

How would you know the focus only on the dollars, we’ll make sure that as we’re doing that

0:39:03 – 0:39:13

 

make sure that we’re getting all this you know special education you know special needs

0:39:13 – 0:39:19

 

to these students to meet their full potential as well, tell us if we keep looking at because

0:39:19 – 0:39:25

 

we may go back you know if we find that focusing only on the dollar would kind of jeopardize

0:39:25 – 0:39:34

 

you know the idea of or the purpose of education, we have to go back as that we have this discussion

0:39:34 – 0:39:40

 

here many years ago I mean you know 10 years 15 years with with all this you know so-called

0:39:40 – 0:39:47

 

consultation which is not consultation we just it’s an information we become you know

0:39:47 – 0:39:52

 

share what is already public as nor I just say with us you know it’s not really we you

0:39:52 – 0:39:57

 

know you’re not already really co-creating this budget is special education budget with

0:39:57 – 0:40:03

 

us and this is sort of first time I think that is it is becoming you know kind of the

0:40:03 – 0:40:07

 

way that’s what does a lot of my third question thank you.

0:40:07 – 0:40:12

 

Thank you JP.

0:40:12 – 0:40:14

 

Louise?

0:40:14 – 0:40:15

 

Yeah thanks very much Chair Lepofsky and good evening Jean Paul and good evening all members

0:40:15 – 0:40:20

 

of SIAC it’s lovely to see you on screen or even if your camera’s not on we know that

0:40:20 – 0:40:25

 

we know that you’re there and participating and appreciate you so much.

0:40:25 – 0:40:29

 

Jean Paul you know to answer to your questions absolutely our primary focus is on the success

0:40:29 – 0:40:37

 

of our students with special education needs disabilities all of our students and I really

0:40:37 – 0:40:43

 

want to echo Leo’s Leo’s caution and absolutely accurate language to say we have a duty to

0:40:43 – 0:40:52

 

be supporting students who need accommodations the special education grant is meant to be

0:40:52 – 0:40:58

 

an incremental grant so it’s not the expectation of the ministry or indeed we at the board

0:40:58 – 0:41:06

 

to stay within that envelope because our students with special education needs and disabilities

0:41:06 – 0:41:10

 

have access to the other grants as well so I want to reassure you about that and our

0:41:10 – 0:41:18

 

commitment to our students and which kind of connects to your first question Jean Paul

0:41:18 – 0:41:24

 

how do we how do we ensure support throughout the course of the year I can share with you

0:41:24 – 0:41:30

 

that Nandy meets weekly and honestly daily with consultants and coordinators when we

0:41:30 – 0:41:38

 

have a student with with need to review the supports at the school and if there is adjustment

0:41:38 – 0:41:46

 

throughout the system that is necessary if additional support is required if a team is

0:41:46 – 0:41:51

 

required to go in and assess the programmatic needs of the of a student we send that specialized

0:41:51 – 0:41:57

 

team in to work with the local school team to be making sure programming is at its utmost

0:41:57 – 0:42:04

 

and if additional support is required we dispatch that so that commitment maintains throughout

0:42:04 – 0:42:11

 

the year and in regards to your your second question I hope I’m getting them all you were

0:42:11 – 0:42:18

 

asking about central reduction so it is an unfortunate place that we are in sir that

0:42:18 – 0:42:25

 

we are not only five thousand students projected down next year we’re three thousand students

0:42:25 – 0:42:31

 

this year so that’s you know within these two years that’s a very significant drop in

0:42:31 – 0:42:36

 

enrollment and which creates a deficit situation for us and we have to be looking at what I’ll

0:42:36 – 0:42:47

 

say adjusting the size of our central teams and all departments to be making sure that

0:42:47 – 0:42:54

 

we are what I’ll use the phrase right sizing to our new enrollment size so difficult decisions

0:42:54 – 0:43:01

 

in all departments and special education was was included in that consideration we did

0:43:01 – 0:43:07

 

reduce some central staff but what I will assure CAC is that the central staff do not

0:43:07 – 0:43:14

 

directly support students I don’t want to minimize every person on a team is important

0:43:14 – 0:43:20

 

and Norris point of course even even employees who don’t directly support students their

0:43:20 – 0:43:28

 

work is valued and important the frame that we tried to take was about modernization and

0:43:28 – 0:43:35

 

where we had positions where there was more than one individual in the role would we be

0:43:35 – 0:43:41

 

able to again right size based on our enrollment so that’s how the decisions were made and

0:43:41 – 0:43:46

 

again that was department by department so it’s we were we were included in the TDSB

0:43:46 – 0:43:52

 

team but what I can always reassure you is that under Nandy’s leadership and mine as

0:43:52 – 0:43:59

 

well that we are committed to supporting all of our students to be taking our new structure

0:43:59 – 0:44:08

 

and making excellent processes and procedures and we are very very thankful that the staffing

0:44:08 – 0:44:14

 

has been maintained because we know that there are students with with need who need our SNAs

0:44:14 – 0:44:23

 

EAs and educators so I think could you just tell us how many central staff in the special

0:44:23 – 0:44:33

 

education department are being eliminated yes number yeah thanks for the the question

0:44:33 – 0:44:40

 

David I the details about the department by department reductions have not been made public

0:44:40 – 0:44:48

 

so I am committing to maintaining our communication standard for the board as soon as it’s public

0:44:48 – 0:44:55

 

will you let us know even if it’s over the summer if it’s made public for department

0:44:55 – 0:45:01

 

by department David I would be honoring that communication standard to you so we may never

0:45:01 – 0:45:07

 

know how many were reduced I’m going to go back to the our school-based staffing has

0:45:07 – 0:45:15

 

been maintained yeah and I know that the the what you’re asking I’m asking a specific question

0:45:15 – 0:45:21

 

it’s possible not about school-based staff but it’s possible we never may never know

0:45:21 – 0:45:27

 

how many people got modernized or right-sized out of their jobs so David what I’ll say

0:45:27 – 0:45:33

 

is that you know that we publish a special education plan annually right so the details

0:45:33 – 0:45:39

 

about our staffing is included in the special education plan so that so we’ll know by the

0:45:39 – 0:45:47

 

end of July when you submit it to the province and it’s published on our website right okay

0:45:47 – 0:45:53

 

thanks we’re actually a bit jammed on time but I want to we’ve got Richard Jessica and

0:45:53 – 0:46:02

 

Jordan can you each pile it in about sorry oh and Jean-Paul can we can you each do like

0:46:02 – 0:46:09

 

one minute each is that can you manage that if possible I’m not going to hold you to it

0:46:09 – 0:46:14

 

but just give it a try JP thank you it’s true I think you know what what what I would really

0:46:14 – 0:46:26

 

like is not to provide us you know with this kind of generic answers and really to bring

0:46:26 – 0:46:36

 

some quantitative you know data to support what you know yeah Louisa just described to

0:46:36 – 0:46:45

 

us and the comment that I want I want to also to make is I’m not sure I’m I already understand

0:46:45 – 0:46:55

 

you know when it comes to share something about information about special education

0:46:55 – 0:47:00

 

with us and is all we always you know the staff always says you know wait when you become

0:47:00 – 0:47:10

 

public I don’t understand are we public maybe I think that is if because this meeting is

0:47:10 – 0:47:19

 

probably maybe what I will expect is to you know during this meeting the meeting that

0:47:19 – 0:47:26

 

happened between you or David and staff that you know that you know at least what is going

0:47:26 – 0:47:33

 

on with social education because and to be engaged and you know give any advice before

0:47:33 – 0:47:41

 

things become public does that that that is I think this petition not always saying that

0:47:41 – 0:47:48

 

when it’s public and saying that you know yeah that is a comment I’ve always made that

0:47:48 – 0:47:53

 

comment here I think we keep saying you know waiting the public I will respect that place

0:47:53 – 0:48:00

 

you know this you know staff is the central staff reduction that maybe if it’s not possible

0:48:00 – 0:48:08

 

here because the meeting is public that we David that during a meeting after this public

0:48:08 – 0:48:15

 

meeting to have conversation around that and to see what what what is possible implication

0:48:15 – 0:48:21

 

of the reduction at the central level on what will happen at the school level thank you

0:48:21 – 0:48:26

 

okay thank you Richard thank you David good evening everyone whereas the budget survey

0:48:26 – 0:48:34

 

has respondents to establish a priority ranking for the noted categories how does this translate

0:48:34 – 0:48:43

 

to the budget allocation i.e. what is the dollar value cost of each priority item and

0:48:43 – 0:48:49

 

how do we ensure that the funding allocation maximizes the spend and benefits of this to

0:48:49 – 0:48:55

 

me you can rank 10 things but it’s like going in a restaurant somebody asking you what you

0:48:55 – 0:49:00

 

want you have a set amount of dollars you want to spend in that restaurant each item

0:49:00 – 0:49:04

 

has a different price I don’t see any valuation monetization to each of these rankings so

0:49:04 – 0:49:11

 

is it possible that if five of the ten that were selected would maximize the entire budget

0:49:11 – 0:49:18

 

spend whereas you could pick others and leave one out and spend you know have money left

0:49:18 – 0:49:24

 

over I don’t understand how ranking it translates to the budget so if the finance team can explain

0:49:24 – 0:49:32

 

the value of each of the 10 items how they impact the budget I think that would be very

0:49:32 – 0:49:38

 

informative for SEAC and help us better understand thank you right that’s great thank you by

0:49:38 – 0:49:43

 

the way Leanne can you get the motion ready that I sent you on on the budget to be posted

0:49:43 – 0:49:51

 

on screen and if for some reason you can’t if you could send it to Nandi to put it up

0:49:51 – 0:49:56

 

on the screen Jessica thank you and good evening the information that we’ve gotten tonight

0:49:56 – 0:50:09

 

isn’t very helpful when it comes to trying to evaluate the effects on special education

0:50:09 – 0:50:17

 

students when we don’t have access to information from the board we need to look at information

0:50:17 – 0:50:24

 

from other sources which does seem to be available and I’m concerned by what I’m hearing but

0:50:24 – 0:50:34

 

unfortunately when the board doesn’t release information we are really having to go off

0:50:34 – 0:50:41

 

rumors speculation etc. however I’m going to bring up one of the points to illustrate

0:50:41 – 0:50:49

 

the concerns so we are hearing that school-based staffing will remain as it was this year that’s

0:50:49 – 0:50:58

 

great but that requires students need to be able to get to school so one of the things

0:50:58 – 0:51:04

 

that we’re hearing is being cut for example is supervision of special education students

0:51:04 – 0:51:09

 

on transportation to get to school students with significant disabilities may not be able

0:51:09 – 0:51:17

 

to travel safely to school on TDSB transportation without supervision which means that supports

0:51:17 – 0:51:24

 

available in the school aren’t very relevant if they can’t get there in the first place

0:51:24 – 0:51:30

 

it’s really difficult to have a conversation if I don’t know if that’s true or is that

0:51:30 – 0:51:35

 

just a rumor but I would be very concerned if we’re saying that well it’s fine because

0:51:35 – 0:51:45

 

it’s not school-based staffing so we can cut it because that does very much affect the

0:51:45 – 0:51:50

 

student experience thank you all right thank you Jordan okay I’ll make it quick because

0:51:50 – 0:51:59

 

I think I’m going to echo some of the things that my colleagues have said the big concern

0:51:59 – 0:52:05

 

for me is the lack of thoroughness of what we’ve seen here in the presentation I want

0:52:05 – 0:52:12

 

to read the fine print so to speak I want I want to see the numbers I want to know where

0:52:12 – 0:52:16

 

the money’s going and what we’re getting is as as described something very high level

0:52:16 – 0:52:24

 

and if the and if there’s a concern about about the public nature of these meetings

0:52:24 – 0:52:29

 

perhaps this is something that can be shared with us in the three weeks leading up to June

0:52:29 – 0:52:32

 

30th if I may be so bold as to volunteer the rest of my colleagues on the committee we

0:52:32 – 0:52:38

 

agree a number of us would agree if I can just speak directly to our new CEO because

0:52:38 – 0:52:49

 

you have the absolute fantastic position of saying I just got here but this is by far

0:52:49 – 0:52:56

 

the most empty presentation on a budget that I’ve seen in 11 years and I don’t mean to

0:52:56 – 0:53:06

 

fault Ms. Harris personally whatsoever like confident she’s doing her best but we have

0:53:06 – 0:53:15

 

been given I mean virtually ostensibly nothing other than no staffing changes at school-based

0:53:15 – 0:53:26

 

staffing levels of school-based staff for students with special education needs which

0:53:26 – 0:53:31

 

is only one part of the funding that affects our kids this is way less than we’ve been

0:53:31 – 0:53:38

 

given in the past and even then I’ve been very concerned in the past we’ve never really

0:53:38 – 0:53:44

 

been consulted we’re told about it and then said oh here’s what’s happening any questions

0:53:44 – 0:53:51

 

there’s way less here but the information presented tonight could largely have been

0:53:51 – 0:53:57

 

emailed out I don’t know six months ago just wait for the dollar emails we have no idea

0:53:57 – 0:54:03

 

and generalist undertaking sincerely expressed by senior staff that we care deeply about

0:54:03 – 0:54:11

 

all children and we respect the important role of accommodation we’ve been hearing that

0:54:11 – 0:54:16

 

repeating after meeting year after year they don’t change a thing there’s a legal duty

0:54:16 – 0:54:23

 

to consult us on the special education budget and to share with us the financial statements

0:54:23 – 0:54:31

 

relevant to the special education budget neither has happened and that is woefully inadequate

0:54:31 – 0:54:43

 

and I encourage you as you take clearly there’s a something’s going to get cut because there

0:54:43 – 0:54:50

 

was a deficit last year and the trustees were removed from office because of it and there’s

0:54:50 – 0:54:57

 

going to be fewer students this year and no one’s saying there’s going to be more money

0:54:57 – 0:55:04

 

so something’s going to be cut and our kids could well be affected and we don’t have a

0:55:04 – 0:55:10

 

clue that is not consultation the consultation on the special education budget is not optional

0:55:10 – 0:55:24

 

I proposed a motion which I’ve circulated by email do we have it on the screen I need

0:55:24 – 0:55:31

 

someone to move it because Louise has properly pointed out that I as chair shouldn’t be moving

0:55:31 – 0:55:36

 

motions Leo is moving it someone wished to second it I second Bronwyn thank you Bronwyn

 

(Note: This is the text of the motion under consideration:

 

“Motion on TDSB Consultation of SEAC on Special Education Budget

Whereas TDSB is required to consult the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee on the special education budget.

 

And whereas TDSB has known for one month that this topic will be on the SEAC agenda for the June 8, 2026 SEAC meeting.

And whereas the June SEAC meeting will be the only opportunity for SEAC to be consulted on the TDSB special education budget for the upcoming school year, because provincial funding amounts were only announced after the May 2026 TDSB SEAC meeting.

And whereas TDSB staff have provided SEAC with no budget information to review in advance of the June 8, 2026 meeting, in order to be able to provide any meaningful input on the special education budget.

And whereas SEAC members have raised concerns with TDSB staff over several years about the failure to provide budget information in advance of SEAC meetings  where budget is known to be on the agenda, or where the information is only provided within hours of the SEAC meeting, and/or when the budget information has at times been presented in an inaccessible format for SEAC members with vision loss, precluding proper review by SEAC members.

SEAC therefore resolves as follows::

1. SEAC members have not been properly and meaningfully consulted on the upcoming school year’s special education budget.
2. In future years, when the budget is placed on the SEAC agenda, TDSB staff should is asked to provide meaningful budget information in written form, and in an accessible format, at least one week before the SEAC meeting where the budget is to be discussed.”)

0:55:36 – 0:55:46

 

any discussion or is anyone object to our proceeding to a vote okay all in favor of

0:55:46 – 0:55:55

 

the motion oh sorry David sorry it’s Karina here I did have I did have a comment I wanted

0:55:55 – 0:56:03

 

to make and it might be I’m new to the committee this year so I apologize if my understanding

0:56:03 – 0:56:08

 

is not correct but I feel that the I fully support the motion and appreciate you bring

0:56:08 – 0:56:15

 

it forward my concern is that the discussion it comments on the TDSB’s requirement to consult

0:56:15 – 0:56:23

 

with SEAC and if my understanding is not incorrect SEAC has a responsibility to participate in

0:56:23 – 0:56:34

 

so to me that feels like if the TDSB doesn’t fulfill their requirement that’s not good

0:56:34 – 0:56:40

 

and remember not happy but if we as a committee have a requirement to participate in and then

0:56:40 – 0:56:46

 

we don’t participate because we’re not given the opportunity to I feel like we’re not fulfilling

0:56:46 – 0:56:52

 

the requirements of the committee and so I would just want I think that if that’s the

0:56:52 – 0:56:56

 

case and happy if it’s not the case but if it was the case I would prefer if that was

0:56:56 – 0:57:01

 

reflected because of course we all take our role seriously and if that is a requirement

0:57:01 – 0:57:05

 

something that we are required to do and you know just to note that I did put up my hand

0:57:05 – 0:57:09

 

to be a part of the working group on the budget okay I can I just make the following suggestion

0:57:09 – 0:57:17

 

just in the interest of time I’m not sure I I think I think the key thing is the board

0:57:17 – 0:57:23

 

needs to consult us and they didn’t in effect and that’s the core message I’m not sure I

0:57:23 – 0:57:29

 

read the regulation the same way okay but I also in fairness haven’t double-checked

0:57:29 – 0:57:35

 

today but I think for purposes of the objection that’s raised in the motion whether you’re

0:57:35 – 0:57:40

 

right or I’m right won’t really matter the message will still be clear okay fair enough

0:57:40 – 0:57:47

 

that fair that’s fair that’s great thank you and thanks for raising that the all in favor

0:57:47 – 0:57:55

 

of the motion we have five in the room five in the room and I have nine online so that

0:57:55 – 0:58:06

 

is 14 so that passes that passes thank you and thank you Stephanie for your presentation

0:58:06 – 0:58:13

 

all right I would like to move to oh Leo is this the point when you wanted to bring your

0:58:13 – 0:58:24

 

motion sure I can bring it now there’s a motion which Leo I didn’t formally put on the agenda

0:58:24 – 0:58:31

 

but it’s in my chair’s report was circulated to everybody no one voice voiced any concerns

0:58:31 – 0:58:39

 

arising out of the closure of the 15 diagnostic kindergarten school classes I’m wondering

0:58:39 – 0:58:49

 

before we actually raise it whether staff want to speak to the circumstances of that

0:58:49 – 0:58:56

 

closure in respect for staff if they want to share anything with us before we proceed

0:58:56 – 0:59:04

 

to that motion thanks David I’ll just share that based on numbers and needs on an annual

0:59:04 – 0:59:14

 

basis that the department looks at opening and closing all ISPs so while some may be

0:59:14 – 0:59:22

 

closing I can tell you that this week alone and it’s a very fluid process we just approved

0:59:22 – 0:59:31

 

to open three additional developmental disability ISPs as well as one other gifted ISPs we’re

0:59:31 – 0:59:39

 

also opening 13 plus at this point developmental disability ISPs in the new year as well as

0:59:39 – 0:59:47

 

seven or eight ASD ISPs so depending on student needs and numbers we do open some and close

0:59:47 – 0:59:55

 

some so while your motion speaks to one particular ISP please know that we’re opening more ISPs

0:59:55 – 1:00:03

 

than this what this motion speaks to you and it’s very fluid again next year it might be

1:00:03 – 1:00:09

 

another type of ISP that we’re closing but again opening others depending on student

1:00:09 – 1:00:14

 

needs thank you all right Leo does that make you want to change the

1:00:14 – 1:00:19

 

motion at all no it doesn’t but I can like appreciate the answer you can comment on that

1:00:19 – 1:00:25

 

and you want me to give a brief context on the motion yeah go ahead yeah okay thank you

1:00:25 – 1:00:30

 

so I think I think the issue lies with the fact that the caps were raised a few months

1:00:30 – 1:00:35

 

ago with the justification that it would reduce wait lists and therefore increase access and

1:00:35 – 1:00:40

 

then this happens so it doesn’t it doesn’t necessarily have too much logic in my view

1:00:40 – 1:00:48

 

but anyway the motion concerns the planned elimination of 15 DK classrooms this fall

1:00:48 – 1:00:52

 

diagnostic kindergarten as people know it serves complex developmental communication medical

1:00:52 – 1:00:59

 

learning needs and it depends on small classes individualized instruction specialized supports

1:00:59 – 1:01:06

 

and I hear back from many many parents who kids have thrived in that environment last

1:01:06 – 1:01:12

 

year the maximum class size was increased from eight to ten despite concerns from families

1:01:12 – 1:01:15

 

educators SEAC and trustees families and media reports since have described greater sensory

1:01:15 – 1:01:21

 

overload as regulation and reduced individualized support it’s in the median the proposed elimination

1:01:21 – 1:01:27

 

of these 15 classroom it represents another significant system level change SEAC was not

1:01:27 – 1:01:32

 

consulted nor notified we learned about it through the media these families already face

1:01:32 – 1:01:36

 

substantial barriers in learning what programs are available and many are told that their

1:01:36 – 1:01:41

 

children’s needs cannot be supported in their local neighborhood schools the motion is challenging

1:01:41 – 1:01:46

 

whether this declining enrollment can justify a reduction of the scale it’s recommending

1:01:46 – 1:01:51

 

that SEAC is consulted before future reductions improve communication with families as well

1:01:51 – 1:01:57

 

provide the evidence supporting this decision and further now that the decision has been

1:01:57 – 1:02:03

 

made report on impacts such as waitlist reduction transportation travel time staffing access

1:02:03 – 1:02:09

 

and specially student outcomes so what happens now let’s watch and see right that we would

1:02:09 – 1:02:14

 

be very important to know that we’re also calling for meaningful consultation with the

1:02:14 – 1:02:20

 

affected families and for the motion to be shared with senior TDSD and provincial officials

1:02:20 – 1:02:25

 

the motion is not asking SEAC to manage day-to-day operations in ISP numbers up or down all that

1:02:25 – 1:02:32

 

we’re saying is that major changes to availability wait lists and delivery of special education

1:02:32 – 1:02:37

 

falls squarely within our mandate thank you all right is there’s Leo do you want to move

1:02:37 – 1:02:44

 

your motion I think Nora oh go ahead well let’s get the motion on the table and then

1:02:44 – 1:02:50

 

we’ll have discussion Leo do you want to move the motion okay I’ll move the motion in all

1:02:50 – 1:02:59

 

right do we have a seconder Nora all right and people who want to say something we got

 

(Note: Here is the text of the motion under discussion:

“MOTION Regarding Diagnostic Kindergarten Class Size Increases and Planned Classroom Reductions

 

WHEREAS the students in the Toronto District School Board’s Diagnostic Kindergarten (DK) program require intensive early intervention and specialized educational support for students with complex developmental, communication, medical, and learning needs; and

WHEREAS the programming for these students depends on low student-to-staff ratios, individualized instruction, safe learning environments, and effective access to support tailored to a student’s individual needs;

WHEREAS last year the TDSB Supervisor increased the maximum class size cap in Diagnostic Kindergarten classrooms from eight to ten students in 2025 despite concerns expressed by educators, families, SEAC and parents’ advocates, and despite a vote to the contrary by the elected TDSB trustees;

WHEREAS the media has publicly reported on increased student dysregulation, sensory overload, diminished individualized support, and deteriorating classroom conditions following the increase in class sizes;

WHEREAS the TDSB has now announced plans to eliminate 15 Diagnostic Kindergarten classrooms this fall;

WHEREAS SEAC has repeatedly raised serious concerns with TDSB senior staff over the past decade that parents/guardians of students with disabilities/special education needs have substantial difficulties finding out from TDSB what programs, services and supports are available at TDSB for students with disabilities/special education needs, and continue at present to raise this concern;

WHEREAS TDSB cannot therefore justify such a reduction in the number of these classes by any asserted drop in the demand for these classes from parents, since parents can encounter those difficulties in learning what TDSB offers in such classes;

WHEREAS many students and families have described feeling excluded by their local schools and told that their child’s needs are too challenging for them to be able to attend locally;

WHEREAS it is difficult to believe that a projected reduction of a total of 5,000 TDSB students next year (including all students, not just students with disabilities/special education needs) could account for this reduction in Diagnostic Kindergarten classes;

WHEREAS, while SEAC does not seek to direct day-to-day operational decisions of TDSB staff, a planned reduction of 15 Diagnostic Kindergarten classrooms is a system-level change affecting the availability, accessibility, and delivery of special education programs and services, and falls squarely within SEAC’s mandate to provide advice and recommendations on matters affecting special education at TDSB;

WHEREAS TDSB staff did not consult the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee on the possibility of this reduction in the number of Diagnostic Kindergarten classes, or even notify SEAC of this decision after the fact, before making this decision to get SEAC’s input despite the fact that several SEAC members voiced strong concerns about increase in Diagnostic Kindergarten class sizes at meetings last spring;

WHEREAS SEAC members had to learn about this forthcoming reduction in the number of Diagnostic Kindergarten classes from the media and from parents;

WHEREAS it is no justification for TDSB’s conduct regarding SEAC that such reductions are made by TDSB’s normal process for deciding on such programs and/or is an operational matter. Whether or not it is part of such normal processes or is an operational matter, SEAC’s mandate is to give input on the design and delivery of special education At TDSB;

 

SEAC therefore recommends as follows:

1. TDSB should notify its Special Education Advisory Committee when it anticipates a reduction in the number of any classes, services or supports for students with disabilities/special education needs and should seek SEAC’s input before a decision on such reductions is reached;
2. TDSB should substantially improve its communications to parents/guardians, including parents/guardians of TDSB students with disabilities/special education needs, so they can easily learn about the programs, placements, services and supports available for students with disabilities/special education needs;
3. TDSB staff should provide SEAC with the data, analysis, and rationale used to support the planned reduction of 15 Diagnostic Kindergarten classrooms, including enrolment projections, waitlist information, referral trends, class utilization rates, staffing ratios and the anticipated impact on students and families;
4. TDSB staff should report to SEAC on the anticipated impact of the proposed Diagnostic Kindergarten classroom reductions, including effects on class size, travel times, transportation, student access, waitlists, staffing and student achievement;
5. TDSB should conduct meaningful consultations with affected families and report the results to SEAC to evaluate the impact of changes to class cap sizes, as well as families on wait lists;
6. TDSB should arrange for TDSB’s senior staff member in charge of communications to attend a SEAC meeting this fall to discuss TDSB efforts in this regard and
7. TDSB should forward this motion to the Director of Education, the TDSB Chief Executive Officer, the TDSB Supervisor, the Minister of Education, and the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario.”)

 

1:02:59 – 1:03:06

 

the speakers list okay I think I feel need to say something because the association I

1:03:06 – 1:03:11

 

represent and our belief in inclusive education meaning our local schools and I know all of

1:03:11 – 1:03:17

 

our committees don’t necessarily agree but I will be voting in favor of the motion because

1:03:17 – 1:03:22

 

I do believe in the communication with families and making sure that there’s meaningful consultation

1:03:22 – 1:03:27

 

with our committee that families and student centered approach is at the heart of what’s

1:03:27 – 1:03:33

 

happening and that data and evidence about the outcomes of kids is driving the decision-making

1:03:33 – 1:03:39

 

so you know Leo and I have had and many other people in this committee and I have had many

1:03:39 – 1:03:43

 

conversations about that and I’m happy to agree with anything that someone can prove

1:03:43 – 1:03:47

 

that’s better for a student my understanding is there’s very little evidence about the

1:03:47 – 1:03:51

 

effectiveness of the ISPs other than anecdotal from families who quite frankly face high

1:03:51 – 1:03:57

 

degrees of persecution I would say it’s an appropriate word should they choose not to

1:03:57 – 1:04:03

 

go to an ISP and our association gets tons of those calls to help families literally

1:04:03 – 1:04:09

 

fight staff in a community to keep a child in their local school it’s not always that

1:04:09 – 1:04:15

 

families are choosing that but they do feel sometimes the need to go there for some sort

1:04:15 – 1:04:20

 

of welcoming community that that sees them and values them so I just wanted to put on

1:04:20 – 1:04:29

 

the table that because it’s going to look a little weird I’m voting for this about the

1:04:29 – 1:04:33

 

diagnostic kindergartens but this is an issue about communication student-centered and data

1:04:33 – 1:04:37

 

driven decision-making and making sure that SEAC is part of that process and I just want

1:04:37 – 1:04:43

 

to add Richard before you chime in that I think it is a real strength of the SEAC and

1:04:43 – 1:04:49

 

I encourage our new CEO to see us as having this strength that there are people around

1:04:49 – 1:04:56

 

this table who have very deeply passionately diverging views on the relative advantages

1:04:56 – 1:05:05

 

of inclusion or separate classes but they work together and in the case of this motion

1:05:05 – 1:05:14

 

Leo who is a profound advocate perhaps on one side Nora on the other both respectful

1:05:14 – 1:05:22

 

collaborated with me in the development of this so it would be a motion that they would

1:05:22 – 1:05:28

 

actually both agree on and that’s where one of the examples I think that you’ll find

1:05:28 – 1:05:34

 

that SEAC is a very constructive partner when treated that way on the other hand when we

1:05:34 – 1:05:41

 

keep learning about these developments from the newspaper you’ll expect and understand

1:05:41 – 1:05:49

 

why there is a certain amount of frustration that comes from that if not distrust.

1:05:49 – 1:05:57

 

Richard thank you David so to try and bridge the gap that you’ve just noted the question

1:05:57 – 1:06:03

 

I would have are the students that would otherwise have been served in these DK diagnostic kindergarten

1:06:03 – 1:06:10

 

classes being closed are they being served in a more appropriate classroom setting and

1:06:10 – 1:06:15

 

if so how has this assessment been performed for each and every one of these students so

1:06:15 – 1:06:21

 

that’s I want to know that if there’s a classroom that’s been closed and there’s no seats for

1:06:21 – 1:06:26

 

these children students where have they gone in the school system and is it a better more

1:06:26 – 1:06:32

 

appropriate setting for them thank you thank you unless there’s anyone else I’m going

1:06:32 – 1:06:38

 

to propose we we vote all in favor five here at the end and I have nine in the room so

1:06:38 – 1:06:58

 

that passes for the benefit of staff I’m going to especially Nandi I’m going to move to letters

1:06:58 – 1:07:07

 

of expectation and then we will get to special education plan and if there’s time for leadership

1:07:07 – 1:07:16

 

we could do that or we could just trade take it as written and if there are questions or

1:07:16 – 1:07:21

 

if you want to do a quick summary and I’ll defer our roundtable yet again unfortunately

1:07:21 – 1:07:26

 

till September David can I ask that we stick to the doing the special education plan first

1:07:26 – 1:07:32

 

just because that’s a legislative please piece that I’d like to fulfill please all right

1:07:32 – 1:07:37

 

go for it okay thank you for this component of the agenda I’m going to pass it over to

1:07:37 – 1:07:43

 

system superintendent dr. Debbie Donski thank you thank you very much and good evening just

1:07:43 – 1:07:51

 

going to share the presentation I just what just while you’re getting that going I know

1:07:51 – 1:08:02

 

Jessica you do have a motion which was going to come up in the context of the roundtable

1:08:02 – 1:08:10

 

but we will deal with that before the meetings over your motion just make sure I remember

1:08:10 – 1:08:17

 

can I just confirm that everyone can see the slides yes those who can see could see that

1:08:17 – 1:08:24

 

of course David got it first thank you I was going to say yes and get you worried go ahead

1:08:24 – 1:08:34

 

okay so I’ll begin with the second slide so we’ve itemized some more changes that in some

1:08:34 – 1:08:45

 

cases were in the spec ed plan but not on the amendments last month and I would like

1:08:45 – 1:08:50

 

to apologize for that and I hope that the details we offer this evening will provide

1:08:50 – 1:08:56

 

more information that CAC has requested so to begin general language has been updated

1:08:56 – 1:09:03

 

across the plan in addition to sorry in addition to what we shared last month we have changed

1:09:03 – 1:09:14

 

the required time spent on the individual learning plan it has been shortened from what

1:09:14 – 1:09:19

 

was six to eight weeks now to four to six weeks enabling a more timely support for students

1:09:19 – 1:09:27

 

we have also standardized terminology by changing child or children to student or students where

1:09:27 – 1:09:33

 

appropriate and I know there was a question about this and it was brought to our attention

1:09:33 – 1:09:37

 

and I just want to clarify that when the statement for example says a parent knows their child

1:09:37 – 1:09:42

 

best we wouldn’t say a parent knows their student best so when it says change to student

1:09:42 – 1:09:49

 

or students where appropriate that’s what I’m implying in section B the board’s consultation

1:09:49 – 1:09:56

 

process it was noted that of course there was a minority report shared by the association

1:09:56 – 1:10:02

 

for bright children it is noted in section B and we have added it to the amendments in

1:10:02 – 1:10:10

 

addition the actual minority report will be submitted to the ministry of education when

1:10:10 – 1:10:16

 

the special education plan is submitted for review and section D roles and responsibilities

1:10:16 – 1:10:23

 

there was a question about what we’re comparing it to because in the amendments we put in

1:10:23 – 1:10:29

 

that it was replaced and I’ve included a link to the special education roles and responsibilities

1:10:29 – 1:10:36

 

page because we took the definitions around roles and responsibilities directly from that

1:10:36 – 1:10:41

 

page on the next slide section e special education and advisory committee the amendments chart

1:10:41 – 1:10:51

 

now includes cx meeting times and locations additionally the specific process for cx input

1:10:51 – 1:10:58

 

into the special education plan for 26 27 has been formally added to the amendments

1:10:58 – 1:11:05

 

whereby the input to the special education plan will be done by the whole team at cx

1:11:05 – 1:11:11

 

meetings throughout the year next year section f the statement specific to the ccat 7 as

1:11:11 – 1:11:19

 

a screener has been removed and replaced with a general statement on universal screening

1:11:19 – 1:11:25

 

for all grade 3 students section g early identification there was a statement in the plan and it was

1:11:25 – 1:11:33

 

included in last month’s amendments regarding early french immersion and how early years

1:11:33 – 1:11:40

 

environments promote joy and belonging and engagement it was removed not because early

1:11:40 – 1:11:45

 

french immersion doesn’t also have a right to have joy belonging and engagement but all

1:11:45 – 1:11:53

 

students do so we took it out because it shouldn’t be a specific mention as if it’s different

1:11:53 – 1:11:59

 

the amendments also reiterate that cac will um i’m sorry that’s that’s uh that’s redundant

1:11:59 – 1:12:06

 

okay next slide um section h we have updated the resource links for english language learners

1:12:06 – 1:12:14

 

and french as a second language and special education documents so that you can actually

1:12:14 – 1:12:19

 

use them now uh the link to public documents a key update to the iprc process and i’ll

1:12:19 – 1:12:26

 

go into that in the next slide in more detail um is that level one and level two decision

1:12:26 – 1:12:32

 

making is now delegated to the school level supported by special education and inclusion

1:12:32 – 1:12:37

 

staff to ensure a more timely and effective student support the next slide and i do apologize

1:12:37 – 1:12:46

 

for the the small um font um this summarizes how the changes are going to be implemented

1:12:46 – 1:12:54

 

and what you’ll see in this chart um and i’ll focus on the changes as well but those who

1:12:54 – 1:13:00

 

can see uh the green font shows where there have been changes so this slide summarizes

1:13:00 – 1:13:07

 

the key procedural changes to the iprc process for next year the most significant amendment

1:13:07 – 1:13:14

 

here is the delegation as i said of level one and level two decision making to the school

1:13:14 – 1:13:21

 

level and you’ll see um in the chart what is referred to as level one and two i’ll explain

1:13:21 – 1:13:27

 

it in a moment this shift is supported by our special education and inclusion staff

1:13:27 – 1:13:32

 

and is intended to streamline the process so we provide more timely and effective student

1:13:32 – 1:13:37

 

support so to clarify level one is when there’s an original iprc for any exceptionality with

1:13:37 – 1:13:45

 

regular class placement which can be indirect resource or withdrawal as well as gifted only

1:13:45 – 1:13:52

 

um exceptionality and placement that’s not a change that has been happening for a number

1:13:52 – 1:13:56

 

of years at the school level a change and it was noted in an email from siak we used

1:13:56 – 1:14:03

 

to have um psychology present as committee members and they still remain at a level three

1:14:03 – 1:14:10

 

which is for highly complex cases and who determines its complex is the special education

1:14:10 – 1:14:16

 

centrally assigned principal so they remain there but the expectation from the legislation

1:14:16 – 1:14:21

 

is that there are three members of a committee one must be a principal or a superintendent

1:14:21 – 1:14:27

 

so by anchoring the iprc process at the school level it preserves vital relationships and

1:14:27 – 1:14:34

 

trust already built between family and the local principal they of course will be supported

1:14:34 – 1:14:40

 

by special education teams as well as family of schools superintendents so you’ll see at

1:14:40 – 1:14:46

 

um level two a level two iprc is also going to be done at the school level it’s when there

1:14:46 – 1:14:53

 

is an increase from regular class to an intensive support program or there’s a change in exceptionality

1:14:53 – 1:15:00

 

or placement or it’s an initial placement in an intensive support program the local

1:15:00 – 1:15:06

 

principal will be the chair and then we will have centrally trained principals and that’s

1:15:06 – 1:15:11

 

where the family of schools superintendent comes in to really know their people and say

1:15:11 – 1:15:16

 

you know what debbie you would benefit from having mandy come in as your second because

1:15:16 – 1:15:21

 

she is more experienced than you so we’ve tried to work in professional learning at

1:15:21 – 1:15:25

 

every stage job embedded as well as formal learning to shift this process um we are keeping

1:15:25 – 1:15:35

 

accountability centered on the students daily success while growing the collective capacity

1:15:35 – 1:15:40

 

at the school and system levels and then finally as per the education act oh i’ve mentioned

1:15:40 – 1:15:46

 

this about three people and and really the the reason for removing psych staff from levels

1:15:46 – 1:15:53

 

one and two is because we want them focused on assessments we know how key those assessments

1:15:53 – 1:15:58

 

are and although we’ve done really good work in reducing those wait lists they still exist

1:15:58 – 1:16:04

 

and this is another way that we can um move forward the next slide

1:16:04 – 1:16:17

 

nj so we added that the iprc must include the reasons for placement in a special education

1:16:17 – 1:16:25

 

class on the statement of decision this is not a change but we put it in as a firm reminder

1:16:25 – 1:16:32

 

about the importance of including reasons for placement we’ve also added language to

1:16:32 – 1:16:38

 

clearly distinguish between program and placement for deaf hard of hearing developmental disability

1:16:38 – 1:16:45

 

and gifted special education classes that are full time the information for the iprc

1:16:45 – 1:16:51

 

determination of exceptionality for autism has been updated and reorganized so for example

1:16:51 – 1:16:58

 

necessary items like progress reports parent input and completed ilps are still included

1:16:58 – 1:17:04

 

in the general information earlier in the section um and when this was indicated within

1:17:04 – 1:17:11

 

the amendments that we created um an overall general information section so that we could

1:17:11 – 1:17:18

 

reduce the redundancy within this section and then um for placements in learning disability

1:17:18 – 1:17:25

 

autism spectrum disorder physical disability and mild intellectual disability isps the

1:17:25 – 1:17:31

 

language reinforces that the placement can be either special education full time or special

1:17:31 – 1:17:37

 

education with partial integration based on the individual students needs strengths and

1:17:37 – 1:17:43

 

their thereby reinforcing the importance of integration for student growth and in line

1:17:43 – 1:17:48

 

with the ministry of education special education class as either full time or partial integration

1:17:48 – 1:17:59

 

and then finally the last slide continuing with section j statement clarifying that grade

1:17:59 – 1:18:06

 

12 students in gifted asd and ld intensive support programs are offered english and one

1:18:06 – 1:18:13

 

other subject through the isp is now included in the amendments chart for gifted placement

1:18:13 – 1:18:19

 

decisions it is now explicitly clarified that this includes special education class with

1:18:19 – 1:18:24

 

partial integration at the secondary level section p student numbers for each school

1:18:24 – 1:18:32

 

at the for provincial and demonstration schools have been updated as required and then section

1:18:32 – 1:18:38

 

t in the appendices we updated the links that were also problematic in the last document

1:18:38 – 1:18:43

 

we shared and that is it for me all right thank you for comments you’re welcome thank

1:18:43 – 1:18:50

 

you um mindful of time is there any i what i’d rather there be now if you have just questions

1:18:50 – 1:18:59

 

for your own information if you could email them in um and leanne can refer them if there’s

1:18:59 – 1:19:06

 

a change to anything you’ve just heard or you read in preparation for tonight that you

1:19:06 – 1:19:12

 

feel is uh critical uh why don’t you raise it uh now bronwyn and then richard richard

1:19:12 – 1:19:24

 

and Norah Kareena and then if you could each do it in about a minute more or less if you

1:19:24 – 1:19:34

 

can that’d be great Jessica’s fifth okay uh Bronwyn um i have the three things um first

1:19:34 – 1:19:43

 

of all is the day of the week going to be changed or have any more flexibility with

1:19:43 – 1:19:48

 

the time because um myself as a person who always works in person um and i see patients

1:19:48 – 1:19:54

 

every 20 minutes i am never able to actually appropriately dedicate all this time thankfully

1:19:54 – 1:20:00

 

my husband can and he’s been doing this longer but it’s very hard for us and i would like

1:20:00 – 1:20:06

 

to see that time frame always being on like a Thursday at this time and not thinking outside

1:20:06 – 1:20:12

 

the box or families like ourselves number two um i do have concerns about not having

1:20:12 – 1:20:18

 

a social worker or someone they’re accessible i know social workers aren’t automatically

1:20:18 – 1:20:22

 

always there i understand the psychologist aspect but i remember my first year with my

1:20:22 – 1:20:28

 

daughter with her invisible disability is being in tears and crying and the principal

1:20:28 – 1:20:33

 

was basically yelling at me beforehand before i even had to fight and get that iprc meeting

1:20:33 – 1:20:38

 

so i don’t want other families to go through that without having other people watching

1:20:38 – 1:20:43

 

what we went through to fight for that so i am concerned and are we still able to invite

1:20:43 – 1:20:48

 

advocates like ourselves at our own will if needed like myself or anyone here who represents

1:20:48 – 1:20:54

 

these communities because that should be explicitly given to parents as something they can do so

1:20:54 – 1:21:01

 

they don’t they need documentation on what’s going on there we can’t just be there with

1:21:01 – 1:21:05

 

the principal and the vp alone and the superintendent i don’t feel that’s safe and uh that’s what

1:21:05 – 1:21:10

 

we’re now okay um i’m gonna treat this as give your feedback which staff will note rather

1:21:10 – 1:21:16

 

than getting into a discussion on practice and policy at iprc is not that that’s unimportant

1:21:16 – 1:21:23

 

but because that’s a substantive topic that i’m happy to to have us devote meeting time

1:21:23 – 1:21:29

 

to but just not uh not right now i don’t feel comfortable with that david to be honest i

1:21:29 – 1:21:35

 

think the direct question about the day of the week can be answered if it’s going to

1:21:35 – 1:21:39

 

be changed because these are sensitive things to people all right i understand it but it

1:21:39 – 1:21:44

 

does mean okay i don’t feel comfortable chasing emails can staff answer the whether the day

1:21:44 – 1:21:49

 

of the week is going to be changed sorry bronwyn the day of the week with regards to can you

1:21:49 – 1:21:55

 

just clarify that for me it’s always on a specific day and the same with sst that where

1:21:55 – 1:22:00

 

parents are not given flexibility in their work schedule or the time they are just thrown

1:22:00 – 1:22:05

 

a day and then if you ask them if they can change it around the schedule or a certain

1:22:05 – 1:22:10

 

time of the day there’s like an absolute hard no and in the past it’s been sort of used

1:22:10 – 1:22:14

 

as the excuse that we’re bringing in you know the a b and c but i’m hoping now with this

1:22:14 – 1:22:21

 

change that there will be more flexibility for parents to um since there’s not going

1:22:21 – 1:22:26

 

to be so many people invited to the meeting to actually be parents bronwyn what i’m going

1:22:26 – 1:22:31

 

to suggest you’re essentially saying could there be more flexible scheduling of iprc

1:22:31 – 1:22:37

 

so parents have more flexibility to accommodate their own their own lives have i got it right

1:22:37 – 1:22:42

 

yes yeah half the time i can never even attend to the parent now what i’m going to do again

1:22:42 – 1:22:47

 

sensitive to the time and not wanting to run over time is to say to put your request forward

1:22:47 – 1:22:56

 

and if if staff can get back to her and if this remains an open issue or unsolved bronwyn

1:22:56 – 1:23:03

 

approach me by email and we can we can schedule this as a an agenda item uh in the fall and

1:23:03 – 1:23:10

 

if necessary bring a motion with a recommendation okay yeah there also is the last week of

1:23:10 – 1:23:17

 

september these happen right so that’s my concern it’s been the fall everyone disappears

1:23:17 – 1:23:22

 

anyway okay thanks okay um next was pardon me richard thank you um is it possible to

1:23:22 – 1:23:33

 

bring up the last slide on the special education plan where it was talking about ld mid etc

1:23:33 – 1:23:39

 

and just for the clarity for this committee if i have that on the screen i’ll be easy

1:23:39 – 1:23:44

 

to understand my my question here is that possible debbie can you bring up just give

1:23:44 – 1:23:50

 

me a moment just give me a moment okay and actually go back one uh i’m looking for the

1:23:50 – 1:24:08

 

one where you talked about the partial integration of students with lds etc i’m not sure where

1:24:08 – 1:24:17

 

it’s segregate uh special education class and partial integration exactly so it speaks

1:24:17 – 1:24:25

 

to ld asd pd etc am i to assume that if a child a student has a diagnosis of developmental

1:24:25 – 1:24:33

 

disability um special education with partial integration is not being considered for them

1:24:33 – 1:24:42

 

or is not available to them because i don’t see uh i don’t have the document in front

1:24:42 – 1:24:47

 

of me so i can’t confirm it on the developmental disability i i hope that the school board

1:24:47 – 1:24:53

 

is offering the same opportunities to them with either special education full-time or

1:24:53 – 1:24:58

 

special education with partial integration can that be clarified please for this committee

1:24:58 – 1:25:03

 

can you or or uh or debbie help us out thanks uh richard so um in many cases our dd isps

1:25:03 – 1:25:13

 

we do have them in integrated sites but in most cases we have them in congregated sites

1:25:13 – 1:25:18

 

and so there’s not integration in a congregated site it’s a full-time special education class

1:25:18 – 1:25:23

 

however when they are in integrated sites whenever possible yes we do integrate them

1:25:23 – 1:25:30

 

as we can the difference is that with a dd isp in secondary they are full-time isp classes

1:25:30 – 1:25:39

 

and ld asd pd mid they take some courses in the isp and some courses they take outside

1:25:39 – 1:25:47

 

of the isp so that’s why dd is not there um because it is a full-time special education class

1:25:47 – 1:25:54

 

is it possible for this language to be added to the special education plan so parents realize

1:25:54 – 1:26:00

 

that if they make a particular decision with their child that they may be locked out of many

1:26:00 – 1:26:06

 

opportunities thanks richard so um those conversations are had at the iprc they’re

1:26:06 – 1:26:15

 

also had at the sst prior to that but are in the criteria for placement for each of the isps

1:26:15 – 1:26:22

 

including dd isps it does set out what that placement um criteria is and it also talks

1:26:22 – 1:26:29

 

about the program that the student with a developmental disability who may have special

1:26:29 – 1:26:34

 

education class full-time will will be having so while we haven’t shown that here the plan does

1:26:34 – 1:26:42

 

outline what that program is so we can can you send us that wording so we can see it so we can

1:26:42 – 1:26:47

 

share with parents thank you okay great next is kareena thank you um i do have some comments that

1:26:47 – 1:27:00

 

i will send along via email um however there’s one item that i wanted to raise here um in respect

1:27:00 – 1:27:07

 

to a change in section j related to uh placements in gifted isps which is a significant concern for

1:27:07 – 1:27:16

 

us previously the language stated that eligible students may also meet one of two criteria that

1:27:16 – 1:27:22

 

were listed and it now reads that eligible students must meet one of the two criteria

1:27:22 – 1:27:29

 

which i think is a if i understand it it could be a significant change so i would like to understand

1:27:29 – 1:27:36

 

the the goal or intention of of this change in the wording any potential impacts it might have on

1:27:36 – 1:27:43

 

number of placements going forward and also what documentation or support would be required to

1:27:43 – 1:27:50

 

meet the criteria um in particular the first criteria so i don’t need the answer today but

1:27:50 – 1:27:57

 

um but would appreciate uh staff getting back to to me on that um on this item that’s great thank

1:27:57 – 1:28:04

 

you um and finally jessica thank you uh very quickly i i know in the plan um that the language

1:28:04 – 1:28:15

 

around the cat seven has disappeared um we were told that there was a pilot study running we

1:28:15 – 1:28:21

 

haven’t been briefed on that um and i’m just curious when we will be briefed on the results

1:28:21 – 1:28:26

 

as i presume that the change in language means that we are changing what test is being used thanks

1:28:26 – 1:28:34

 

so much thanks uh jessica really quickly um we’ve removed it uh we we did conduct a pilot we will be

1:28:34 – 1:28:43

 

conducting another pilot uh in the new year and so we have not chosen to move to a different uh

1:28:43 – 1:28:49

 

screener at this point in time but we will be um doing a broader uh pilot of the ravens which

1:28:49 – 1:28:58

 

we presented to ciac in february of this year thanks okay and our other final is nora which is

1:28:58 – 1:29:05

 

the real final thanks uh i guess i just wanted to make a comment about what we perceive the special

1:29:05 – 1:29:11

 

education plan to be i think sometimes we treat it like it’s a written document when it’s very

1:29:11 – 1:29:16

 

much actually related to budget so those two are not distinct from on each other budget absolutely

1:29:16 – 1:29:22

 

impacts a special education plan so things like diagnostic kindergartens or isps for this or isps

1:29:22 – 1:29:28

 

for that the committee is going to want to know like the number of each type the locations of

1:29:28 – 1:29:34

 

each type because it gives us an idea of how you’re serving our students so my association

1:29:34 – 1:29:40

 

very much would love to know how many students are in regular class how much staff is allocated for

1:29:40 – 1:29:44

 

that how many students are in isp how much staff is allocated for that are we now serving a higher

1:29:44 – 1:29:50

 

proportion of kids in isps than we did even though we’re saying we’re doing inclusion and should be

1:29:50 – 1:29:55

 

doing it well i’m not trying so i guess my point is that we see the numbers the location as being

1:29:55 – 1:30:03

 

not part of cx purview when we’ll be the first people people will call when changes happen or

1:30:03 – 1:30:10

 

asked to get information for them so i’m hoping the special education plan louise has now said

1:30:10 – 1:30:15

 

the number of staff and type will be in the plan at the end of july and will the location in the

1:30:15 – 1:30:22

 

map still show where all of these things happen but again we’re not really giving input into that

1:30:22 – 1:30:28

 

we’re being told that so it’s not really consultative in that sense thank you so not every item in the

1:30:28 – 1:30:34

 

plan is consulted on not every decision is consulted on again when these decisions are

1:30:34 – 1:30:39

 

made based on needs and numbers of students so it doesn’t make sense in a fiduciary way or any other

1:30:39 – 1:30:47

 

way to maintain isps with two staff members and four students when we have open spots in other isps

1:30:47 – 1:30:56

 

as an example it also doesn’t make sense to have isps with nor few students when we have other isps

1:30:56 – 1:31:02

 

or the regular program requiring staff cac as with everyone else it was cx recommendation to

1:31:02 – 1:31:10

 

put the link with the locations of the isps how many of each and as we open classes or close classes

1:31:10 – 1:31:17

 

those are updated so those will be updated we also follow the standards and the regulation when it

1:31:17 – 1:31:23

 

comes to school board special education plans and again i’ll state and c hack has repeatedly shared

1:31:23 – 1:31:28

 

that a 300 page special education plan is not helpful to parents and so we really stick to the

1:31:28 – 1:31:34

 

what the standards requirements are for the plan knowing that at c act meetings we can provide

1:31:34 – 1:31:40

 

information as well as our parent guide which is required by the ministry to be submitted with the

1:31:40 – 1:31:46

 

plan so i would argue that universal design would indicate you’d have a variety of types of a way of

1:31:46 – 1:31:51

 

communicating information so i wouldn’t use the ministry’s limited understanding of what we’re

1:31:51 – 1:31:57

 

entitled to see if it impacts special education students we would have purview to see that so

1:31:57 – 1:32:02

 

because the ministry said that this is the information we’ll get and yes that will overwhelm

1:32:02 – 1:32:06

 

some students doesn’t mean that information should not be released to the public all right i’m going

1:32:06 – 1:32:12

 

to uh i’m going to call it here thank you very much i just want to offer one last observation

1:32:12 – 1:32:18

 

and request of both staff and cac members um staff came to me and suggested we need to rethink how

1:32:18 – 1:32:26

 

we do the input process on this special education plan there’s a reference here that we will deal

1:32:26 – 1:32:32

 

with it each cac meeting um i’m actually um open to different ways of doing it i frankly don’t want

1:32:32 – 1:32:39

 

to eat up a lot of very precious cac meeting time on this one form and we’ve got so many other

1:32:39 – 1:32:45

 

substantive issues i think there’s a couple of things one of which is i welcome everybody’s

1:32:45 – 1:32:50

 

feedback over the summer by email on how we might most efficiently do this i want to do however

1:32:51 – 1:32:58

 

ask everyone to divide in their minds uh this whole area into two very different buckets one

1:32:58 – 1:33:09

 

bucket is substantive changes last year it was raising the maximum size of diagnostic kindergarten

1:33:09 – 1:33:19

 

and mild intellectual uh disability classes that was a substantive change and people had views on

1:33:19 – 1:33:25

 

that um the change in here uh not using uh psychologists at these uh iprcs and instead

1:33:25 – 1:33:36

 

devoting their time more to assessments which personally i think is a great idea um those are

1:33:36 – 1:33:42

 

substantive policy changes and those are ones that we shouldn’t be discussing by trying to

1:33:42 – 1:33:49

 

kind of pin for gold in a 300 page document to see what’s changed or for staff to sort of highlight

1:33:49 – 1:33:56

 

oh here are the substantive changes uh those are things which in my view it would be most helpful

1:33:56 – 1:34:03

 

if staff could be bringing to us as issues on which they are they can say we’re thinking of

1:34:03 – 1:34:09

 

making this change if we do it would be represented in this special education plan what are your

1:34:09 – 1:34:17

 

thoughts and then we give our input with the other bucket are formalities uh cosmetic not in the

1:34:17 – 1:34:26

 

derisive sense or the i’m not seeking to minimize it but which terminology is best or are we using

1:34:26 – 1:34:33

 

consistent language that’s not substantive changes that affect our kids um i want to make

1:34:33 – 1:34:39

 

sure we can give any input you want to give i don’t want to spend meetings of all of us dealing with

1:34:39 – 1:34:45

 

the uh the the cosmetic stuff or the formality formal uh presentation stuff though you should

1:34:45 – 1:34:53

 

get input and staff should benefit from it uh but i do want to make sure that we find out about

1:34:53 – 1:34:59

 

substantive changes early enough of the year that we can have meaty discussions of them not because

1:34:59 – 1:35:05

 

of the form not because it’s in the special education plan but because it’s a change that’s

1:35:05 – 1:35:10

 

being proposed give me your ideas over the summer i welcome it from nandy from you and louise and

1:35:10 – 1:35:16

 

and from debbie um and i welcome the feedback from from from members of the committee so we

1:35:16 – 1:35:22

 

could use your best your time to best advantage and staff’s time to most efficient advantage with

1:35:22 – 1:35:29

 

both of those um i want to turn to what will be um um our last substantive topic before a quick

1:35:29 – 1:35:37

 

motion by jessica and uh the if time permits the the leadership report and that is the issue of

1:35:37 – 1:35:44

 

letters of expectation i’ve discussed this in my chair’s report and in my last month’s chair’s

1:35:44 – 1:35:50

 

report because i gave staff a heads up they asked for an extra month to prepare um it came to my

1:35:50 – 1:35:57

 

attention that there are occasions when the the tdsb will write a parent what they refer to as a

1:35:57 – 1:36:07

 

letter of expectation that’s not a legally created animal it’s a letter and that’s the name they give

1:36:07 – 1:36:13

 

and it essentially is a direction uh telling the parent limiting who they can talk to and when they

1:36:13 – 1:36:22

 

can talk to them at the board i’m assuming this is triggered by a sense that someone and i gather

1:36:22 – 1:36:28

 

from what staff has told me it’s not limited to parents it could be others um are engaging in

1:36:28 – 1:36:33

 

repetitive and disruptive content contact um and the board has decided to go this step when i saw

1:36:34 – 1:36:43

 

this and and we’re not here to discuss or explore any individual case the first thing i wanted to do

1:36:43 – 1:36:51

 

it raised some flags in my mind and i raised i mentioned them in my uh my report who decides

1:36:51 – 1:36:59

 

on this and what are the criteria does the board have a policy or a procedure setting out the

1:36:59 – 1:37:07

 

guidelines for when these are to take place the board has policies and procedures on tons of things

1:37:07 – 1:37:12

 

who decides what are the safeguards if a parent receives this and wants to contest it

1:37:12 – 1:37:20

 

is there an internal review within the board can they take it higher within the board and say hey

1:37:20 – 1:37:26

 

this isn’t fair i don’t deserve this um the the other two questions that came to mind for me is

1:37:26 – 1:37:34

 

is there an end date the paragraphs i read and i shared with you which are the only ones i’ve seen

1:37:34 – 1:37:42

 

and i don’t want to see anymore because they’re anonymized made it sound like this is basically

1:37:42 – 1:37:48

 

for the duration and the other consideration is what if a parent receives a letter like this

1:37:48 – 1:37:55

 

and uh they their child has become ill and they want to notify someone or there’s an accommodation

1:37:55 – 1:38:04

 

need or their child has gone missing or there’s some kind of crisis and being told you’ve got to

1:38:04 – 1:38:09

 

contact some school board official they’re all busy and it may not get to the right person

1:38:09 – 1:38:15

 

with the kind of lightning speed that may an emergency may require there’s no end date and

1:38:15 – 1:38:21

 

there’s no exemption for communications necessary to fulfill the duty to accommodate

1:38:21 – 1:38:26

 

so i asked staff if they could brief us on the answer to the questions who decides what are the

1:38:26 – 1:38:34

 

criteria is there an appeal route is there a policy and procedure from the board that we can see

1:38:34 – 1:38:40

 

written one um and what recourse is there for parents who want to contest it or where it’s open

1:38:40 – 1:38:48

 

ended and uh so over to nandy she knew this was coming so we welcome your your your information

1:38:48 – 1:38:55

 

on this and then we’ll open it to discussion thanks david so i’ll start with your third question

1:38:55 – 1:39:00

 

and then i’ll go through everything else so if there’s um an emergency or an issue at a school

1:39:00 – 1:39:06

 

we’re not sending the parent to a superintendent school-based staff whether it’s a vice principal

1:39:06 – 1:39:15

 

a principal support staff a teacher will connect with the parent in a situation of emergency so i

1:39:15 – 1:39:21

 

just wanted to be very clear that this is for day-to-day or questions that may not be emergency

1:39:21 – 1:39:29

 

related questions but emergency uh pieces will be dealt with as we would with any emergency so with

1:39:29 – 1:39:38

 

regards to letters of expectations there’s no specific board policy or procedure that prescribes

1:39:38 – 1:39:43

 

a formal process for issuing such a letter administrators and superintendents are given

1:39:43 – 1:39:49

 

authority and rely on their authority under the education act to maintain a safe respectful and

1:39:49 – 1:39:54

 

positive school climate in practice decisions are informed by key board policies and procedures

1:39:54 – 1:40:00

 

which include pr 739 promoting respect in the workplace pr 595 code of conduct po policy 31

1:40:00 – 1:40:09

 

human rights policy 34 workplace harassment prevention policy the code of conduct outlines

1:40:09 – 1:40:16

 

standards for of behavior for all members of the school community including parents it emphasizes

1:40:16 – 1:40:22

 

the importance of respect civility and positive interactions it also highlights the role of parents

1:40:22 – 1:40:28

 

in supporting a safe and inclusive inclusive environment including demonstrating respect for

1:40:28 – 1:40:34

 

staff and others particularly during times of disagreement the human rights policy reinforces

1:40:34 – 1:40:40

 

the board’s commitment to upholding and promoting human rights in all learning as well as working

1:40:40 – 1:40:46

 

environments and the workplace harassment prevention policy affirms the board’s expectation

1:40:46 – 1:40:51

 

that all environments remain safe inclusive and free from harassment and discrimination

1:40:51 – 1:40:56

 

across all these policies and procedures there’s a consistent expectation that all interactions

1:40:56 – 1:41:03

 

reflect professionalism on the part of staff and mutual respect from all parties

1:41:03 – 1:41:08

 

when a letter of expectations is issued it may establish a single point of contact so i know

1:41:08 – 1:41:14

 

david you are referring to one particular letter but each of these letters are written in a different

1:41:14 – 1:41:19

 

way and they have different information so it may and not always establish a single point of contact

1:41:19 – 1:41:26

 

which may be a teacher vice principal principal or superintendent to support clear communication

1:41:26 – 1:41:31

 

in most cases however a letter of expectation typically reinforces expectations for respectful

1:41:32 – 1:41:39

 

and collaborative engagement the decision to issue a letter of expectations is made with careful

1:41:39 – 1:41:45

 

consideration and in alignment with board policies and procedures and often as a last resort when a

1:41:45 – 1:41:52

 

letter is issued the reasons for issuing the letter is are clear the reasons are clearly

1:41:52 – 1:41:58

 

communicated to the parent or individual receiving it to support transparency and understanding so in

1:41:58 – 1:42:05

 

a nutshell that is what a letter of expectation is that’s how it’s issued that’s who it’s issued by

1:42:05 – 1:42:11

 

okay thank you and is there uh i asked also what kind of internal review who decides on this

1:42:11 – 1:42:19

 

sorry i had to take a sip of water go for it um so again under the education act the principal

1:42:22 – 1:42:29

 

is responsible for maintaining a safe respectful and positive clue school climate as for the parent

1:42:29 – 1:42:35

 

concern protocol the principal uh sorry the parent can go from the principal to the school

1:42:35 – 1:42:42

 

superintendent if the school superintendent is issuing the letter of expectation the final stop

1:42:42 – 1:42:49

 

is with the school superintendent and again that would have been done as a last resort after other

1:42:49 – 1:42:55

 

options have been explored after communication has been attempted several times with the families and

1:42:55 – 1:43:02

 

so forth in all cases i want to maintain however that there is a single source of contact in such

1:43:02 – 1:43:09

 

circumstances and again this doesn’t happen all the time but there’s always ongoing communication

1:43:09 – 1:43:15

 

happening okay i wanted to open it to questions or comments or feedback we’re not going to make any

1:43:15 – 1:43:22

 

decisions on what to advise if anything today this is the first uh cut at this as we sometimes do but

1:43:22 – 1:43:30

 

i i have just a couple of my own preliminary observations the others may find them compelling

1:43:30 – 1:43:37

 

you may not um i consider this kind of letter um while it may be justified in some limited

1:43:37 – 1:43:46

 

circumstances in some form um deeply worrisome for a series of reasons nandy referred several

1:43:46 – 1:43:54

 

times to the education act there’s nothing that i can see in the education act that authorizes

1:43:54 – 1:44:01

 

the board to order a parent not to talk to their child’s teacher and it’s not a direction to the

1:44:01 – 1:44:10

 

teacher not to talk to the parent it’s a school board purporting to use its authority

1:44:10 – 1:44:16

 

to order parents not to speak to certain people about their child’s education and in the case

1:44:16 – 1:44:24

 

of students with disabilities or special education needs that includes not to speak to the teacher

1:44:24 – 1:44:31

 

about their child’s disability related accommodation needs that is a very intrusive

1:44:31 – 1:44:40

 

exercise of state power and any exercise of state power is governed by the law and part of our law

1:44:40 – 1:44:49

 

is the charter of rights and part of the charter of rights is the guarantee of the freedom of

1:44:49 – 1:44:55

 

expression and i would need to be i’m not asking school staff to comment on this here of course

1:44:55 – 1:45:02

 

but at the very least the tdsb would need legal authority and i see none and a clear legal authority

1:45:02 – 1:45:13

 

to be able to impose restrictions on the freedom of expression of a parent of a child with a

1:45:13 – 1:45:19

 

disability about their child’s disability related education needs with the very people who have to

1:45:19 – 1:45:26

 

meet it now i’m not saying that there couldn’t be somebody who is so cantankerous that steps need to

1:45:26 – 1:45:34

 

be taken but with no policy and no procedure this risks arbitrariness and for example being told that

1:45:34 – 1:45:46

 

it’s a last resort that’s a very commendable position but with no policy no procedure no

1:45:46 – 1:45:55

 

safeguards assured in board policy these could be happening and senior staff might not even know

1:45:55 – 1:46:03

 

or how often or even if they’re justified just for example if the concerned parents protocol is their

1:46:03 – 1:46:11

 

recourse one would think it should be required to be explained in the letter that if you disagree

1:46:11 – 1:46:17

 

with this here’s who to go to now i haven’t read the whole letter and as we were told they vary

1:46:17 – 1:46:25

 

but one would think parents would deserve that if that’s supposed to be their avenue

1:46:25 – 1:46:29

 

so i i i open this up for our committee to just say i’m worried about the risk of one of these

1:46:29 – 1:46:37

 

being used in circumstances that may not justify it and i question the authority to do it at all

1:46:37 – 1:46:47

 

are does anybody want to either ask a question or express a view i think nora wanted to is anybody

1:46:47 – 1:46:54

 

else want to get on the on the speaker’s list i know we’re okay nora yeah thank you so i guess

1:46:54 – 1:47:02

 

my first question or recommendation would be is the entire staff aware of ppm 170 and the timelines

1:47:02 – 1:47:08

 

the ministry has set out for responding to parent concerns because i don’t think that’s

1:47:08 – 1:47:13

 

necessarily true i’ve met many families where the communication or the volume of communication

1:47:13 – 1:47:19

 

increases dramatically because no one is answering them so now you’re being characterized as though

1:47:19 – 1:47:25

 

you’re not really rational anymore when really it’s a result of being ignored and david brought up my

1:47:25 – 1:47:32

 

primary concern which is your you can be given a letter as you’re advocating for the very

1:47:32 – 1:47:37

 

accommodations that are not consistently being delivered to your child you can be given a letter

1:47:37 – 1:47:43

 

saying that your advocacy about your child’s inability to access their accommodations is too

1:47:43 – 1:47:49

 

much and so therefore you you’re not allowed to do that anymore meanwhile there’s no accountability

1:47:49 – 1:47:55

 

on the side of the school board about not providing the accommodations in the first place that are

1:47:55 – 1:48:00

 

causing the issue and then i guess thirdly i would recommend that all superintendents not just a

1:48:00 – 1:48:06

 

superintendent of special education and i feel immense sympathy for nandy debbie and the staff

1:48:06 – 1:48:13

 

that come to this table and have to face the consequences of their colleagues to this committee

1:48:13 – 1:48:18

 

immense sympathy for them and i think that it’s about time that superintendent field superintendents

1:48:19 – 1:48:26

 

need to come to this committee to understand the lived experiences of our students because

1:48:26 – 1:48:32

 

they’re making decisions not necessarily with the same experience or background or knowledge

1:48:32 – 1:48:37

 

that you or louise or now our director who will be attending might have because they don’t come or

1:48:37 – 1:48:44

 

know anything about special education and they rely very heavily on a heavily taxed department

1:48:44 – 1:48:50

 

for their education which is not inclusive to say you are solely responsible for the lack of

1:48:50 – 1:48:56

 

accommodation in the school is ludicrous i can’t we can’t come to the superintendent of special

1:48:56 – 1:49:01

 

education about that for 40 000 children those superintendents need to be held accountable

1:49:01 – 1:49:08

 

for understanding the lived experiences of our kids right thanks i’m going to just say if people

1:49:09 – 1:49:15

 

have other feedback that you would like feel free to use our email network over the summer and share

1:49:15 – 1:49:23

 

it around and we can decide whether we want to do anything about this or nothing at all

1:49:23 – 1:49:28

 

before we get to the leadership report Jessica do you want to just bring your motion forward

1:49:28 – 1:49:35

 

this is the second uh Leanne i should have given you the heads up but it’s the uh it’s the auditor

1:49:35 – 1:49:41

 

(Note: This is the motion as proposed:

“Report to Toronto District School Board Special Education Advisory Committee

 

From: David Lepofsky, SEAC Chair

 

Date: June 3, 2026

 

I have lots to report in preparation for the June 8, 2026 TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee Meeting. This report is longer than usual because so much is going on.

This report includes two proposed motions from SEAC members. If you have any required wording changes you wish to request, it would be great if you could email all SEAC members as soon as you can, and before the meeting, so we can consider refinements. This will help us get through our busy meeting agenda. Of course, it is always open to a SEAC member to seek a revision to a proposed motion at the meeting. However if we can iron such things out in advance, that helps us cover more ground at the meeting.

 

 1. Approving the March 2026 SEAC meeting Minutes

We have deferred to June considering whether to approve the March 2026 SEAC meeting minutes. There are 3 additions that I asked staff to make before the draft minutes were circulated, but which senior staff have refused to make.

I asked senior staff for their reason. I was told that these were excluded because the meeting minutes are supposed to be “high level.” I confess that I still have never received an explanation of what they mean by “high level.”

I will propose these three amendments, which track the wording that senior staff refused. All are accurate records of what in fact was said. Their inclusion does not materially change the nature of the minutes as minutes.

The common theme among these three points is this: Each involves feedback to TDSB, which is SEAC’s core role. Each raises an objection to something TDSB has done. Editing each seems to try to diminish criticisms of TDSB. I believe the minutes should be an accurate record of feedback we have given.

5. In the discussion of TDSB staff refusing to send to other Ontario SEACs copies of my February letter to the Minister, I proposed to add this:

“The Chair noted that the Associate Director, Student Learning & Equitable Outcomes had previously advised him that TDSB’s policy or protocol was that when SEAC writes a letter to the Minister of Education and copies it to Ontario’s other SEACs, TDSB would forward that letter to the other school boards to deliver it to their SEAC. The Associate Director, Student Learning & Equitable Outcomes stated that TDSB has decided to revise that policy or protocol.”

 

6. In the discussion about the Supervisor not seeking SEAC input before making certain decisions, staff eliminated the following:

“SEAC members also noted that the trustees on SEAC used to regularly report to SEAC about issues that the trustees are considering, and that the TDSB website only includes a few actions by the supervisor. Presumably he is doing much more that is not recorded there.”

7. In the discussion of TDSB’s decision to eliminate the maximum size of any individual Grade 4 to 8 class, I had added the following, which senior staff disallowed:

“SEAC members expressed serious concern that TDSB was not told about this increase afterwards, or consulted on it in advance, and that it can create further barriers to effective inclusion of students with disabilities/special education needs in the regular classroom.”

8. In the discussion of SEAC’s objections to the TDSB parents’ survey that that gave parents the option of supporting or opposing special education as a budget priority:

“As well, at last June’s SEAC meeting, the TDSB Associate Director, Student Learning & Equitable Outcomes had apologized on behalf of TDSB to its having been included in that year’s budget survey.

TDSB’s Interim Director of Education stated that this year’s survey was different, because last year’s survey asked about priorities for budget cuts while this year’s survey asked for priorities about budget spending. SEAC members provided the feedback that this is a distinction without a difference. In both cases, TDSB parents are offered the chance to choose to prefer deprioritizing special education as a budget spending priority. They also stated that special education is required to be a spending priority. This budget is misleading parents by suggesting or implying that it could be otherwise.”

 

 2. TDSB Budget for Next School Year

TDSB has received budget information from the Ontario Government on how much funding TDSB will get next year. At this meeting, TDSB’s budget lead will brief us on their actual budget plans, and invite our feedback and questions.

I am by this report asking that TDSB send us as much budget information as possible, including their slides, well before the meeting so we can review it and prepare for the meeting. Most if not all of the time, we have budget material presented for the first time at the meeting itself, or a few hours before the meeting. This does not give us the time we need to prepare. As a blind person, I am put in the position of either missing out on details set out in slides presented to us, or slowing down the meeting to get all that information read aloud. I am asking TDSB to prevent this from recurring at this meeting.

There have been TDSB decisions announced just before our last meeting, or since that meeting, that involve cuts to classes or some TDSB staff. This cannot be disentangled from budget. I know we will all want to know what next year’s budget portends for students with disabilities/special education needs. Such reductions are going on at more than one of the school boards that are run by the Ministry, not just TDSB. It certainly looks from the outside as if this is part of a larger Ontario Government strategy of cuts to special education tied to budget concerns.

As part of this agenda item, I anticipate that we all want to know about the impact on TDSB’s central staff of the overall staff reductions that TDSB made just before our May meeting, and which were not announced to us at that May meeting.

 

 3. A Forthcoming Motion at This SEAC Meeting Regarding TDSB’s Eliminating 15 Diagnostic Kindergarten Classes

Related to the budget topic, we will consider this motion from a SEAC member:

MOTION Regarding Diagnostic Kindergarten Class Size Increases and Planned Classroom Reductions

 

WHEREAS the students in the Toronto District School Board’s Diagnostic Kindergarten (DK) program require intensive early intervention and specialized educational support for students with complex developmental, communication, medical, and learning needs; and

WHEREAS the programming for these students depends on low student-to-staff ratios, individualized instruction, safe learning environments, and effective access to support tailored to a student’s individual needs;

WHEREAS last year the TDSB Supervisor increased the maximum class size cap in Diagnostic Kindergarten classrooms from eight to ten students in 2025 despite concerns expressed by educators, families, SEAC and parents’ advocates, and despite a vote to the contrary by the elected TDSB trustees;

WHEREAS the media has publicly reported on increased student dysregulation, sensory overload, diminished individualized support, and deteriorating classroom conditions following the increase in class sizes;

WHEREAS the TDSB has now announced plans to eliminate 15 Diagnostic Kindergarten classrooms this fall;

WHEREAS SEAC has repeatedly raised serious concerns with TDSB senior staff over the past decade that parents/guardians of students with disabilities/special education needs have substantial difficulties finding out from TDSB what programs, services and supports are available at TDSB for students with disabilities/special education needs, and continue at present to raise this concern;

WHEREAS TDSB cannot therefore justify such a reduction in the number of these classes by any asserted drop in the demand for these classes from parents, since parents can encounter those difficulties in learning what TDSB offers in such classes;

WHEREAS many students and families have described feeling excluded by their local schools and told that their child’s needs are too challenging for them to be able to attend locally;

WHEREAS it is difficult to believe that a projected reduction of a total of 5,000 TDSB students next year (including all students, not just students with disabilities/special education needs) could account for this reduction in Diagnostic Kindergarten classes;

WHEREAS, while SEAC does not seek to direct day-to-day operational decisions of TDSB staff, a planned reduction of 15 Diagnostic Kindergarten classrooms is a system-level change affecting the availability, accessibility, and delivery of special education programs and services, and falls squarely within SEAC’s mandate to provide advice and recommendations on matters affecting special education at TDSB;

WHEREAS TDSB staff did not consult the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee on the possibility of this reduction in the number of Diagnostic Kindergarten classes, or even notify SEAC of this decision after the fact, before making this decision to get SEAC’s input despite the fact that several SEAC members voiced strong concerns about increase in Diagnostic Kindergarten class sizes at meetings last spring;

WHEREAS SEAC members had to learn about this forthcoming reduction in the number of Diagnostic Kindergarten classes from the media and from parents;

WHEREAS it is no justification for TDSB’s conduct regarding SEAC that such reductions are made by TDSB’s normal process for deciding on such programs and/or is an operational matter. Whether or not it is part of such normal processes or is an operational matter, SEAC’s mandate is to give input on the design and delivery of special education At TDSB;

 

SEAC therefore recommends as follows:

1. TDSB should notify its Special Education Advisory Committee when it anticipates a reduction in the number of any classes, services or supports for students with disabilities/special education needs and should seek SEAC’s input before a decision on such reductions is reached;
2. TDSB should substantially improve its communications to parents/guardians, including parents/guardians of TDSB students with disabilities/special education needs, so they can easily learn about the programs, placements, services and supports available for students with disabilities/special education needs;
3. TDSB staff should provide SEAC with the data, analysis, and rationale used to support the planned reduction of 15 Diagnostic Kindergarten classrooms, including enrolment projections, waitlist information, referral trends, class utilization rates, staffing ratios and the anticipated impact on students and families;
4. TDSB staff should report to SEAC on the anticipated impact of the proposed Diagnostic Kindergarten classroom reductions, including effects on class size, travel times, transportation, student access, waitlists, staffing and student achievement;
5. TDSB should conduct meaningful consultations with affected families and report the results to SEAC to evaluate the impact of changes to class cap sizes, as well as families on wait lists;
6. TDSB should arrange for TDSB’s senior staff member in charge of communications to attend a SEAC meeting this fall to discuss TDSB efforts in this regard and
7. TDSB should forward this motion to the Director of Education, the TDSB Chief Executive Officer, the TDSB Supervisor, the Minister of Education, and the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario.

 

 4. TDSB Special Education Plan

Because some SEAC members had concerns about TDSB staff’s proposed changes to the Special Education Plan, there have been direct discussions with staff since our last SEAC meeting. Staff will report back at the June SEAC meeting. Any issues that were not resolved over the past month can be raised with staff at this meeting. I would welcome feedback from SEAC members via email on creating a better process for TDSB staff and SEAC members to be able to discuss the Special Education Plan next year.

 

  5. TDSB Letters of Expectation

As I announced in my May 2026 SEAC Chair’s report, I learned that TDSB sometimes sends a “letter of expectation” to a parent or other person. That letter directs them with whom they may or may not speak at TDSB, and limits when they may communicate.

 

I have the operative paragraphs of one such letter. It does not identify the parent, student or school involved. These are the only excerpts from that letter that I have seen.

“It is important to clarify that while the Board has a duty to accommodate disability-related needs, there is no entitlement to a particular or preferred accommodation. The obligation is to provide reasonable, individualized accommodation that addresses identified functional limitations and removes barriers to access and participation, up to the point of undue hardship.”

And later:

“We must now address the pattern, frequency, and scope of ongoing communications. The Promoting Respect in the Workplace Procedure (PR739) defines “unreasonable complaint and conduct” as behaviour which, because of its nature or frequency, raises substantial health, safety, resource, or equity issues for the parties involved, including submitting high volumes of communications, refusing to accept explanations already provided, and insisting that matters be dealt with in ways incompatible with Board procedures.

Given the volume of correspondence and repeated revisiting of matters that have already been addressed, we are implementing the following communication structure effective immediately:

• All school-based concerns must be directed to the Principal as the single point of contact.
• Communication will be limited to one consolidated email thread per week.
• The Principal will provide one written response per week addressing any new and substantive issues raised.
• Matters that have already been addressed will not be relitigated unless new and relevant information is provided”

I gather from the context that this is meant to address situations where a parent or other person has engaged in repetitive contacts, the circumstances of which create a level of difficulty for TDSB. I have asked TDSB staff to give us a briefing or an explanation at our June 2026 SEAC meeting on the policies, procedures or protocols at TDSB for issuing such letters. It would especially help to know what TDSB’s criteria are for issuing such a letter, who decides whether to issue such a letter, what, if any, internal appeals or reviews are available to the parent, and what the duration of the terms set out in such a letter.

Our meeting is not the place for any specific instance or case to be raised or discussed. Nothing in the quotations I set out above identifies to whom this letter was addressed or what the context was.

 

I am very concerned about the unilateral nature of such letters, and that such letters can impair a parent’s ability to effectively advocate for their child’s special education and health/safety needs. I am especially interested in knowing what basis TDSB believes it has for issuing such a letter, what internal recourse a parent has at TDSB to seek to get such a letter rescinded and what safeguards are in place to prevent the unwarranted issuance of such a letter. I asked if we could hear from a TDSB official who has lead responsibility in this area.

This topic falls directly within our SEAC’s mandate. That mandate is broadly defined in Section 11(1) of Ontario Regulation 464/97 as follows:

“11. (1) A special education advisory committee of a board may make recommendations to the board in respect of any matter affecting the establishment, development and delivery of special education programs and services for exceptional pupils of the board.”

 

 6. New TDSB Senior Management Structure

I have asked TDSB staff to include in their Leadership Report an update on changes to senior management structure.

On May 22, 2026, TDSB announced that Camillo Cipriano, has been appointed the new Chief Executive Officer of TDSB. He previously served

as Director of Education of the Niagara Catholic District School Board. He starts on June 8, 2026. I’m hoping his first day on the job will include attending our SEAC meeting.

Under Bill 101, the new position of Chief Executive Officer is created for each school board. Under them, there is to be a Chief Education Officer, in charge of education at the board. I have seen no announcement of who will fill this role. It may be at some boards that these two positions will be combined, though that seems contrary to the design of Bill 101. I have asked staff to let us know what they know about this, and where the positions of people like Louise Sirisko, an Associate Director of Education, fits in. Will they report to the Chief Executive Officer or the Chief Education Officer?

 

 7. Impact of Bill 101 on Education for Students with Disabilities/Special Education Needs at TDSB

Under Bill 101, the Minister of Education can issue a wide range of new orders, directions, regulations and guidelines. This will no doubt have an impact on education for students with disabilities/special education needs. It will be important for TDSB staff to keep us apprised of these directives. I suspect it will be hard for TDSB to keep track of them.

I am by this report asking TDSB staff to let us know about this at our monthly meetings. If they need more time than the Leadership Report allows, I am happy to accommodate this.

 

 8. Roundtable Discussion on Feedback SEAC Received at Our April 13, 2026 Parents’ Forum

We will go around the table to give you a chance to identify follow-up ideas and issues arising out of the April 13, 2026 SEAC Parents’ Forum. For example, think of suggestions you can give TDSB staff on additions or changes to their Staff Action Plan arising out of the parents’ feedback we received.

There are 6 delegations in writing that we did not have time to review at our May meeting. Because our agenda is jammed, I’ve asked TDSB to forward those to you as part of the meeting mailout, so you can read them yourselves before the meeting. We won’t read them aloud at the SEAC meeting.

 

 9. Auditor General’s Report on Special Education

Since SEAC’s last meeting, the Auditor General released a blistering report about special education. We will want to hear from TDSB staff about TDSB plans in response to that report. This would fit in well to our agenda item on our responses/ideas coming from the April 13, 2026 SEAC Public Forum for parents of students with disabilities/special education needs

We will consider the following motion.

Motion:

WHEREAS the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario recently released a performance audit of special education in Ontario, recommending that “the Ministry require all school boards implement a standardized, quantitative mechanism to measure family reported experience in special education, and use this mechanism to conduct regular feedback cycles of parents/guardians of students receiving special education services and support”;

AND WHEREAS the Ontario Ministry of Education has agreed with the recommendation;

AND WHEREAS a Special Education Advisory Committee is responsible for making recommendations to the board on anything that impacts the establishment, development and delivery of special education programs and services for exceptional pupils of the board;

 

AND WHEREAS obtaining meaningful parent and caregiver feedback regarding special education programs and services falls directly within the advisory role of the Special Education Advisory Committee

THEREFORE the TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee Recommends:

1. The TDSB Special Education Advisory Committee should be given an opportunity to participate in the development and review of any parent/caregiver feedback survey related to education of students with disabilities/special education needs from the earliest stages of the process;
2. The survey should be distributed to the families and caregivers of all TDSB students with disabilities/special education needs;
3. The survey results and any resulting TDSB staff recommendations or action plans should be shared with the Special Education Advisory Committee for review and discussion; and
4. TDSB should forward this motion to the Director of Education, the TDSB Chief Executive Officer, the TDSB Supervisor, the Minister of Education, and the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario.”)

 

general thing right jessica correct okay uh it’s the second motion set out in my chair’s report

1:49:41 – 1:49:50

 

leanne if you could get it up onto the screen just so you know what what’s going on here

1:49:50 – 1:49:55

 

between meetings i was approached by two different members who wanted to bring motions forward i

1:49:55 – 1:50:02

 

thought the best way to do it is set it out in my report so you all had a chance to reflect and share

1:50:02 – 1:50:07

 

views before we got here jessica do you want to give us a one-minute summary absolutely um so the

1:50:07 – 1:50:13

 

auditor general’s report set out many concerns regarding special education delivery in ontario

1:50:13 – 1:50:18

 

one of the auditor general’s recommendations i thought was particularly relevant to this committee

1:50:18 – 1:50:24

 

in that the auditor general recommended that there be yearly parent surveys related to their

1:50:24 – 1:50:33

 

experiences and their children’s experience with special education services given surveys that

1:50:33 – 1:50:39

 

we’ve seen already i felt that it was important that we have a voice at the table that’s developing

1:50:39 – 1:50:46

 

those surveys so that we have a high quality survey with results that are usable so that’s

1:50:46 – 1:50:51

 

what this motion is about all right um could would somebody jessica i’m assuming you want to

1:50:51 – 1:50:57

 

move your motion yes please uh does somebody want to second it nora um do we require any discussion

1:50:57 – 1:51:07

 

or are people comfortable going to a vote no discussion all right all in favor of the motion

1:51:07 – 1:51:15

 

oh sorry sorry Jean paul oh sure go ahead

1:51:16 – 1:51:23

 

sorry your mic isn’t picking you up yes sorry there that’s better thanks so much i think that

1:51:23 – 1:51:36

 

is one why only should we expect them to we want them to we’ll say should let me let me choose not

1:51:36 – 1:51:45

 

to yeah that’s all i consider i consider that a friendly amendment we can change should to shall

1:51:45 – 1:51:52

 

okay uh you’ve got that lian

1:51:52 – 1:51:56

 

uh should to shall that’s correct let’s change it

1:51:56 – 1:52:03

 

all right with that unless there’s anything else all in favor

1:52:03 – 1:52:10

 

five here lian

1:52:14 – 1:52:17

 

i have nine online so that passes all right um our last agenda item for this uh june meeting

1:52:17 – 1:52:28

 

will be uh nandy leadership report who is going to now speak at 450 words a minute and only i will

1:52:28 – 1:52:35

 

understand uh david i’m going to kick off uh this evening as i promised last month the fantastic news

1:52:35 – 1:52:42

 

uh that nandy received the educational leader of the year from the council for exceptional children

1:52:43 – 1:52:51

 

toronto chapter and i had mentioned that i wanted to share the speech i have it on video so please

1:52:51 – 1:52:57

 

indulge us for just a few minutes so that you can hear a vice principal in our system who does not

1:52:57 – 1:53:05

 

know nandy uh who nominated her and uh the details are uh are incredible lian let’s take it away

1:53:05 – 1:53:13

 

all right elizabeth is going to try to share this thank you

1:53:13 – 1:53:20

 

me palmer nandy palmer’s leadership as executive superintendent of special education programs

1:53:32 – 1:53:39

 

and equitable outcomes at the toronto district school board exemplifies the vision courage

1:53:39 – 1:53:46

 

and sustained impact that the council for exceptional children educational leader of the

1:53:46 – 1:53:51

 

year award seeks to recognize with an extensive and extinguished career in special education and

1:53:51 – 1:53:59

 

inclusive leadership nandy has consistently advanced practices that center dignity equity

1:53:59 – 1:54:06

 

and high expectations for all learners her recent system level initiatives demonstrate both strategic

1:54:06 – 1:54:14

 

foresight and a deep commitment to meaningful change establishing a requirement that as a

1:54:14 – 1:54:21

 

september of 2026 all future vice principals principals and special edu superintendents of

1:54:21 – 1:54:29

 

education in the tbsb must hold special lian we uh we lost it

1:54:29 – 1:54:58

 

okay is it posted online somewhere um elizabeth is trying to get it back

1:54:59 – 1:55:11

 

i was having trouble sharing so she offered to do it so it seems to have some kind of an error

1:55:11 – 1:55:17

 

happening if not is it online posted where you can share a link and people can watch it so that

1:55:17 – 1:55:22

 

we can move on to the leadership thank you let’s let’s uh elizabeth just give it one

1:55:30 – 1:55:37

 

more shot and then we’ll move on and then we’ll send the link out

1:55:37 – 1:55:40

 

nandy’s got a link to share about louise next right

1:55:40 – 1:55:46

 

it takes uh just so little to express gratitude let’s just see let’s do it thank you david can

1:55:46 – 1:55:58

 

you get it going in the tbsb must hold special education qualifications ensuring that inclusive

1:55:58 – 1:56:06

 

leadership is also embedded across the system developing also a developmental disability

1:56:06 – 1:56:12

 

curriculum that affirms the right of students to be treated with respect while being challenged

1:56:12 – 1:56:18

 

to reach their full potential and also restructuring intensive support programs

1:56:18 – 1:56:25

 

teaching roles into term positions that strengthen the quality and commitment of educators serving

1:56:25 – 1:56:32

 

students with complex needs and also implementing a modified day tracking system has all increased

1:56:32 – 1:56:40

 

accountability and reduced unnecessary exclusion from school these are only a few of the initiatives

1:56:40 – 1:56:48

 

and they and they reflect a leader who not only understands the complexities of special education

1:56:48 – 1:56:54

 

but actively transforms systems to better serve our students nandy’s impact is grounded into a

1:56:54 – 1:57:03

 

breadth of leadership experience across multiple levels of education she currently serves as

1:57:03 – 1:57:10

 

executive superintendent of special education programs and equitable outcomes at the toronto

1:57:10 – 1:57:15

 

district school board from october 2024 until the present following her role as system superintendent

1:57:15 – 1:57:23

 

special education and inclusion april 2022 to mark october 2024 to superintendent of education

1:57:23 – 1:57:32

 

february 2021 to 20 moved to march 2022 prior to her work with the toronto district school board

1:57:32 – 1:57:42

 

she held several key leadership roles with the york region district school board

1:57:42 – 1:57:47

 

including richie regional principal inclusive schools and community services from january 2021

1:57:47 – 1:57:54

 

to february 2021 elementary school principal from september 2020 to december 2020 and september 2021

1:57:54 – 1:58:05

 

to june 2017 an elementary school vice principal from september 20 september 20 2008 to june 2011

1:58:05 – 1:58:17

 

she has also contributed provincially as an executive officer with the ontario ministry

1:58:17 – 1:58:24

 

of education from august 2020 to august 2017 to august 2020 and she’s influenced policy and practice

1:58:24 – 1:58:34

 

at a broader scale across all of these roles mandy has demonstrated an unwavering commitment

1:58:34 – 1:58:41

 

to equity inclusion and excellence in special education she always recognizes the hard work

1:58:41 – 1:58:49

 

of her team and colleagues as well mandy’s ability to translate vision into action coupled with her

1:58:49 – 1:58:57

 

dedication to improving outcomes for students with diverse learning needs makes her an outstanding

1:58:57 – 1:59:03

 

and deserving recipient of the council for exceptional children’s educational leader of

1:59:03 – 1:59:09

 

the year award congratulations mandy congratulations again thank you louise very very much for

1:59:09 – 1:59:23

 

don’t be mad at me i’m happy um i just wanted to quickly say that um staff in the department

1:59:23 – 1:59:33

 

as well as all of our staff across the district work really really hard to support students with

1:59:33 – 1:59:38

 

disabilities and special education needs and we come here month after month and i know we

1:59:38 – 1:59:43

 

don’t always agree but please know that we do agree on one thing and that is about supporting

1:59:43 – 1:59:49

 

all of our students um so i accepted that award on behalf of all of the staff and the families

1:59:49 – 1:59:56

 

and the students that work to support outcomes for students david i’m a little upset with you

1:59:56 – 2:00:02

 

because every month i prepare the leadership report and i get about 30 seconds um to share

2:00:02 – 2:00:09

 

the leadership report i’m extending the meeting as long as you need um and the leadership report

2:00:09 – 2:00:16

 

is not about great things that we’re doing in the department the leadership report is really about

2:00:16 – 2:00:20

 

highlighting um what our students are doing and achieving um and i want to share in detail this

2:00:20 – 2:00:28

 

piece so please bear with me so victoria park collegiate institute celebrating our extraordinary

2:00:28 – 2:00:34

 

graduates as students and staff prepare for graduation at victoria park collegiate the

2:00:34 – 2:00:39

 

school community is celebrating the achievements of eight graduates from the school’s intensive

2:00:39 – 2:00:44

 

support programs for students with mild intellectual disability collaboratively special

2:00:44 – 2:00:50

 

education and inclusion staff administration teachers guidance and families have worked to

2:00:50 – 2:00:56

 

map out unique post-secondary pathways for each of these students whether heading to specialized

2:00:56 – 2:01:02

 

programs at george brown and seneca college entering the workforce or stepping into family

2:01:02 – 2:01:07

 

businesses each graduate story reflects growth achievement and perseverance proud parents and

2:01:07 – 2:01:14

 

inspired students highlighted the impact of early transition planning and dedicated collaborative

2:01:14 – 2:01:20

 

support as part of their success the individual accomplishments within the school heart showcase

2:01:20 – 2:01:27

 

success and dedication one graduate not only secured their ontario secondary school diploma

2:01:27 – 2:01:33

 

but also earned the prestigious exceptional achievement award an additional ossd graduate

2:01:33 – 2:01:39

 

shun in a nursery co-op placement and will return this fall to mentor incoming grade nine students

2:01:39 – 2:01:45

 

in the mid isp another student also achieved their ossd and celebrated major milestones in

2:01:46 – 2:01:54

 

independent travel during a successful ymca co-op placement demonstrating a strong work

2:01:54 – 2:02:01

 

ethic one student successfully balanced employment with their studies and will attend seneca college

2:02:01 – 2:02:06

 

in the fall another classmate has shown a strong commitment to achieving her graduation goals

2:02:06 – 2:02:13

 

while pursuing her creative passion for graphic design another student is preparing to take his

2:02:13 – 2:02:19

 

skills into his family’s carpentry business and furthermore one student has expressed interest

2:02:19 – 2:02:25

 

in the george brown vocational program with the team supporting their next steps the final graduate

2:02:25 – 2:02:31

 

remains focused on summer employment and continuous skill building four of these graduates also

2:02:31 – 2:02:37

 

received recognition and funding through the victoria park collegiate institute special education

2:02:37 – 2:02:42

 

awards to maintain this incredible momentum the school hosted a specialized transitions workshop

2:02:42 – 2:02:49

 

in may to further equip these proud graduates with the self-advocacy and executive functioning

2:02:49 – 2:02:55

 

skills needed to thrive as they begin their post-secondary journey we are so proud of these

2:02:55 – 2:03:00

 

graduates so really wanted to highlight there are the achievements of students in those isps at

2:03:00 – 2:03:08

 

victoria park collegiate and uh victoria park collegiate and uh really quickly i’ll fly through

2:03:08 – 2:03:16

 

the rest of the leadership report um it is june and we are still offering parent engagement

2:03:16 – 2:03:23

 

sessions and we’re looking particularly at supporting students at home during the summer

2:03:23 – 2:03:29

 

months um so those are some parent sessions that we’re offering on june 2nd and 3rd we hosted a

2:03:29 – 2:03:35

 

parent engagement session focusing on helping children maintain healthy routines throughout

2:03:35 – 2:03:40

 

the summer while exploring engaging sensory activities that support growth development and

2:03:40 – 2:03:46

 

overall well-being the sessions drew a hundred sorry a total of 17 attendees and of the attendees

2:03:46 – 2:03:53

 

who completed the survey 100 of them rated the session a five out of five in terms of usefulness

2:03:53 – 2:04:00

 

and the majority of attendees felt better informed about how to help their children

2:04:00 – 2:04:04

 

maintain healthy routines throughout the summer months as always a copy of the recorded is shared

2:04:04 – 2:04:10

 

on our special education and inclusion parent engagement web page we also have published our

2:04:10 – 2:04:17

 

june newsletter to families which has a lot of summer activities and information and resources

2:04:17 – 2:04:23

 

for families as well next slide please lianne oops uh sorry i lost my screen apologies for that

2:04:23 – 2:04:35

 

on may 12th and 13th special education and inclusion hosted a parent engagement session

2:04:35 – 2:04:41

 

for parents on foster focusing on empowering teens with adhd i’m really happy to say that the

2:04:41 – 2:04:48

 

session drew a total of 357 attendees 163 on may 28th and 194 on may 29 of the attendees who

2:04:48 – 2:04:59

 

completed the survey 76 rated the session of four or five out of five in terms of usefulness and the

2:04:59 – 2:05:06

 

majority of attendees felt better informed about how to support and access support for their children

2:05:06 – 2:05:12

 

with adhd next slide please on the june 5th pa day the department continued to host professional

2:05:12 – 2:05:22

 

learning sessions for support staff focusing on tier one strategies in the kindergarten classroom

2:05:22 – 2:05:28

 

structuring unstructured time supporting co-regulation and emotional well-being of

2:05:28 – 2:05:33

 

students how to use abc data logs and how to support students in asd and mid isps we also

2:05:33 – 2:05:42

 

had question and answer sessions more informally as well as sessions focused on sensory and self

2:05:42 – 2:05:48

 

regulation these hands-on sessions provided an opportunity for support staff to learn and

2:05:48 – 2:05:53

 

further develop their skills and explore effective inclusionary practices to implement accommodations

2:05:53 – 2:05:59

 

in classrooms that incorporate universal design for learning and differentiated instruction

2:05:59 – 2:06:05

 

and of course even though we’re at the end of june or in june we continue to offer professional

2:06:05 – 2:06:11

 

learning sessions for staff around some of those topics i just mentioned and finally june is national

2:06:11 – 2:06:19

 

deafblind awareness month in canada and we have provided resources for staff on how to acknowledge

2:06:19 – 2:06:27

 

and celebrate that as well as redshirt day on wednesday june 5th and the purple walk which will

2:06:27 – 2:06:33

 

be held on june 20th at college park again once again for epilepsy toronto’s most spirited day of

2:06:33 – 2:06:42

 

the year so that concludes my leadership report happy to take any questions any questions

2:06:42 – 2:06:49

 

okay sorry david if no questions i also wanted to express my gratitude on behalf of

2:06:51 – 2:06:58

 

the entire department as well as the entire tdsp to all cac members it is our 10th and

2:06:58 – 2:07:05

 

final cac meeting for the 2025 2026 school year so thank you everyone for your partnership and

2:07:05 – 2:07:13

 

collaboration do we this is graduation okay uh thank you all very much i’m gonna call the

2:07:13 – 2:07:22

 

meeting for this uh for tonight and wishing you all a healthy safe and enjoyable summer thank

2:07:22 – 2:07:29

 

you for all of you for your time staff and and cac members

2:07:29 – 2:07:34