1 / 19

Staff Presentation to the Budget Committee February 17, 2010 Toronto District School Board

Increased Demands; Decreased Funding: Special Education Funding at the Toronto District School Board. Staff Presentation to the Budget Committee February 17, 2010 Toronto District School Board. Increased Demands; Decreased Funding. Content: Student Needs Profile of Grant & Expenditures

holden
Download Presentation

Staff Presentation to the Budget Committee February 17, 2010 Toronto District School Board

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Increased Demands; Decreased Funding: Special Education Funding at the Toronto District School Board Staff Presentation to the Budget Committee February 17, 2010 Toronto District School Board F07(specedfunding)kf.3383

  2. Increased Demands; Decreased Funding Content: • Student Needs • Profile of Grant & Expenditures • Recommendations to the Ministry F07(specedfunding)kf.3383

  3. Pressures on Special Education Resources Increased Student Needs 2005/06 – 2009/10 Enrolment has decreased by 13,600 (5.4%) across the Board BUT we’ve seen a total increase in students with special needs by 5,200 (16%). Increase of 3,000 (25%) students with IEPs (Individual Education Plan) (students with needs, but not identified as exceptional by IPRC) Increase of 2,200 (11%) students with exceptionalities and identified by IPRC (Identification, Placement, and Review Committee) F07(specedfunding)kf.3383

  4. Pressures on Special Education Resources Increased Student Needs 2005/06 – 2009/10 Examples of increases by Exceptionality: F07(specedfunding)kf.3383

  5. Pressures on Special Education Resources Illustration of Intensive Classroom Support incremental costs for a student with: • Autism - $26,000 • Developmental, Learning & Physical Disabilities - $9,000 • Mild Intellectual Disabilities - $5,000 • Behaviour – $13,500 ***Note: Funding is provided to support all Special Education costs – not on a per student basis*** F07(specedfunding)kf.3383

  6. Examples of Incremental Costs per Student that have Significant Resource Needs Student requires 1 to 1 teaching - $87,000 Student needs two CYW’s (Child Youth Worker), two SNA’s (Special Needs Assistant) & a teacher - $131,000 And there are many more examples of high needs cases 6 F07(specedfunding)kf.3383

  7. Pressures on Special Education Resources Increased Number of Students with Complex Needs But Limited Funding Support • 1 in 5 students have mental health needs (ADHD, Anxiety, Depression) • 1 in 300-400 students have diabetes –Type 1 • 10% of students with exceptionalities have more than one exceptionality F07(specedfunding)kf.3383

  8. Professional Support Services (PSS) Total Referrals 2008/2009 • 27,853 referrals for all PSS Wait Lists (as of January 31, 2010) • 2100 - Psychological Services • 950 - Speech/Language Pathology Services • 279 - Social Work and Attendance Services, which represents a 130% increase from June 2006 F07(specedfunding)kf.3383

  9. Pressures on Professional Support Services (PSS) Enrolment Decrease of 13,600 (5.4%) across the Board BUT • An increase of 3,679 referrals to PSS from June 06 to June 09,which represents a 15% increase • Increase in number of referrals for students with complex needs, i.e., physical, cognitive, mental health, economic, etc… • Increased demand for programs that have proven effectiveness and demonstrated value in the areas of prevention and early intervention • Dramatic increase in the number of requests for in-services, workshops and other system involvements F07(specedfunding)kf.3383

  10. Waiting Lists Are Inequitable • Waiting lists do not impact all students with exceptionalities in the same way. • More affluent families can avoid waiting lists entirely by paying privately for professional support services. • This is inequitable. • No student should have to wait for the proper professional support services to help them succeed. F07(specedfunding)kf.3383

  11. Conclusion: Increasing Needs with Less Funding • Funding issues with the Ministry’s Funding Model impact how we currently serve our students with special needs. • A key underlying factor of these issues is who the Ministry considers to be the students with special education needs and the associated costs. It is not black and white. • The current funding formula for special education needs revision to address growing student demands. F07(specedfunding)kf.3383

  12. Profile of Grant and Expenditures F07(specedfunding)kf.3383

  13. Funding & Expenditures for 2009-10 (Note: The net increase in Funding since 2002-03 of about $40M is primarily due to funding of salary increases net of impact of declining enrolment) F07(specedfunding)kf.3383

  14. Change in Funding & Expenditures(Excluding Inflation) F07(specedfunding)kf.3383

  15. Profile of Grant Funding Changes • Special Education Per Pupil Amount (SEPPA): This is the only component of the grant that decreases with enrolment: • The Declining Enrolment Grant mitigates the impact of this in the first 2 years following the decline. It works as follows assuming a $2M grant reduction: • 1st year Board’s decline is offset by declining enrolment grant – retain $2M; • 2nd year offset reduces to 50% - retain $1M; • 3rd year offset reduces to 5% - retain $0.1M. F07(specedfunding)kf.3383

  16. Profile of Grant Funding Changescont’d • High Needs: • Grant reduced from 2006-07 to 2008-09 by $3M • Reduced again for 2009-10 by $1M • Reduction in 2009-10 resulted from Ministry’s new funding approach for High Needs students that was partially implemented • Impact for 2010-11 is not known at this time F07(specedfunding)kf.3383

  17. Conclusion: Increasing Needs with Less Funding We have $20M less funding or a decline of 8% since 2005-06 While: We are serving 5,200 more special needs students, or a 16% increase. Therefore, we are not serving our high needs students at the same level as in 2005-06. The shortfall in funding is the equivalent of about $551 per student served. 17 F07(specedfunding)kf.3383

  18. Recommendations to the Ministry • Amend funding model to fund increasing demands of high needs students. • Ensure adequate funding for the Early Learning Program’s Special Education Needs including the before and after school program. (It is too early to measure what impact ELP will have on Special Ed Services) • Target PD money to build staff capacity to teach students with special needs – as opposed to making cuts in PD which was done in 2009-10. F07(specedfunding)kf.3383

  19. Recommendations to the Ministry • Provide Boards with incentives for external partnerships to serve the needs of students. • Ministries need to come together to provide and fund health, mental health, education and social services in a holistic, child centered way. • Form an active Working Group of supervisory officers with special education & finance responsibilities to study the present funding model and to develop a realistic approach to funding High Needs students. F07(specedfunding)kf.3383

More Related