1. How much new money??
The Minister says the new funding will be in the range of "tens of millions" so perhaps $20 million (a drop in the bucket when spread across BC's 55,000 designated students with special needs) or $90 million (which could really make a serious dent in addressing challenges, if allocated effectively).
In our recent brief to the provincial budget committee, MOMS urged an immediate reinvestment of targeted special education grants totalling $110 million (basically this would simply restore the targeted grants for high incidence students that Christy Clark eliminated when she was education minister in 2002), and take us back to where we were in 2001.
2. How will it be allocated??
Another question is how the new funds will be allocated and who gets to decide that. The notice suggests that teachers, their union and administrators would decide which are the neediest classrooms that can access this new funding to provide extra classroom supports.
The idea of a select group controlling access to these funds based on a competitive process and subjective assessments of which classroom has the most urgent needs could be very problematic. Especially so if these decisions are made by staff unions and administrators, as described, without input or review from parents, students and other stakeholders.
Under current provincial policy, parents and students with special needs are key partners in identifying priority special education needs and required resources at the individual level through the IEP (Individual Education Planning) process. Parents and other stakeholders are also key partners in advising on resource allocation priorities at the school and district levels, through public board budget processes and legislated school planning councils.
Under the current provincial funding formula, students with low-incidence special needs designations (like autism) generate supplemental grants, added to the funding that local boards receive from the Ministry. How those grants are spent and how much more/ less actually goes to special education is for boards to decide.
The challenge with school and board resource allocation processes is that special education is one of many competing stakeholder priorities, so there's no guarantee that new or existing funds will go to special education. In most cases, boards claim they already spend far more than they receive in grants on special education services and programs. But we certainly hear frequent complaints that at the board, school and even the classroom level, there can be enormous divergence in how the obligation to meet special education needs is interpreted.
Nevertheless, well-established existing processes for setting priorities and allocating resources would seem to be the logical starting point for deciding who gets what. Restoring the special education grants for high-incidence students with special needs (e.g. LD) would be a good start and would help to focus attention on a population of students that has suffered the most under the erosion that we've seen in the past decade.
3. Where is the accountability?
We have emphasized that the erosion of special education resources has not just been an issue of funding, but also one of accountability. The lack of accountability at any level for outcomes among students with special needs has certainly facilitated the erosion of special education resources. But questions are also frequently raised about whether the remaining resources are effectively spent. Without any evaluation or performance measures, no one can answer whether resources are being used as wisely as possible to support positive outcomes or benefits for students with special needs.
If we're investing new dollars in special education, we want to ensure those dollars are focussed where they can make the most difference for students and that they are spent in the most effectively manner to maximize benefits. For example, most BC-certified teachers, including most of those hired in specialist special education positions in recent years, have no training in special education or inclusion strategies. So simply hiring more unspecialized teachers may not be the best way to spend new dollars. You might achieve far more benefits for students (and more job satisfaction for teachers) by investing instead in training the existing teachers to use specialized teaching and inclusion strategies to make their classes more manageable and help all their students succeed.
BC already has a series of small, grossly-underfunded "provincial resource programs" that could serve as vehicles for distributing that kind of funding to support individual students and classrooms, while building capacity among teachers. Using the existing PRP channels also provides a basic answer to the question of who decides where the (limited) money goes and what are the most urgent needs, because those mechanisms are already in place.
In our recent brief, MOMS urged the province to establish a multi-stakeholder special education advisory table to advise the ministry at the macro level on how best to structure and focus a reinvestment in special education to ensure that it's focussed on maximizing positive outcomes for students who need support to succeed in school. Such a body could also advise on distribution mechanisms and workable accountability measures to ensure that new and existing dollars are spent as effectively as possible. It might advise, for example, that portions of the new funding be spent in different ways - i.e. a mix of highly-focussed projects to address key barriers as well as broad distribution to the front lines.
A final thought is that if new funds for special education are targeted and spent effectively with the overall goal of providing direct support, removing barriers AND building staff capacity, that would leverage and maximize the benefits of the investment. So it's not just a one-time benefit for the formally-designated students with special needs who generates additional supports, but ongoing benefits for students in subsequent years and also for the many "typical" students who occasionally struggle academically but whose outcomes could really be turned around just from the spin-off benefits of classrooms that are better equipped for learning as well as learning challenges.
4. Write the Minister
Please consider dropping a note to Education Minister George Abbott: [email protected]; Premier Christy Clark: [email protected] and your MLA (http://www.leg.bc.ca/mla/3-1-1.htm) to thank them for finally acknowledging the devastating impacts of cuts to special education and to urge them to address the above questions to ensure that our students get the support they need to succeed.
5. Further reading:
The following VPSI briefs provide further reading on class composition issues and special education funding in K-12:
The Tyee also had a good recent report on the special education funding shortfall:
More BC/Vancouver special education info at Vancouver Parents for Successful Inclusion
]]>
The report is titled "Isolated and Invisible: When chidlren with special needs are seen but not seen." It stems from an investigation launched by Mary Ellen Turpel Lafond's office after horrific media reports about a young girl with Down Syndrome who was found home alone and unattended 9 days after her mother died.
The report comes just months after BC's new Premier took office, promising an agenda for reform that would involve listening and putting "families first." Turpel Lafond urges Ms. Clark's government to act urgently to develop and implement a new strategy to address serious gaps in support for some of BC's most vulnerable children and their families.
The BC Association for Community Living issued a press release today reinforcing the findings of Turpel Lafond's report.
Meanwhile, concerns about serious gaps in the province's system of supports for children and youths with special needs were highlighted again last week with the heart-breaking story of an Abbotsford Dad whose daughter was removed from the home and placed in a psychiatric facility. The single father was struggling to raise two daughters with autism, without adequate family supports, and MCFD removed one of the daughters after she wandered away from home - a frequent challenge for many individuals with autism.
A Facebook page has been created to rally support for the Abbotsford family.
BC's ailing system of supports for children and youth with special needs
In BC, families of children with an autism diagnosis may receive funding to help families obtain specific early intervention therapies up to age 19. In most cases, the maximum funding only covers a fraction of the costs of required therapy. Red tape, arcane spending restrictions and complicated new rules have also made accessing this funding a nightmare for many families. Under this direct funding model, most families must also assume the role of employers, coordinators and case managers for the professionals involved in their child's therapy program, adding significantly to the stresses of parenting.
Children with other developmental disabilities, such as Down Syndrome, are still unable to access funding for early intervention therapy. Thus they have little if any opportunity to benefit from therapeutic interventions that can help them adapt and maximize their coping and independence skills.
The availability of family supports funded by the Ministry for Children and Families, such as respite, support workers and supports to access daycare, is severely rationed, as are special education services funded via the public education system. Family and education supports have become increasingly strained as Provincial funding has failed to keep pace with rising population levels and costs.
In addition, media reports over the tasering of a 10-year old child in a group home near Prince George have raised further concerns about the quality of care for children with special needs who are being raised in government care.
For many years, families, professionals and advocacy groups such as ours have been sounding the alarm that families are facing increasing and in some cases unbearable stresses. More and more children with special needs are being left behind due to British Columbia's fragmented, ineffective and inadequate network of supports for children and youth with special needs.
In 2008, Turpel Lafond published two reports (links here and here) urging the province to take action to address serious gaps and flaws in the system of supports for special needs. Since then, budget pressures have resulted in further cuts. Key recommendations from Turpel Lafond's 2008 reports have not been implemented.
The BC government has not publicly consulted or discussed a comprehensive provincial strategy for supporting children with autism and/or other special needs and their families in the past decade that MOMS has been in existence.
Moms and other advocacy groups have been urging Premier Clark's government to undertake a comprehensive needs assessment to ensure that available new funds are targetted towards the most urgent gaps in the current service framework. We have for example challenged the province's commitment to spend $20 million on capital costs for constructing a new provincial autism centre in East Vancouver, arguing that those dollars would be far better spent on direct supports to families and children.
Update: Link to MOMS' letter to the editor published in the Victoria Times Colonist on July 7
]]>In today's Victoria Times Colonist, Lindsay Kines reports on new CLBC documents that reveal the BC government is forcing community agencies to make further cuts to offset new costs and new demands.
Meanwhile, the BC Association for Community Living has issued a news alert, noting that BCACL has written Premier Christy Clark asking her to urgently respond to the growing crisis. The BCACL statement includes new budget numbers, based on CLBC's own figures, that show the BC government needs to address a $137 million funding gap in community living budgets by 2014.
If you haven't already written the Premier to urge her intervention, MOMS invites you to support our campaign by doing so ASAP. For more info, please visit the BC Community Living Action Group, the ad hoc network of family groups, service providers, caregivers and staff working to urge government to resolve the crisis in community living in BC.
Please encourage other Biritish Columbians in your circle of contacts to help give a voice to fellow adults whose challenges make it very difficult for them to make themselves heard in the din of BC's provincial politics!
Dawn & Cyndi, MOMS
===============
After further investigation, we have declined the request, as the documents do not violate the privacy of any individual and further, because we believe that sharing the contents is in the public interest. We have restored the links and the Ministry briefing notes can now also be accessed directly at this link.
However, we wish to emphasize that the best way to ensure that families and the public are fully and accurately about the Province's plans to address major gaps in services for children with autism and other special needs is for Provincial authorities to demonstrate greater transparency and openness than has been true to date.
Background: We received these documents last summer. After months of further research and investigation, we requested in an Open Letter dated Oct 7, 2010 that the Province clarify several issues and concerns raised in the documents.
In particular, we noted contradiction relating to claims by Provincial authorities that public funding support for PAFC would improve services for children with autism. The leaked Ministerial briefing notes discussed plans to reallocate budgets for existing autism programs to cover PAFC's operating expenses, despite warnings from provincial policy advisers that this would negatively impact access to diagnosis and assesment, for example. In our open letter to Premier Campbell, MCFD Ministry Mary Polak and Rich Coleman, Minister responsible for BC Housing (the source of the promised $20 million capital contribution to PAFC) we raised the following questions:
1) Immediately address the contradictions noted above and to clarify the status of the Province's planning and intentions around this project.
2) Cancel any further provincial funding and technical support for PAFC until the Ministry's own consultations demonstrate whether this project is consistent with province-wide community priorities for improving services and supports, as demonstrated through open, objective and transparent Ministry consultations.
3) Commit to families that there will be no reduction of current eligibility or access to autism services for children, youth or adults with ASD and their families.
4) Before allocating any further provincial capital or operating funding to PAFC, commit the new Provincial dollars required to expand eligibility and access to early intervention and family support services for children and youths with other developmental disabilities based on individual need, as specified under Pillar #3 of the 'Strong, Safe and Supported' Ministry Action Plan, and without any forced reduction in current access or eligibility for individuals with autism.
Six months later, Provincial officials have not answered any of these questions. In a public ceremony, Premier Campbell again claimed that the province's investment in PAFC would benefit children with autism. MOMS again challenged this claim. This time we provided a link to the actual ministry briefing documents that underlay our questions, in response to claims that we were misinforming and unduly alarming families.
We again urge the Province to act in a transparent manner and to demonstrate responsible governance principles to restore confidence that the Province is acting in the best interests of children, youths and adults with autism by:
1) Commissioning an independent needs asssesment to clarify the key gaps that need to be addressed to meet the needs of children, youths and adults with ASD in the province. Committing significant public dollars to support a costly private project without undertaking an objective needs assessment or a competitive RFP process is not consistent with principles of responsible governance.
2) Establishing a provincial mechanism to consult directly with families and other autism interests on autism needs, policies and priorities, and where best to invest any new public dollars to address those priorities.
3) Setting out, in clear and measurable terms, the Province's objectives for improving autism services, and how any proposed program/policy changes and/or investments of public dollars will support those objectives.
Dawn & Cyndi, MOMS
]]>