TDSB Deaf and Hard of Hearing Programs Program Area Review Team (PART)
Dec 27, 2015
TDSB Deaf and Hard of Hearing Programs
Program Area Review Team (PART)
History of the Process Resource Team and staff meetings
identified issues of concern
Coordinator presented an overview of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Programs to TDSB Central Feasibility panel in 2006, highlighting issues of concern
Motion approved by SEAC in October 2008 and then approved by the TDSB in November 2008 for a Program Area Review Team (PART)
This is a community consultation process that will assist the TDSB in developing the most detailed, accurate picture possible of student program and enrolment needs for the present and into the future
The PART membership will examine this ‘picture’ and make recommendations on how we can better serve our students’ needs
Program Area Review Team
Purpose Tonight
PART membership recommendations: 3 models of program delivery will be proposed
Feedback: Which models are best options for our students?
Motivators for the PART Transitions for Deaf and Hard of Hearing
students in Intensive Support Programs (ISP)
Transportation issues for students in ISP’s
Pathways for Deaf and Hard of Hearing students
Support services for Deaf and Hard of Hearing students
Transition Issues In April 2008: TDSB’s goal is to move
towards a K-8 delivery model for elementary schools
Elementary Deaf and Hard of Hearing students can change schools up to 4 - 5 times by secondary school
Transitions can occur at grades 1, 3, 5, and 8
Deaf and Hard of Hearing secondary students can attend three different sites
Transportation Issues Handouts
Of the 100 TDSB students who travel the greatest distance by bus, 20% constitute Deaf and Hard of Hearing students
60% of DHOH students travel over 10 km each way to their programs
Scattermap – No one solution to the problem
Pathways Pathways to promote student
success Equity of Access Community of learners
Building peer groups Professional development
Program Options Flexible and creative
Integration
Proposed Models
Three models Status Quo MODEL A MODEL B
PreschoolProgram
16 EA Signing17 SLF 10 EA
EATotals:
Oral
Signing
Oral / Sign support
Deaf Plus
Legend:
STATUS QUO - Deaf/Hard of Hearing– Feb. 2009
Briarcrest
Deaf Plus
Forest Hill
Bridlewood
Davisville/MTSD Grades K-8
4 SLFDanforth CTI
ItinerantProgram
Grades K - 2
Grades 3-4
Grades 5-8 PreschoolGrades 5 to 8
Grades K-4
Northern SS
Wexford PS
Drewry
Dublin Hgts.
Rippleton JK/SK (Itin)
Pelmo PK JK/SK (Itin)
Pre school
Status Quo - PROS Minimal or no changes needed to
program locations
Continuity of class space and locations
Itinerant Hearing Dept. and Resource staff remain centralized
Status Quo - PROS Davisville PS /MTSD, Drewry SS are
retrofitted for DHOH and have equipment that will benefit DHOH
Some programs are centrally located and close to a TTC stop
Current schools administrators, staff
and students have experience with DHOH students and their issues and accommodations
Status Quo - CONS Some schools are not accessible sites
e.g. for students with mobility issues
Some students will have to travel long distances on the bus
Some students will have several transitions to programs due to the number of sites
Status Quo - CONS No flexibility for changes in student or
staff numbers
Some students and teachers are isolated and have little peer support
One location for all elementary students who use sign language
MODEL A and B
Consolidation of Programs / Services
Consolidation of locations for Deaf and Hard of Hearing elementary self-contained programs Choice:
Three sites: East/West/Central or One central site
Consolidation of the two secondary programs
Consideration of elementary site for sign language users Choice:
Either Central, or One site
MODEL A and B Continued access to specialized programming
(Drewry SS; Rippleton/Pelmo Park)
Continue to maintain a central Itinerant office and decentralized Itinerant support services on site at schools throughout all quadrants
Consideration of a one or two site service delivery model for some of the families in the Parent Guidance Program
Proposed - MODEL A
Deaf MIDWEST PS-8 EAST PS-8
Oral
Signing
Oral / Sign support
Deaf Plus
Legend:
ItinerantProgram
PreschoolProgram
Secondary
Central K-8
Rippleton JK/SK (Itin)
Pelmo Park- JK/SK (Itin)
Pre school
MODEL A - PROS Enhanced capacity to share resource staff
(i.e. Educational Assistants, Sign Language Facilitators, Speech Language Pathologist, Audiologist, Social Worker)
Enhanced capacity for flexible, diagnostic and creative programming
Ability to retrofit classes and schools
MODEL A - PROS Flexibility: Able to better handle short
term changes in number of students and staff
Less transportation issues (i.e. time and behaviors)
Effective and efficient use of space
Equity of access (fully accessible site)
MODEL A - PROS Continued access to specialized
programming (Drewry SS/ Rippleton and Pelmo Park)
Fewer transitions for Hard of Hearing students in self-contained classrooms
Increased opportunities for ongoing peer
support
Possible increase in integration into regular programs
MODEL A - PROS Teachers would be part of a larger team
Parents have a larger support group
Students would have larger peer group
More access to materials/resources
MODEL A - CONS Finding space for several classes
Will not solve all transportation issues
Leaving established schools and friendships with staff
Physical move
MODEL A - CONS Central site needs to be an accessible site
e.g. for students with mobility issues
Students may have to travel further since it has the only programs for elementary signing students
Finding a location for Coordinator for DHOH, Audiologist, Technician, (Speech Resource teacher), Central Itinerant and Itinerant Dept. including Parent Guidance Program
Proposed - MODEL B
Deaf MID
Single site PS-8
Oral
Signing
Oral / Sign support
Deaf Plus
Legend:
ItinerantProgram
PreschoolProgram
Secondary
SecondaryPelmo Park- JK/SK (Itin)
Rippleton JK/SK (Itin)
Pre school
Secondary
MODEL B - PROS Enhanced capacity to share resource staff
(i.e. Educational Assistants, Sign Language Facilitators, Speech Language Pathologist, Audiologist, Social Worker)
Fewer transitions for Hard of Hearing students in self-contained classrooms
Community of Learners (students, teachers, support staff); stronger sense of community.
MODEL B - PROS
Ability to retrofit classes and school
Flexibility: Able to better handle short term changes in number of students and staff
Effective and efficient use of space
Equity of access (fully accessible site)
MODEL B - PROS Teachers would be part of a larger team
(networking, professional development)
Parents have a larger support group
Socialization - students would have larger peer group
More access to materials/resources
MODEL B - PROS Continued access to specialized
programming (Drewry SS/ Rippleton and Pelmo Park)
Increased opportunities for ongoing
peer support
Integration into regular programs is vital in this model
MODEL B - CONS Finding space for several classes
Must-haves : Location should be north and central, near major
highways, accessible, and large enough to accommodate approximately 19 classes.
Local student population to provide opportunities for integration. Administration committed to integration.
Need for space for support staff such as social worker, speech teacher, speech pathologist, audiologist.
Will not solve all transportation issues
MODEL B - CONS
Integration would be difficult given large numbers of students.
Finding a location for Central Itinerant and Itinerant Dept. including Parent Guidance Program Coordinator for DHOH, Audiologist, Technician, Speech Resource teacher.
Physical move
ITINERANT DEPT. Centralized co-ordination of the Itinerant
and Parent Guidance Program enhances delivery of professional development and sharing of resource materials
Supports and facilitates efficient management of intake referrals and FM amplification equipment, providing benefits to students in terms of best practices and speedy timelines
Itinerant numbers
162, 23%
200, 28%
274, 39%
41, 6%
31, 4%
Direct instruction
Program Support
Follow up
Assessments
Parent Guidance
Itinerant numbers by quadrant
196, 28%
164, 23%
144, 21%
198, 28%
NortheastNorthwestSoutheastSouthwest
Thank you !