Other sorts of winds of possible change have been blowing in the Province and also locally as well. The Ministry, and indeed Minister Wynne, have very much been pushing the idea of 'inclusive' or 'integrated' or 'decongregated' regular classroom-based instruction and in-class or withdrawal support for most special needs exceptionalities most of the time. Last year a report was delivered which reviewed our Board's special education delivery and damned it for over-congregation. Some have slammed back at this report in kind. A 'congregated' or 'specialized' class is usually one with a more homogenous sort of special education need than a regular classroom would display.

Last year our Learning Support Services (LSS) department, charged with special education supports design and implementation, itself also reviewed all of our non-Gifted special education delivery and made several substantial decongregation recommendations in the non-Gifted domain. In addition staff practices focusing more on in situ supports (increased regular teacher training, other) and for which they did not require Board approval have been unrolling. Some of the non-Gifted decongregation staff recommended was not accepted by the Board last year and may be proposed again this year. The Board also directed that a study of the achievement rates and dropout rates of affected decongregated students be done before the Board would be comfortable proceeding much further much faster in this area. Partly the staff recommendations were made for pedagogical reasons but some were clearly made for cost-savings reasons also and debate and consideration in this area was tangled. The Board will likely have to continue to cut this year to an extent unless the government relents on funding but if we do then these new additional cuts will not likely have to be large. How much more non-Gifted decongregation will proceed is very unclear at this time.

Staff explicitly noted last year that their review of Gifted education delivery and supports would be coming forward this year. Staff now have been having generalist special education 'cafes' interested stakeholders and citizens could participate in and through which they could express their concerns or ideas and all reports are that they have been well-attended. Staff will be gathering putting the finishing touches on their Gifted delivery report fairly soon I imagine. The normal process would be that it would come first to our Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) for presentation and comment and also to Education Committee and out for some consultation before heading to Board. Again, some sorts of recommendations are likely to be Board ones and some to be staff ones for which Board authority is not actually required.

It is widely anticipated that one option which will be presented will, following the general lines of the non-Gifted review, be to importantly decongregate Gifted delivery. More focus would in this case be placed on regular teacher training and in-class or withdrawal supports for Gifted students. It is possible that other or complementary options may be presented. It is a little premature to speculate.

One key argument that congregated Gifted proponents make is that for Gifted ed the socialization aspect of a class of all Gifted students is equally or more important than any instructional differentiation which may occur. They also argue that many Gifted students simply will not thrive in a different setting and may indeed withdraw or become troubled. Concerns raised with congregation include those of elitism but also that the current Gifted delivery is actually of poor quality and that more can be done and maybe differently. Other arguments on each side abound as well. Related concerns may involve CCAT (IQ testing) deemphasis at the Board. Hearing the pros and cons in this debate should prove to be very interesting. What all seem to agree on is that this debate is not so much about extra cost or of generating cost-savings. Some of the cost estimates I have seen in the past seem to lowball it and not take account of all costs though I broadly accept that the extra costs are not very large.

• An important 2001 review of Gifted delivery at the OCDSB is available ... it highlights acceleration amongst other options ... whatever report comes forward this year will likely build on this and other information ...
• Minister Wynne's report
• Last year we had that damning Spec Ed Phase II report ...
• The Association of Bright Children (ABC) advocacy group published this reply to the Spec Ed Phase II report last year ...

If you are interested then watch the skies and make sure to engage fully in consultation opportunities when they arrive.