Appendices

First Nations, Métis and Inuit experiences

Recognize distinctions

1. The Ministry of Education (Ministry), school boards and others should use “First Nations, Métis and Inuit” when possible and appropriate. Recognizing and distinguishing between First Nations, Métis and Inuit makes sure that all First Nations, Métis and Inuit children and youth see themselves in the school system, feel represented, and have trust that their unique needs are understood and being met.

 

2. The recommendations in this report should also be interpreted and implemented in a way that addresses the unique needs of distinct Indigenous peoples. First Nations, Métis and Inuit self-identification in terms of community and Nation as well as geographic or region-specific distinctions should be taken into account. Local decision-makers such as school boards should learn about and consult local Indigenous communities.

 

Follow existing recommendations for supporting First Nations, Métis and Inuit students

3. Many reports have made recommendations to improve First Nations, Métis and Inuit students’ learning, experiences and well-being in school. Recommendations have included improving access to First Nations, Michif and Inuktut language instruction, First Nations, Métis and Inuit culture, knowledge and perspectives for all students; providing professional development for educators and board professional staff; easing transitions for students; and taking steps to address racism and systemic discrimination. The Ontario Ministry of Education and every Ontario school board should implement all existing recommendations for supporting First Nations, Métis and Inuit students including:

1. The May 2017 First Nations Special Education Review Report and the 2017 Chiefs of Ontario Position Paper recommendations that relate to Ontario’s role in First Nations special education
2. The Ontario Federation of Indigenous Friendship Centres’ recommendations on how to address the accessibility needs of urban Indigenous students, in its July 2017 Response to the Development of an Accessibility Standard for Education
3. The recommendations to Ontario from the Seven Youth inquest
4. The Truth and Reconciliation Calls to Action, particularly those related to education and updating all provincial curriculum to include Indigenous perspectives and content
5. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls’ Calls for Justice, particularly those related to education.
6. The Council of Ontario Directors of Education Listening Stone Project Reports
7. The OHRC’s recommendations in To Dream Together: Indigenous peoples and human rights dialogue report.

When implementing recommendations in these reports related to Indigenous content in curriculum and culturally appropriate resources for First Nations, Métis and Inuit learners, the Ministry and school boards should make sure First Nations, Métis and Inuit are each reflected and children from these communities see their own identities positively reflected in the materials. This will give them a sense of belonging and pride.

 

4. The Ontario Ministry of Education and all Ontario school boards should review and, where necessary, revise the First Nations, Métis and Inuit Policy Framework and Indigenous Education Strategy, to make sure it reflects these recommendations.

 

5. The Ontario Ministry of Education, and all Ontario school boards, should make sure boards have an Indigenous Education Advisory Council as required under the Ontario First Nation, Métis, and Inuit Education Policy Framework Implementation Plan. School boards should make sure the Councils, and any other places where First Nations, Métis and Inuit students are discussed, are representative of each of the Indigenous communities that are represented in the school board, to ensure that distinct needs and perspectives of students and families are addressed.

 

6. The Ontario Ministry of Education and all Ontario school boards should use the UN Declaration as a framework for implementing these recommendations. The UN Declaration should be interpreted in conjunction with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Articles 7 and 24) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 28).

 

Treat First Nations schools equitably

7. The federal government should implement the recommendations for federally funded First Nations schools in reports referenced in Recommendation 3.

 

8. First Nations schools should receive funding that is equitable compared to provincially funded schools, and any additional funding needed to ensure substantive equality, considering the unique circumstances of students attending First Nations schools.

 

9. The recommendations in this report should be implemented in First Nations schools, as applicable.

 

Use trauma-informed and culturally sensitive approaches

10. The Ministry of Education should encourage all school boards and schools to adopt trauma-informed and culturally safe approaches including by providing guidance, resources and supports.

 

11. All school boards and schools should create trauma-informed and culturally safe school environments and provide comprehensive, sustained and job-embedded training to educators on trauma-informed and culturally safe practices.

 

Identify Indigenous students and provide access to supports

12. School boards should not delay or fail to identify Indigenous students with learning difficulties based on culturally biased practices/assessments or assumptions related to their Indigenous identity.

 

13. Ontario should publicize, adopt and implement a broad approach to Jordan’s Principle and Inuit Child First Initiative funding, consistent with the purpose of ensuring substantive equality, that recognizes that federal funding is available for any government service that is provided to children including health, social and education services such as professional assessments, tutoring and assistive technology.

 

14. Ontario school boards and community service providers should know the criteria and process for applying for federal Jordan’s Principle or Inuit Child First Initiative funding, and promote the use of this funding to access supports to address any needs of First Nations and Inuit students.

 

15. School boards and schools should recognize the role of Friendship Centres and urban Inuit organizations in coordinating holistic, culture-based supports for urban First Nations and Inuit students and their families.

 

16. Ontario school boards and community service providers should understand the role of the MNO in representing and providing wrap-around services to its Métis citizens. The Ministry and school boards should work as partners with the MNO and Métis communities in the school board’s area. School boards should foster the relationship between schools and the MNO’s Education Support Advocacy program. Financial contributions from the province to the MNO’s Education Support Advocacy program would allow for enhanced supports to be provided to Métis learners in a predictable way every year.

 

17. Provincial and federal funding for supports for First Nations, Métis and Inuit students should provide for additional costs associated with northern, remote or isolated circumstances, and should include the cost of travel to receive services, where necessary.

 

18. School boards and schools should recognize First Nations, Métis and Inuit Elders as knowledge keepers and educators, and recognize their role in transmitting cultural knowledge to the younger generation and building stronger, healthier and more resilient young people, families and communities. School boards and schools should increase access to Elders and guest speakers in schools and make sure Elders/guest speakers are representative of all First Nations, Métis and Inuit students represented in the board.

 

19. School boards’ acknowledgements of Indigenous peoples and territories should recognize each of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples and territories as appropriate. They should also recognize significant events and days, such as Treaties Recognition Week, National Indigenous Peoples Day, Powley Day and Louis Riel Day.

 

Use instruction and intervention approaches that are effective and inclusive

20. The Ontario Ministry of Education and all school boards should provide evidence-based curriculum and classroom instruction in foundational reading skills in a way that is inclusive to all students, including First Nations, Métis and Inuit students. They should find ways to also incorporate Indigenous experiences, culture and values throughout classroom content.

 

21. Educators should not promote the English or French languages of instruction at the expense of Indigenous languages. They should encourage proficiency in Indigenous languages, recognize the benefits for children when they have proficiency in their own Indigenous language and the language of instruction (English or French), and never discourage students from using or learning their language.

 

22. For First Nations, Métis and Inuit students with or at risk for word reading disabilities, school boards should provide immediate intervention with evidence-based programs. Delays in providing interventions or using interventions that are not rooted in strong evidence with a focus on foundational reading skills will further disadvantage these students.

 

Improve approaches to self-Identification and data

23. School boards should work with First Nations, Métis and Inuit governments (local First Nations governments and the MNO) and local organizations (such as Friendship Centres, Tungasuvvingat Inuit) to understand and respond to any concerns with self-identification. They should clearly communicate how self-identification benefits First Nations, Métis and Inuit students and how self-identification data will be kept confidential and used. They should never use self-identification data to portray First Nations, Métis or Inuit students in a negative or disrespectful way.

 

24. School boards should make sure they have data on the percentage of students who self-identify as First Nations, Métis and Inuit overall, and broken down by First Nation, Métis and Inuit.

 

25. School boards should collect and analyze data on achievement and outcomes (such as EQAO results, course completion and graduation rates) for students who have self-identified as First Nations, Métis and Inuit. They should track whether First Nations, Métis and Inuit students have IEPs or have been identified with an LD exceptionality (see also recommendations related to data collection in section 13, Systemic issues). They should respond to any equity gaps identified in the data.

 

26. School boards should share this data with First Nations, Métis and Inuit governments (local First Nations governments and the MNO) and local organizations (such as Friendship Centres, Tungasuvvingat Inuit) on a regular basis. They should work as partners with these governments and organizations to make sure culturally appropriate supports can be provided to improve First Nations, Métis and Inuit students’ outcomes.

 

Curriculum and instruction

Revise the Kindergarten Program and Grades 1-8 Language curriculum

27. The Ministry of Education (Ministry) should work with external expert(s) to revise Ontario’s Kindergarten Program and Grades 1–8 Language curriculum to:

1. Remove all references to cueing, cueing systems and guessing strategies for word reading
2. Remove all references to any other instructional approaches to teaching foundational reading skills that have not been scientifically validated
3. Require mandatory explicit, systematic and direct instruction in foundational reading skills, including phonemic awareness, phonics and decoding, and word reading proficiency
4. Beginning in the Kindergarten Program and continuing in the Grades 1–8 Language curriculum, explicitly state expectations for teaching phonemic awareness, letter-sound associations, word-level decoding (including blending sounds to read words and segmenting words into sounds to write words), word-reading proficiency or fluency (number of words read per minute) and knowledge of simple morphemes. The Grades 1–8 Language curriculum should include more advanced word study in and beyond Grade 2/3, and outline more advanced expectations with morphology, knowledge and analysis of words, through the middle grades and beyond
5. Incorporate other aspects of a comprehensive approach to literacy which are addressed in the research science such as evidence-based instruction in oral language, reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge and spelling and writing.

 

28. The Ministry should specify that all critical elements of explicit, systematic and direct instruction in foundational word-reading skills in the revised Kindergarten Program and Grades 1–8 Language curriculum are mandatory and not optional. The Ministry should provide specific and scaffolded grade-level expectations for each foundational word-reading skill. The Ministry should clarify that early literacy skills, such as phonemic awareness, knowledge of letter names and sounds and how to print letters, and decoding simple words are all expected in Kindergarten.

 

29. The Ministry should develop the revised Kindergarten Program and Grades 1–8 Language curriculum on an expedited basis, but should include all the necessary steps in the curriculum review process.

 

Revise early literacy resources

30. The Ministry should work with external expert(s) to revise Ontario’s Guide to Effective Instruction in Reading (Kindergarten to Grade 3) and Guide to Effective Literacy Instruction (Grades 4 to 6) and other supplementary resources and materials to:

1. Remove all references to cueing, cueing systems and guessing strategies for word reading
2. Remove all references to balanced literacy and associated concepts such as teaching word reading with the use of cueing systems or through reading books within the current gradual release of responsibility model (instruction through modelling book reading with word problem-solving using cueing systems, shared reading with word problem-solving using cueing systems, guided and independent text reading focused on word problem-solving using cueing systems, and mini lessons)
3. Remove all references to any other instructional approaches in teaching foundational word-reading skills that have not been scientifically validated
4. Remove all references to running records, miscue analyses and other assessment approaches that have not been scientifically validated
5. Remove all references to levelled readers and incorporate references to decodable texts in Kindergarten to Grades 1 or 2 (or in later reading interventions) and/or to practicing word reading in less controlled books that are nonetheless selected to provide practice for word-reading skills for young readers, and with appropriate reading materials, other than levelled readers, in later elementary grades. Reading materials should be selected based on other criteria appropriate for developing reading competence, language and knowledge
6. Replace cueing and balanced literacy for word reading with mandatory explicit, systematic and direct instruction in foundational word-reading skills including phonemic awareness, phonics and decoding skills, and word-reading proficiency (accurate and quick word reading)
7. Beginning in the Kindergarten Program and continuing in the Grades 1–8 Language Arts curriculum, state the approaches (and Ministry-recommended programs) that will support the explicitly stated expectations in phonemic awareness, letter-sound associations, word-level decoding (including blending sounds and segmenting words into sounds to read and write words), word-reading proficiency or fluency (number of words read per minute). This will continue through to more advanced word study beyond Grade 2, including how to teach advanced morphological knowledge and analysis
8. Incorporate other aspects of a comprehensive approach to literacy which are addressed in the research science such as evidence-based instruction in oral language, reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge and spelling and writing.

 

31. The Ministry should release revised guides and supplementary resources before or at the same time as the revised Kindergarten Program and Grades 1–8 Language curriculum.

 

32. The Ministry should revoke any early literacy resources, including supplementary classroom materials published on the Ministry’s Curriculum and Resources website or e-Community Ontario, that promote cueing systems, balanced literacy, running records and miscue analyses or any other instructional and assessment approaches to word reading that are not scientifically validated.

 

33. School boards should update their early literacy policies, procedures, directives, documents, guides, training and professional development materials, and any other early literacy resources, to align with the findings in this report and, when available, the revised Kindergarten Program, Ontario Language curriculum, Guide to Effective Instruction in Reading (Kindergarten to Grade 3) and Guide to Effective Literacy Instruction (Grades 4 to 6) and other revised Ministry supplementary resources and materials.

 

Review textbooks and supplementary classroom materials

34. The Ministry should work with external expert(s) to revise the Trillium list of approved textbooks related to reading, if any, to align with the scientific evidence by removing all textbooks that promote instruction and assessment approaches that have not been scientifically validated, and adding only textbooks that reflect effective instructional principles associated with mandatory explicit, systematic and direct instruction in foundational word-reading skills including phonemic awareness, phonics and decoding skills, and word-reading proficiency (accurate and quick word reading).

 

35. The Ministry should work with external expert(s) to develop a list of approved classroom materials (including programs, kits, books, readers, assessment tools and intervention programs) that are consistent with the revised curriculum and scientific evidence outlined in this report.

 

36. The Ministry should make clear that school boards must stop using and may no longer purchase textbooks or classroom materials that are inconsistent with the scientific evidence, and can only purchase or use materials related to teaching foundational word reading skills on the Trillium list and Ministry list of approved of classroom materials.

 

37. School boards should stop using textbooks and classroom materials that are inconsistent with the scientific evidence, as outlined in this report. School boards should only purchase textbooks and classroom materials on the revised Ministry approved lists. School boards should replace levelled readers in Kindergarten to Grade 1 or 2, with decodable texts.

 

38. The Ministry should provide school boards with the funds to purchase textbooks and classroom materials on the revised Trillium list and list of approved classroom materials.

 

Develop and deliver interim curriculum and measures

39. The Ministry of Education should work with external expert(s) to develop or identify an interim early reading curriculum (or addenda to the current Kindergarten Program and Grades 1–8 Language curriculum) and resources/guides/training to support school boards and teachers to immediately start delivering instruction in foundational reading skills that aligns with the science of reading while the Kindergarten Program, Grades 1–8 Language curriculum and instructional guides and other resources go through a full revision. The interim early reading curriculum and resources/guides/training should provide guidance to and require boards and teachers to immediately begin to implement mandatory explicit, systematic and direct instruction in foundational word-reading skills including phonemic awareness, phonics and decoding, and word reading proficiency including morphological knowledge. This interim curriculum and resources/guides/training could be selected from evidence-based pre-existing materials that have been vetted by the Ministry’s external expert(s) to make sure they conform with the reading science. The Ministry should make sure any interim resources/guides/training will be consistent with the future revised Kindergarten Program and Grades 1–8 Language curriculum, so they can continue to be used once these are released.

 

40. School boards should immediately begin implementing measures/resources/programs/guides/training to provide mandatory explicit, systematic and direct instruction in foundational word-reading skills including phonemic awareness, phonics, decoding and word study, while awaiting a revised Kindergarten Program and Grades 1–8 Language curriculum. These measures/resources/guides/training can continue to be used to support delivery of a revised Kindergarten Program and Grades 1–8 Language curriculum once they are released.

 

41. The Ministry should adopt a systematic approach to releasing an interim early reading curriculum and/or addenda to the current Kindergarten program and Grades 1–8 Language curriculum that is supported by professional learning, guides and supplementary resources and a supportive professional development plan for educators that is clearly communicated with school boards.

 

42. The Ministry should provide adequate funding to boards to implement and continue to use these measures/resources/programs/
guides/training.

 

43. The Ministry should enhance funding support for summer learning programs offered by school boards for students in Kindergarten to Grade 5, as part of a strategy to help all students catch up on reading proficiency and respond to COVID-19 learning loss related to reading. The Ministry should require that summer learning programs to support reading provide mandatory explicit, systematic and direct instruction in foundational reading skills including phonemic awareness, phonics and decoding, and fluency.

 

44. The Ministry should develop an education recovery plan that includes intensive and accelerated reading programs for all students, but with an emphasis on targeting groups most disadvantaged by school closures related to COVID-19 (students with disabilities, students from low-income families, Black and other racialized students, Indigenous students and newcomers).

 

Build expertise within boards and ensure non-reprisal

45. The Ministry should provide stable, enveloped yearly funding to all school boards in the province to hire literacy-learning leads to coordinate and support board-level improvement efforts related to reading and literacy. The Ministry should require that literacy-learning leads be trained in the science of reading, including systematic and direct instruction in foundational reading skills/structured literacy approaches.

 

46. School boards should draw on internal expertise, educators, administrators, speech-language pathologists and psychology staff who are knowledgeable about the science of reading, for systematic and direct instruction in foundational reading skills/structured literacy approaches.

 

47. Board staff who advocate for the science of reading or other measures to improve outcomes for students with disabilities should never be subject to adverse consequences/reprisals.

 

Ensure pre-service teacher preparation addresses critical concepts

48. Ontario’s faculties of education should embrace the science of early reading, and make sure future teachers understand critical concepts, including:

1. The importance of word-reading accuracy and efficiency for reading comprehension; models of reading development
2. How accurate and efficient early word reading develops
3. How to teach foundational word-reading and spelling skills in the classroom
4. The importance of teaching foundational skills in reading to address inequality for historically disadvantaged student populations and the needs of students with different difficulties and disabilities
5. Other aspects of a comprehensive approach to literacy which are addressed in the research science but were beyond the scope of the inquiry, such as evidence-based instruction in oral language, reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge and spelling and writing.

 

49. The Ontario College of Teachers Act regulations should be amended to require that all Primary and Junior teacher applicants take a half-course (three credits) that focuses on critical components of word-reading instruction to support all students in becoming proficient readers. Faculties of education should make sure this course spends considerable time on and includes instruction to develop pre-service teachers’ knowledge of the content in Recommendation 48 above and:

1. The structure of spoken and written words
2. What systematic and direct instruction in word reading and spelling consists of at different grade levels
3. The skills and knowledge necessary to implement best practices for teaching students phonemic awareness, phonics, accurate and efficient or quick word reading, spelling, fluency, and more advanced word study, including syllable and morphological knowledge and analysis
4. How to gauge students’ progress in these foundational word-reading and spelling skills; identify students who need immediate follow-up; and provide immediate, focused instruction to students who need it.

Faculties should explore practicum components and mentoring opportunities that reinforce and enhance learning in these areas.

 

50. Every Ontario faculty of education should make sure that further Language Arts methods courses, assessment courses, and courses on inclusive and special education/teaching students with exceptionalities further reinforce and deepen pre-service teachers’ knowledge and understanding of these concepts and approaches.

 

51. Every Ontario faculty of education should build on the foundational knowledge described in Recommendations 48 and 49, to prepare pre-service teachers to identify, instruct and support struggling readers and writers, including students with dyslexia, with other disorders, and students with no known exceptionality, with further instruction on:

1. The core features of reading disabilities and dyslexia. Dyslexia should be named and explained
2. Early warning signs of risk for reading difficulties
3. Understanding and practicing using scientifically validated early screening tools and scientifically supported methods of classroom reading assessment to guide reading and writing instruction
4. Understanding differentiated reading instruction to build foundational reading skills and support writing development for students with reading difficulties
5. Effective accommodations and how to successfully implement them in the classroom
6. Understanding early and later interventions that are evidence-based, with a focus on evidence-based approaches used in Ontario school boards, and how to support students in the classroom when they are receiving these interventions.

 

52. Every Ontario faculty of education should re-evaluate teaching running records or miscue analyses. Teachers should be taught how to use more valid and helpful ways to evaluate students’ reading progress and how to use assessment tools that measure skills related to word-reading accuracy and proficiency separately from a student’s reading comprehension or oral language comprehension. Pre-service teachers should be taught how to administer short, reliable assessment tools to gauge students’ progress in these foundational skills.

 

53. Recommendations 48 to 52 should be implemented regardless of whether and before the Ministry revises the Kindergarten Program and Ontario Grades 1–8 Language curriculum.

 

Ensure additional qualification courses and continuing professional development address critical concepts

54. The Ontario College of Teachers should require that any additional qualification courses on reading offered by any AQ provider in Ontario (Reading Part 1 and Part 2, Reading Specialist) provide advanced knowledge on:

1. The foundations of word-reading and spelling
2. The central role of word-reading in reading comprehension
3. Models for understanding how proficient word reading develops
4. Best practices for teaching students on phonemic awareness, phonics and word-reading proficiency, and more advanced word study, including syllable and morphological knowledge and analysis
5. The core features of reading disabilities/dyslexia. Dyslexia should be named and explained
6. Early warning signs of risk for reading difficulties
7. Understanding and practicing using scientifically validated early screening tools and scientifically supported methods of classroom reading assessment to guide reading instruction
8. Understanding differentiated reading, spelling and writing instruction
9. Effective accommodations for reading difficulties and how to successfully implement them in the classroom
10. Understanding evidence-based early and later interventions that are used in Ontario school boards, and how to support students in the classroom when they are receiving these interventions.

 

55. The Ontario College of Teachers should require that any additional qualification courses on special education/inclusive educations/students with exceptionalities offered by any AQ provider in Ontario (Special Education Part 1 and Part 2, Special Education Specialist) provide advanced knowledge in:

1. The core features of reading disabilities and dyslexia. Dyslexia should be named and explained
2. Early warning signs of risk for reading difficulties
3. Effective reading instruction and interventions, and Response to Intervention (RTI)/Multi-tiered System of Supports (MTSS) models
4. The critical place of evidence-based instruction as a key component of a Universal Design for Learning approach
5. Effective accommodations for reading difficulties and how to successfully implement them in the classroom
6. The difference between accommodations and modifications to curriculum expectations, and the limited role of modifications (see also section 11, Accommodations)
7. Understanding evidence-based early and later interventions that are used in Ontario school boards, and how to support students when they are receiving these interventions
8. How to support their school or board in using data collection and monitoring to inform RTI/MTSS.

 

56. The Ministry of Education (Ministry) should work with external expert(s) to develop a comprehensive, sustained and job-embedded in-service teacher professional learning program and resources that address early reading instruction and reading disabilities/dyslexia that includes:

1. The foundations of word reading and spelling
2. The central role of word reading in reading comprehension
3. Models for understanding how proficient word reading develops
4. Best practices for teaching students phonemic awareness, phonics, and more advanced word study, including syllable and morphological knowledge and analysis
5. The core features of reading disabilities/dyslexia. Dyslexia should be named and explained
6. Early warning signs of risk for reading difficulties
7. Understanding and practicing using scientifically validated early screening tools and scientifically supported methods of classroom reading assessment to guide reading instruction
8. Understanding differentiated reading, spelling and writing instruction
9. Effective accommodations for reading difficulties and how to successfully implement them in the classroom
10. Using evidence-based materials and programs in classroom and small-group applications
11. Understanding evidence-based early and later interventions that are used in Ontario school boards, and how to support students in the classroom when they are receiving these interventions.

 

57. The Ministry should require and provide stable, enveloped yearly funding for every school board in Ontario to deliver this comprehensive, sustained and job-embedded professional learning.

 

58. While this professional learning is being developed, school boards, with funding from the Ministry, should provide educators the opportunity to take accredited structured literacy courses.

 

 

Early screening

Mandate early, evidence-based universal screening

59. The Ministry of Education (Ministry) should provide stable, enveloped yearly funding for evidence-based screening of all students in Kindergarten Year 1 to Grade 2 in word-reading accuracy and fluency.

 

60. The Ministry should work with external expert(s) to mandate and standardize evidence-based screening on foundational skills focused on word-reading accuracy and fluency. The Ministry should:

1. Require school boards to screen all students twice a year (beginning and mid-year) from Kindergarten Year 1 to Grade 2
2. Determine the appropriate screening measures to be used based on the specific grade and time in the year with reference to the recommendations in the IES report that have moderate to strong evidentiary support. At minimum, measures should include:
   
   1. Kindergarten: letter knowledge and phonemic awareness
   2. Grade 1 (beginning): phonemic awareness, decoding, word identification and text reading
   3. Grade 1 (second semester): decoding, word identification and text reading, and should include speed as well as accuracy as an outcome
   4. Grade 2: timed word reading and passage reading
3. Select or develop valid and reliable screening tools that correspond to each specific grade and time in the year for administration by school boards
4. Set out the standardized procedures for administering, scoring and recording data from the screening instruments
5. Make sure screening tools have clear, reliable and valid interpretation and decision rules. Screening tools should be used to identify students at risk of failing to learn to read words adequately, and to get these children into immediate, effective evidence-based interventions.

 

61. The Ministry and school boards should make sure that early scientifically validated screening and evidence-based interventions are equally implemented within French-language instruction. Students with reading difficulties should have an equal opportunity to learn in French.

 

Revise Policy/Program Memoranda (PPMs)

62. The Ministry of Education (Ministry) should work with external expert(s) to revise PPM 8, 11 and 155 so they provide clear directives to teachers, principals and school boards about their respective responsibilities. The PPMs should be updated to reflect the current scientific research consensus on early identification of students at risk for reading disabilities. The PPMs should:

1. Mandate a tiered/(Response to Intervention (RTI)/Multi-tiered System of Supports (MTSS) approach for all students
2. State that screening tools should be used to immediately provide tiered intervention to students who require support
3. Require school boards to provide small-group interventions (tier 2) for students who struggle with evidence-based classroom instruction (tier 1). School boards should provide more intensive and often individualized interventions (tier 3) to students who struggle with tier 1 instruction and 2 interventions, based on progress monitoring. At tier 3, a psychoeducational assessment could be used, but should not be required, to fully assess the learning challenges, and should not delay tier 3 intervention
4. Remove the statement in PPM 11 that school boards should consider a reasonable delay in the language-based aspect of assessment for students whose language is not English or French. All students, including multilingual students (who are learning English at the same time as they are learning the curriculum), should be screened for word-reading difficulties
5. Update the resources presently listed in the PPMs to include the most current science-based research
6. Revise the PPMs to reflect the OHRC’s recommendation to mandate early, evidence-based screening. If PPM 155 is not revised, then the Ministry should provide a directive to school boards that makes clear that early screening is a special education assessment or province-wide assessment and exempt from the scope of PPM 155.

 

Mandate accountability measures

63. The Ministry of Education (Ministry) should work with external expert(s) to mandate data collection on the selected screening tools to improve accountability. Specifically, the Ministry should:

1. Mandate school boards collect data to further validate and, if necessary, refine screening tools and decision-making processes
2. Develop measures to monitor progress in word-reading accuracy and fluency skills that are being targeted in specific interventions.

 

64. School boards should make sure clear standards are in place to communicate with students and parents about the screening tool, the timing, and how to interpret the results. The communication should also indicate when and what intervention will be provided if the student is identified as at risk for reading difficulties.

 

65. School boards should not use the results of screening to performance manage teachers. No teacher should face discipline or discharge because of screening results.

 

Ensure educators receive adequate professional learning on screening tools

66. School boards should make sure staff (for example, teachers) administering the screening tools receive comprehensive, sustained and job-embedded professional learning on the specific screening tool or tools that they will be administering, and on how to interpret the results.

 

67. School boards should make sure educators are supported with time to complete these screening assessments and related data handling.

 

 

Reading interventions

Standardize evidence-based reading interventions

68. The Ministry should provide stable, enveloped yearly funding for evidence-based reading interventions in word-reading accuracy and fluency.

 

69. The Ministry should work with external expert(s) to mandate and standardize evidence-based interventions in word-reading accuracy and fluency. The Ministry and its external expert(s) should:

1. Select appropriate early interventions (Kindergarten to Grade 1) and later interventions (Grade 2 and onwards) that are evidence-based and that school boards must choose from to implement
2. Make sure the interventions are systematic, explicit programs in phonics instruction and building decoding and word-reading accuracy and fluency. Early intervention should target the foundational skills of phonemic awareness, sound-letter knowledge, decoding and word-reading accuracy and fluency. Later interventions should include more advanced orthographic patterns, syllables and morphemes
3. Make sure there are sufficient tier 1 class programs in these foundational reading skills that prevent later reading difficulties and that are used for whole-class instruction
4. Set out the steps necessary to effectively implement these programs within individual schools and boards. This should include the necessary resources, funds, comprehensive, sustained and job-embedded training and ongoing support
5. Set up a process to make sure the list of approved reading interventions undergoes a periodic review to ensure it reflects the latest scientific research, and the interventions being used are shown to be effective in the data collected by the boards.

 

70. School boards should immediately stop using reading interventions that do not have a strong evidence base or are based on the three-cueing approach for students who struggle with word reading. These programs should not be used for students who struggle with word reading, and students at risk for or identified or diagnosed with reading disabilities or dyslexia.

 

Develop eligibility criteria

71. The Ministry should work with external expert(s) to mandate and standardize evidence-based eligibility criteria to receive reading interventions. The Ministry should:

1. Set out the recommended grade levels to receive the specific interventions
2. Outline clear and appropriate decision-making rules for selecting evidence-based programs, and for matching students to intervention programs. Standardized scores or percentiles on reading measures (e.g. a score that is one standard deviation or more below the mean on a standardized test of word recognition or decoding) should replace vague language about being “significantly” below grade level. These decision rules should be universally applied.

 

72. The Ministry and school boards should make sure that any student who struggles with reading should receive an intervention. Access to interventions should never be based on a formally identified disability, diagnosis or requirement to have at least average intelligence or a discrepancy (or inconsistency) between intellectual abilities and achievement. Students with other disabilities should never be disqualified from receiving an intervention.

 

Make evidence-based reading interventions available

73. School boards should make sure every school has at least one evidence-based reading intervention that can be implemented with students in each grade level and for each tier, and interventions are available to all students who require them. Students should not have to change schools to receive evidence-based interventions.

 

74. School boards should make sure resources for effective classroom instruction and interventions are distributed in a way that meets the needs of schools that may be deemed higher priority in terms of high numbers of students at risk for or with reading difficulties.

 

Remove inappropriate eligibility requirements

75. School boards should never require a psychoeducational assessment as a precondition for receiving an evidence-based reading intervention.

 

76. School boards should provide small-group early and later interventions (tier 2) for students when evidence-based classroom instruction (tier 1) is not adequate for them to develop average-level foundational word-reading skills. School boards should provide more intensive and individualized interventions (tier 3) to students who do not respond adequately to tier 1 instruction and 2 interventions, based on progress monitoring with standardized measures of reading. At tier 3, a professional (psychoeducational or speech-language pathology) assessment could be used to fully assess the learning challenges, but should not be required or delay tier 3 intervention (see recommendations in section 12, Professional assessments).

 

77. School boards should not use grade- or age-equivalent scores for entry into intervention programs. Instead, boards should:

1. Use standardized scores or percentiles at each grade level and provide interventions to students below a pre-determined criteria
2. Include fluency scores, as students who score adequately on accuracy but low on fluency may still struggle with reading comprehension and will benefit from intervention
3. Collect information on whether and to what degree foundational reading skills are impairing the student’s classroom achievement
4. Consider measurement errors when a student just misses a cut-off score for a program. These students should be considered for interventions if they are also experiencing classroom difficulties.

 

78. School boards should not use results from intelligence tests and/or the absence of another disability (for example, ADHD, ASD) as prerequisites to receive a reading intervention.

 

Develop a mechanism for centralized support

79. The Ministry should determine how boards must support and monitor their interventions for program fidelity (how and when the intervention is delivered).

 

80. The Ministry should set up a mechanism to support boards in implementing and monitoring intervention programs. This will help resolve inconsistencies and could serve to consolidate best practices among school boards, so that boards do not need to reinvent the wheel and can share successes and failures.

 

Mandate data collection

81. The Ministry should work with external expert(s) to mandate data collection on the selected reading interventions, to improve accountability and decision-making procedures. The Ministry should:

1. Mandate that school boards track the effectiveness of interventions for individual students through standardized individual assessments/progress monitoring (including analysis of student errors to determine the nature of difficulties)
2. Develop valid and reliable progress monitoring and outcome measures to inform programming decisions for individual students, and to inform boards’ efforts to evaluate program effectiveness. Progress monitoring measures should include word-reading accuracy, non-word-reading accuracy, reading comprehension, word-reading efficiency (fluency) and text-reading fluency measures. For early reading interventions, standardized measures should include phonemic awareness, sound-letter fluency, and reading and decoding accuracy and fluency
3. Require school boards to input this data into a centralized system and break down the information by demographics to identify and address any equity gaps
4. Publish provincial data, without any identifying information, on the progress of students and trends
5. Mandate that school boards track the overall effectiveness of interventions to assess and compare what is showing the best outcome for students. Students’ book-reading levels should not be used to examine the effectiveness of an intervention program
6. Require school boards to track the length of time it takes for individual students who are identified as at risk according to screening tools, to receive an intervention and the type of intervention received.

 

Mandate accountability measures

82. School boards should make sure clear standards are in place to communicate with students and parents about available interventions. If a student is receiving a reading intervention, the school should communicate details about the intervention such as information about the program, the timing, expected length of the intervention, results from progress monitoring and what steps the school will take if the student does not respond well to the intervention.

 

Ensure staff receive adequate training on reading intervention

83. The Ministry of Education should provide increased funding to hire and train additional teachers to provide tier 2 and tier 3 interventions, without increasing class sizes. 

 

84. School boards should make sure all intervention providers have access to thorough and effective training in program delivery, with initial and ongoing coaching.

 

85. School boards should build collaborative teams from personnel with knowledge and experience in the science of reading. Interdisciplinary teams may bring together special education and elementary teachers, psychologists and SLPs who have advanced their knowledge and experience in this area. These teams can develop and provide comprehensive, sustained and job-embedded professional learning on the fundamental processes related to reading, early reading skills and the needs of learners with reading difficulties.

 

 

Accommodations

Develop standards for educator professional learning on accommodations and modifications​

86. The Ministry of Education (Ministry) should work with external expert(s) to revise its program planning and professional development policy documents to address:

1. Key steps for accommodating a reading difficulty, including:

• Provide accommodations at the same time as reading interventions, where appropriate
• Consider students’ individual needs (including intersectional needs), develop a range of possible accommodation options, and provide the accommodations that best serve students’ needs without causing undue hardship
• Seek out accommodations that have a strong track record of boosting student performance and experience
• Support accommodations with comprehensive, sustained and job-embedded professional development
• Provide accommodations as quickly as possible, provide interim accommodations where it will take time to develop permanent ones, and make sure accommodation supports are maintained during transition periods
• Work with students and their families to establish students’ accommodation needs, and monitor accommodations for any necessary changes.
• Communicate openly and regularly with students, parents and other education staff throughout the accommodation process
• Regularly evaluate the impact of accommodations to make sure they are helping to improve the students’ learning experience and performance
• Take a proactive approach to prevent bullying and eliminate the stigma that is attached to some accommodations, by educating students and teachers about learning differences and explaining that supports and accommodations simply provide equitable access to learning and the curriculum for all students.

2. Examples of assistive technology (AT) and non-AT accommodations that support students with reading difficulties and situations where each may be appropriate
3. The limited role of modifications as a “last resort” including that:

• Students with reading difficulties should first receive evidence-based classroom reading instruction, reading interventions and accommodations to allow them to meet grade-level expectations. If the student is not responding to initial interventions and accommodations, then more intensive interventions and further accommodations should be offered
• Only when these have been exhausted and the student is still unable to meet grade-level expectations with accommodations (as assessed using evidence-based assessments), modification to a lower grade-level expectation for the specific expectation(s) the student cannot meet may be considered
• Before modifying to a lower grade-level expectation, parents – and students, where appropriate – must be informed that a modification to a lower grade-level expectation has the potential to affect the student’s ability to “catch up” to their grade-level peers, access future course options, and access post-secondary school options
• Once a student’s curriculum expectations have been modified, school boards should continue to consider whether further interventions or accommodations may allow the student to be brought up to grade level.

 

87. The Ministry should develop customizable materials to support school boards in delivering professional learning on the revisions to the program planning and professional development policy.

 

88. On a yearly basis, school boards should provide teachers with comprehensive, sustained and job-embedded professional development on the revisions to the program planning and professional development policy, and include this professional development in their new teacher induction program.

 

89. The Ontario College of Teachers should require pre-service education to address revisions to the program planning and professional development policy, and make sure relevant Additional Qualifications courses [including Inclusive Classrooms, Language, Principal’s Development Course and Principal’s Qualification, Reading, Special Education, Teaching Students with Communication Needs (Learning Disabilities), and Use and Knowledge of Assistive Technology], address this training need.

 

Improve access to accommodations

90. The Ministry should evaluate existing funding structures and levels to make sure adequate resources are provided to boards to provide timely and appropriate accommodations to all students who need them. The Ministry should provide teachers and other educators with comprehensive, sustained and job-embedded training on accommodation. Boards should support the Ministry’s evaluation by tracking and reporting on what necessary accommodations or accommodation supports, including training, cannot be provided due to resource constraints.

 

91. The Ministry should develop a broad, province-wide information technology (IT) strategy for curriculum delivery, with a focus on equitable access to AT for students with reading difficulties.

 

92. The Ministry should create and make public examples of AT products that are available in Ontario, along with a description of how and when each product can be used. The Ministry should publish guidelines and protocols for comprehensive, sustained and job-embedded AT training, including who should provide the training, how often, what topics the training should cover, and who should attend the training.

 

93. The Ministry should make sure that every resource on the Trillium List is available in digital form and is compatible with AT.

 

94. The Ministry should eliminate the current requirement that Special Equipment Amount (SEA) claims-based funds require a professional assessment.

 

95. School boards should simplify the process for AT accommodations by removing any requirements for psychoeducational assessments and/or an Identification, Placement and Review committee (IPRC), and by minimizing the number of required staff approvals.

 

96. School boards should mandate that all classroom assignments, handouts and tests must be available electronically (in a format compatible with AT) at or before the time they are distributed to the class.

 

97. School boards should have sufficient knowledgeable and trained staff to provide comprehensive, sustained and job-embedded AT training and support for teachers and other educators, and also to provide training for students, and where requested, parents.

 

98. School boards should make sure the student’s Ontario Student Record (OSR) is immediately transferred when a student moves from one school board to another.

 

99. School boards should communicate effectively to students and parents, through multiple platforms and forums, about the right to receive accommodation including:

1. That students with disabilities are entitled to accommodation (including at any grade level and in both French and English-language programs)
2. That accommodations for students with reading difficulties should be provided alongside evidence-based interventions
3. How students and parents can be involved in the accommodation process.

 

100. Teachers and educational assistants should proactively identify students who need accommodation, not just when parents or students advocate for it. Students should not be expected to self-advocate to receive accommodations.

 

101. Where the best accommodation option short of undue hardship is unknown or unavailable because of a lack of information or resources, teachers, educational assistants and schools should provide interim accommodation immediately.

 

Improve accountability around accommodations and modifications

102. The Ministry of Education (Ministry) should include examples of appropriate accommodation timelines in an Education Accessibility Standard, its Individual Education Plan (IEP) guide and/or an update to Special Education in Ontario, Kindergarten to Grade 12, 2017, Draft. These timelines should include maximum times between:

1. The request for accommodation and follow-up meeting with the parent (and student, where appropriate)
2. The request for accommodation and its start
3. The start of accommodation and a progress update to the parent (and student, where appropriate)
4. All future progress updates.

 

103. School boards should provide students and parents with a straightforward and meaningful complaint process for accommodations, and should refer to it in their Special Education Plans and in all special education guides for parents.

 

104. The Ministry should mandate that an IEP be developed for every student who regularly needs accommodation (including specialized equipment) for instruction or assessment.

 

105. Boards should create a checklist of key accommodation-related items teachers and administrators should consider when developing IEPs, including “information obtained from consultations with parents and psychologists and other professionals, strategies and accommodations tried by previous teachers, the results of educational diagnostic tests, and minutes of in-school support team meetings.”

 

106. Boards should develop and mandate use of a board-wide electronic management system for IEPs. Schools should make sure that every educator (including every supply teacher) who works with the student has access to their IEP.

 

107. Boards should mandate that schools examine, at least every reporting period, whether accommodations are helping the student meet the learning goals and expectations laid out in the IEP.

 

108. Teachers, educational assistants and schools should make a plan, including a timetable, for gathering student and parent input on accommodations, and for evaluating, monitoring and communicating the effectiveness of the accommodations in helping the student reach their learning expectations. This plan should be shared with the student and parents.

 

109. Boards should make sure that parents provide informed consent to modifying a student’s curriculum expectations (including making sure they understand the effects on the student’s academic progress, future course options and job opportunities).

 

110. Boards should publicly report every year on what percentage of students have had their curriculum expectations modified and how. 

 

 

Professional assessments

Update criteria for identifying a word-reading disability/dyslexia and make sure all students who need supports have them

111. The Ministry of Education (Ministry) should work with external expert(s) to immediately revise PPM 8 to align with the research and DSM-5 criteria, and to address any potential biases. This includes:

1. Removing the statement that students must have assessed intellectual abilities that are at least in the average range and any reference to a discrepancy (or inconsistency) between their intellectual abilities and achievement to be identified with a learning disability, and making it clear that at least average intelligence is not a requirement for receiving reading interventions or other supports
2. Removing the statement that the student’s learning difficulties should not be “the result of…socioeconomic factors; cultural differences; lack of proficiency in the language of instruction…”
3. Keeping the focus on academic functioning throughout.

The Ministry should also work with external expert(s) to re-examine all exceptionality definitions, such as the definition for intellectual disabilities, based on the changes to PPM 8, and should ensure that the criteria for other exceptionalities do not exclude these students from receiving instruction and supports.

 

112. PPM 8 should reflect the current DSM-5 criteria that require showing:

1. The student experiences difficulties in reading, writing or math skills, which have persisted for at least six months even though the student has received interventions that target the difficulties
2. The difficulties result in the affected academic skill(s) being substantially and quantifiably below those expected for the student’s age. This is determined through standardized achievement tests and clinical assessment
3. The learning difficulty started during school-age years (or even in preschool), although it may not become fully evident until young adulthood in some people
4. The problems are not solely due to intellectual disabilities, hearing or vision problems, other mental or neurological “disorders,” adverse conditions or inadequate instruction (however, reading disabilities/dyslexia can co-exist with other disabilities including mental and neurological “disorders”).

 

113. The Ministry should amend PPM 8 to explicitly state that students do not need to be a certain age or grade level to be considered for assessment. It should direct school boards not to delay identifying learning difficulties and should state that students who are not benefiting from early evidence-based structured literacy interventions should be considered for assessment by end of Grade 1.

 

114. The Ministry should amend PPM 8 to encourage identifying the subtypes of learning disability/academic areas that are impaired, and explicitly recognizing the term “dyslexia” for learning disabilities that affect word reading and spelling.

 

115. School boards should change their definitions of learning disabilities and align their practices for recognizing learning disabilities to be consistent with the revised PPM 8.

 

116. The Ontario Psychological Association’s Guidelines for Diagnosis and Assessment of Learning Disabilities and the Association of Psychology Leaders in Ontario Schools Recommended Guidelines for the Diagnosis of Children with Learning Disabilities should also be updated to make the assessment guidelines for dyslexia/learning disabilities in word reading consistent with current DSM-5 requirements, including by removing the requirement for at least average intelligence (or at least average abilities for thinking and reasoning) or a discrepancy/inconsistency between intellectual abilities and achievement. They should recommend limiting or eliminating the routine use of routine intelligence and cognitive processing tests for assessing students for word-reading disabilities/dyslexia.

 

117. The criteria for identifying students with a learning disability in word reading should apply to students learning in French, and these students should have equitable access to professional assessments.

 

118. The Ministry should revise Policy/Program Memorandum 59: Psychological Testing and Assessment of Pupils, to remove the statement that school boards should consider delaying assessment if the pupil's first language is other than English or French and/or the pupil lacks facility in either of these languages. Instead, the Ministry should work with external expert(s) to set out factors for determining whether to refer a student whose first language is not English or French for psychoeducational assessment.

 

Establish criteria for referring students with suspected reading disabilities for assessment

119. School boards should create clear, transparent, written criteria and formalize their processes for referring students with suspected reading disabilities for psychoeducational assessment based on the young student’s response to intervention (RTI). The criteria should recognize that any young student who has not responded appropriately (based on measures of word and/or non-word-reading accuracy and/or fluency and text-reading fluency and comprehension), after a period of classroom instruction and early evidence-based intervention should be referred for a psychoeducational assessment. Older students (beyond Grade 2) who have word-reading accuracy and fluency difficulties should be referred for assessment immediately. Young and older students should receive more intensive evidence-based interventions while they are waiting to be assessed. Speech-language pathologists can be a resource for assessments for all students with reading difficulties, particularly when there are concerns about language development and to help determine if a student has a language disorder.

 

120. The criteria should account for the risk of bias in the selection process, particularly for students who are culturally and linguistically diverse, racialized, who identify as First Nations, Métis or Inuit, or who come from less economically privileged backgrounds. School boards should regularly assess whether students from Code-protected groups are receiving equal access to professional assessments.

 

121. School boards should remove barriers to students receiving professional assessments, such as by providing transportation and virtual assessments, where appropriate, valid and reliable.

 

122. School boards should eliminate any limits on how many students can be referred for assessment. Any student who meets the criteria should be referred for assessment.

 

123. School boards should stop requiring students be a certain age or grade level before being considered for assessment.

 

124. School boards should stop requiring multilingual students to have a minimum number of years of learning English or French before referring them for assessment. Instead, school boards should regularly monitor the progress of these students, and if a student is having difficulty, consider the relevant factors, based on the guidance in this report and any revisions to PPM 59, in deciding whether to refer for assessment. If the student is still struggling after one year of exposure to English/French, a detailed assessment of reading, spelling, writing and mathematics is appropriate. Special attention should be paid to analyses of successes and errors.

 

125. School boards should immediately stop requiring a psychoeducational assessment for interventions or accommodations.

 

Track students based on learning disability subtype and recognize dyslexia

126. School boards should track students by the learning disability/academic area that is impaired, and should explicitly recognize the term dyslexia for learning disabilities that affect word reading and spelling.

 

Manage wait times for professional assessments

127. The Ministry of Education (Ministry) should require school boards to implement the recommendations identified in the 2017 Office of the Auditor General of Ontario’s report on School Boards’ Management of Fiscal and Human Resources. To make sure assessments are completed in an equitable and timely manner, school boards should:

1. Establish reasonable timelines for completing psychological and speech language assessments
2. Maintain centralized, electronic wait lists at the board level
3. Use the centralized, electronic wait lists to monitor and manage wait times, and where necessary, reassign assessments to specialists who have smaller workloads
4. Implement a plan to clear backlogs.

 

128. The Ministry should monitor school boards’ compliance with these requirements.

 

129. The Ministry should adopt the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 Kindergarten to Grade 12 Education Standards Development Committee’s recommendations related to professional assessments. For example, the Ministry should implement the recommendation to create a standardized provincial rubric for documenting the number of professional and specialist assessments provided by each school board annually that includes information on the prioritization criteria used in referring students for assessments and the length of time from when the need for assessment is identified to when the assessment is completed. Boards should implement the recommendation to publicly report on an annual basis data related to professional assessments.

 

Provide funding for professional services

130. The Ministry should provide stable, enveloped yearly funding for professional services that boards can use to develop infrastructure, such as electronic case management information systems; create wait lists where they do not yet exist; manage wait lists and track professional assessments; respond to professional staff shortages; and complete assessments in a timely way.

 

 

Systemic issues

Set standards and monitor

131. Many previous reports have recommended measures to set standards and improve consistency, monitoring and accountability in the education system generally, and for students with disabilities and other Code-protected identities. The Ministry of Education (Ministry) and school boards should implement all existing recommendations to set standards, improve consistency, and increase monitoring and accountability in the education system including recommendations in reports by the Auditor General of Ontario and the AODA’s Kindergarten to Grade 12 Education Standards Development Committee’s recommendations for a Kindergarten to Grade 12 education accessibility standard.

 

132. To create standardization and consistency related to the issues in the inquiry, the Ministry of Education, school boards and others should implement all recommendations in this report.

 

133. The Ministry should implement measures to monitor and assess whether students at risk for reading disabilities/dyslexia and students identified or diagnosed with reading disabilities/dyslexia receive the same level and high quality of special education programming and support no matter which school board they attend. The Ministry should ensure consistency across the province. If any inconsistencies are found, the Ministry should take steps to address them and align all services with standards based on the scientific evidence.

 

134. The Ministry should provide additional funding and support, where needed to make sure students in northern, remote, rural and small boards have equal access to special education programming, professional services and in-school supports.

 

135. School boards should implement measures to assess whether students at risk for reading disabilities/dyslexia and students identified or diagnosed with reading disabilities/dyslexia receive the same level and high quality of special education programming and support no matter which school they attend and which teacher(s) they have. If any inconsistencies are found, boards should take steps to address them and align all services with standards based on the scientific evidence.

 

136. All Board Improvement and Equity Plans should include data on reading/literacy achievement and the actions the board will take to respond to areas of concern. Data on reading/literacy achievement should be based on standardized measures of reading described in this report. These actions the boards will take to respond to areas of concern should be consistent with the findings and recommendations in this report. Boards should take steps to monitor implementation of these plans at the school and teacher levels. The Ministry should review all Board Improvement and Equity Plans annually to make sure these requirements are met, and should require boards to take corrective action if their plans do not appropriately address reading/literacy achievement and identify actions that are consistent with the findings and recommendations in this report.

 

137. All board Special Education Plans should include detailed information about the elements identified in this report, including how classroom instruction incorporates evidence-based, explicit and systematic tier 1 instruction in foundational word reading and fluency skills; universal early screening (including when students will be screened, what screening tool will be used, how the results will be used to provide tiered interventions and how data from screening will inform board planning and decision-making); early and later reading interventions (including what interventions are available, the criteria for accessing them, how the their efficacy will be monitored); the process for accommodations and modifications and available accommodations (including available assistive technology and how it use will be supported); and professional assessments (including the criteria and process for referring students for assessments, evidence-based psychoeducational assessments for potential reading disabilities; how wait lists will be managed and current average wait times for assessments).

Special Education Plans should also lay out the board’s Response to Intervention (RTI)/Multi-tier Systems of Supports (MTSS) tiered approach to instruction, screening and intervention, and should break down service delivery models by type of disability (including information about interventions, supports and programs for students with reading disabilities/dyslexia). The Ministry should review all board Special Education Plans annually to make sure these requirements are met, and should require boards to take corrective action if their plans do not appropriately address these issues in a way that is consistent with this report’s findings and recommendations. The Ministry should monitor implementation of these plans.

 

138. The Ministry should take steps to make sure funding provided to school boards for specific special education purposes, including money specifically ear-marked to support students with or at risk for reading disabilities/dyslexia, is spent for those purposes. The Ministry should make sure boards do not spend money on programs or supports that are not validated and proven to be effective for students with reading disabilities/dyslexia. Boards and the Ministry should explore opportunities for bulk purchasing evidence-based screening tools, interventions and the associated professional training and coaching, and other resources.

 

Improve data collection

139. Many reports have recommended improving data collection, analysis and reporting and using data to increase equity, improve student achievement and outcomes and for better decision-making. The Ministry of Education (Ministry), school boards and EQAO should implement all existing recommendations to related to data including:

1. The OHRC’s previous recommendations to improve education outcomes for students with disabilities
2. Recommendations in reports by the Auditor General of Ontario
3. The AODA’s Kindergarten to Grade 12 Education Standards Development Committee’s recommendations for a Kindergarten to Grade 12 education accessibility standard
4. The International Dyslexia Association’s report, Lifting the Curtain on EQAO Scores
5. Recommendations in documents and reports such as Achieving Excellence: A Renewed Vision for Education in Ontario; Ontario’s Education Equity Action Plan; Unlocking Student Potential Through Data, Final Report; and Ontario: A Learning Province.

 

140. The Ministry and school boards should implement all data collection recommendations in this report, including data collection about screening, intervention, accommodation and modification, and professional assessment.

 

141. To the extent possible, boards should use common, centralized, student information management systems. Where this is not possible, boards should be able to generate the same consistent data from their student information management systems.

 

142. All boards should collect data on all students with disabilities (and not just exceptionalities as defined by the Ministry and identified through an Identification, Placement and Review Committee). Data about reading disabilities/dyslexia specifically should be collected (including about students identified/diagnosed with a reading disability/dyslexia and all students who did not meet expectations in foundational reading skills by the end of Grade 1 and Grade 2, and who therefore may be at risk for a reading disability/dyslexia). When a student has multiple disabilities, data should be collected about each disability (instead of the current approach to categorize students as “multiple exceptionality”). Data should be reported centrally to the Ministry for further analysis.

 

143. Information boards collect about students identified/diagnosed with a reading disability/dyslexia and all students who did not meet expectations in foundational reading skills by end of Grade 1 and Grade 2 should include the services and supports they are receiving, their response to services and supports (for example, response to intervention), intersections with other identity characteristics and success indicators. Boards should analyze the data each year to identify any disparities or equity gaps, and develop action plans to close those gaps.

 

144. All boards should collect demographic data about equity indicators including race, ethnicity, creed (religion), disability, gender identity, sexual orientation and socioeconomic status. The Ministry should work with boards to explore ways to make sure all boards collect the same data to allow for analysis across the province, including by standardizing the age groupings for censuses, census questions and response options.

 

145. Boards’ census questions about disability should ask about all disabilities. Boards should break down learning disabilities by subtype and include an option to identify that the student has a reading disability/dyslexia, or may be at risk for or have a suspected reading disability/dyslexia.

 

146. Boards should consider asking demographic questions on school climate surveys to assess if students’ school experiences differ based on disability and/or other identity characteristics. For example, boards could assess whether students with disabilities, including specific disabilities, are more likely to report bullying, feeling unwelcome or other negative school experiences.

 

147. Boards and the Ministry should work together to develop a consistent method for measuring student success indicators including standardized reading measures, EQAO assessment results, academic pathways (whether the student has taken academic, applied or locally developed courses; and whether they have modified curriculum expectations), credit accumulation, graduation rates, and post-secondary application, acceptance and attendance. They should explore ways boards can disaggregate this data by subsets of students to identify and act on equity gaps.

 

148. Boards should cross-tabulate and analyze data on students with disabilities (including with suspected reading disabilities/dyslexia or who are at risk for reading disabilities/dyslexia), along with other demographic data (including race, ethnicity, creed (religion), disability, gender identity, sexual orientation and socio-economic status against student success indicators. Intersectionality between all identity characteristics and student success indicators should be analyzed. The Ministry should provide a standard provincial methodology for cross-tabulating and analyzing this data. The Ministry should centrally collect and analyze this data, and should publicly report on any disparities or equity gaps identified.

 

149. Any disparities or equity gaps identified in the analysis of cross-tabulated data must be addressed at a board level and a provincial level. The board and the Ministry should develop and publicize plans to improve the disparities or equity gaps.

 

150. Boards should ensure that data is always collected, analyzed and presented in a way that is consistent with the Human Rights Code, and does not reinforce stigma or stereotyping.

 

Improve communication and transparency

151. School boards, schools and educators should communicate effectively with students and parents (in a plain-language, accessible format that invites action, and that is translated into languages that reflect the school community) through regular mail and/or electronic mail, on board and school websites, and through information sessions, about:

1. Screening, interventions, accommodations and professional assessments for students with reading difficulties
2. When, how and why boards and schools will provide these services
3. How students and parents can request these services
4. How the school will update parents (and students, where appropriate) on how the services are progressing (for example, how and when it will issue progress reports on interventions and accommodations)
5. Community advocacy organizations that offer support to students with reading difficulties, and their parents
6. Resolution options with the teacher, school and board (including the board human rights office, if applicable), and at the Special Education Appeal Board, Special Education Tribunal and Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, for disputes about screening, interventions, accommodations or professional assessments.

 

152. Schools and boards should use reporting and recording tools for screening, intervention and accommodation approaches, results and strategies that enable a student's educators to share information with each other from one class to the next and one year to the next, to develop a coherent multi-year education plan. In turn, educators should provide regular updates on this plan to parents, and explain the rationale for any amendments or developments.

 

153. School boards or schools should provide parents (and students, where appropriate) with a plain-language summary of the student’s IEP.

 

154. School boards and schools should establish and broadly publicize a policy to encourage parent involvement in all meetings with the school, where:

1. The school board and/or school brings all key professionals who will be involved in the decision-making process
2. Before the meeting, the school board and/or school tells the parents who will be attending the meeting on its behalf
3. Before the meeting, the school board and/or school connects parents with community advocacy organizations that offer support to students with reading difficulties, and allows parents to bring a representative from a community advocacy organization and/or another professional support, and/or a personal support, to the meeting
4. Parents are welcome to bring personal and professional supports they deem necessary
5. Parents have a range of participation options (including during the day or in the evening, and by telephone, online or in person).

 

155. Schools and educators should consult parents when developing IEPs, and provide them with a copy of the IEP. Where appropriate, schools should instruct students in self-assessment methods so their observations on their own learning progress and the suitability of their accommodations can be considered by teachers as they refine their instructional plans.

 

156. School boards should, in partnership with the Special Education Advisory Committee, conduct a survey of parents with students in a special education program to determine how well developments and program updates are communicated to parents. They should publicize the results along with timelines for responding to the results, and confirm they have acted within those timelines.

 

157. Boards should develop, offer and broadly publicize a non-adversarial dispute resolution program. Boards should assign a staff member to be responsible for the program, and to operate at arm’s length from the board. Boards should assign a dedicated email address and phone number to the program. The program should issue timely decisions in writing. Boards should offer the opportunity for a designated senior board official to review the decision if requested. The Ministry should develop a program to offer further resolution opportunities (including mediation) for matters not resolved through the board process, and should assign a staff member to be responsible for it.