What is the Alternative Elementary Program Review?

Synopsis

The board conducts periodic reviews of its programs and is currently in a short (September - December 2009) review of the Alternative Program. This review is not being conducted by trustees but rather by board staff in the central office on Greenbank Road. The review is based on five goals:

1. to determine the extent to which the current mandate, expectations and practices regarding program delivery for the alternative elementary program in the OCDSB differs from that of the non-alternative programs (e.g., regular English and French immersion);
2. to determine the extent to which a strengthened, or redefined, alternative program would be expected to differ from that expected to result from planned improvements to regular programs;
3. to determine whether or not the OCDSB will continue to offer the alternative program in grades JK-8 – it should be noted that a decision to discontinue the alternative elementary program may require other processes (i.e., an Accommodation Review Committee – ARC); and,
4. in the event of a decision to continue with alternative programming in elementary schools, that a process to focus on program quality and continuously bringing pedagogical or best practice benefit to the whole District be developed; and,
5. in the event of a decision to discontinue alternative programming in elementary schools, that a process be developed to demonstrably address any significant program-program gaps identified under the, above.

There exists a Steering Committee for the review, composed of board staff, two trustees, two principals (one each from the Alternative and non-Alternative programs), two teachers (likewise Alternative and non-Alternative), an ASAC rep. and an OCASC rep. The Steering committee does not direct the review -- it simply receives information about it and makes recommendations. The final recommendations of the review will not be made or seen by the Steering Committee until they have been finalized. The review itself is composed of:

• a survey for parents and staff and grade 10 students, both inside and outside the program
• a Literature Review
• a review of Ministry of Education documents
• a survey of other Alternative Programs in Ontario

Concerns

The Alternative Schools Advisory Committee (ASAC) has some grave concerns about this process:

1. The terms of reference for the review seem biased towards a certain outcome. Compare them with a recent review of the Alternative Program in Toronto.
2. The time lines for the review are too short.
3. The review will not be visiting schools or conducting any interviews
4. The survey is flawed:
   • It was promised as a paper-and pencil four week survey starting in September and supplied as an on-line 9 day survey.
   • No translation was offered
   • The survey does not capture the nature of the program, and is filled with technical jargon and incorrect descriptions of innovation.
   • The survey does not attempt to determine why certain situations exist.
   • There is no identification of schools, that might help to determine if the program is stronger in some settings.
5. Of the four important questions (where, why, what, how), the survey is only looking at where (as in "where are we now"). See below for more details.
6. The persons doing the review are viewed by many in the Alternative Community as biased.

Details

The Ottawa Carleton District School Board provides different programs for children to learn in, including English, Early French Immersion, Middle French Immersion and Alternative. As well, the board provides some specialized learning sites, such as the Canterbury Arts-focused High School, the International Baccalaureate and the Adult High School. This is all part of the board's long-standing commitment to choice, as emphasized in their slogan: "More Schools, More Choices". The board has been going through a process in the last couple of years of reviewing its program offerings, including recently French Immersion.

In 2006/07 the Alternative Schools Advisory Committee (ASAC) was concerned about the lack of support for and innovation within the Alternative Program and set about conducting its own review, "Towards a Revitalization of the Alternative Program", based on four concepts:

• Where are we?
• What problems do we have?
• Where do we want to go?
• What do we need to get there?

The recommendations of the report to the board included easily implementable and cost-neutral recommendations for the school board, ASAC and individual schools. The board accepted the report from its advisory committee but has largely failed to act on any of it. Part of the justification for this was the understanding that there would be a program review shortly. The Alternative Schools looked forward to this review, expecting that the review would address our concerns and allow us to move forward.

In June of 2009, Superintendent Jennifer Adams contacted ASAC and advised the committee that she would be bringing a report outlining the proposed Alternative Program Review to the board's Education Committee meeting on June 16th. ASAC was consulted about the makeup of the steering committee and the general timelines. ASAC objected that there was insufficient time for any meaningful consultation or feedback, that the three terms of reference were very biased and that the time lines were too short. The original terms were basically:

• How different is the Alternative Program?
• Should it be closed?
• If not, how do we fix its quality?

Board staff ignored ASAC's objections and presented it to the Education Committee with the note that they had consulted with ASAC. The report passed with some ammendments and was brought to the full board of trustees on June 22nd, where it was ammended again and passed.

As outined about, ASAC and the Program Review Action Committee have deep concerns over the process and perceived bias of this review.

It is crucial that the voices of students and parents be heard during this review process.