Special Education Funding Model Developing a NeedsBased Option
Special Education Funding Model: Developing a Needs-Based Option Presentation for the First Nations Education Transformation Forum re K-12 Funding – May 24, 2019
Background: Human Rights Case
Human Rights Case • Basic equality principle: Our children deserve at least the same quality services as other Canadian children • Discrimination: Underfunding and program flaws • Goal: Help all First Nation children, increase the pie • 2016: Feds Promise educational equity & almost double funding • Agreement: Case on hold; work toward educational equity • Leverage: Resume case if progress stalls or promises broken • Status: Advocating for stable, equitable & needs-based funding
2017 Special Education Review • MCFN coordinated review chaired by Peter Garrow • Collaborated with Ontario First Nations Special Education Working Group and Chiefs of Ontario • Key recommendation: Needs-based funding model that is bottom-up, uncapped, flexible, transparent, stable, predictable, holistic and indexed (recommendation 5). • Also recommended in 2017 Chiefs of Ontario Special Education Position Paper • Fully supported in Resolution 38/17, All Ontario Chiefs Conference, June 2017, Lac Seul Peter Garrow, Ontario First Nations Special Education Review Report, May 2017: http: //www. firstnationsspecialeducation. ca/Report. pdf
Why Needs-Based? • Required for substantive equality / equity • An important legal requirement (FNCFCS v. AGC) • An important moral obligation • Substantive equality requires funding to meet needs • Substantive equality is more than provincially comparable funding because needs and costs are much higher on-reserve • Required for children to reach their full potential • Untreated special needs can cause kids to leave school and create bigger problems in adolescence and adulthood
Historic Federal Funding Model 1 2 3 • Federal Government sets the funding amount nationally (capped, arbitrary, not needs based) • Funding pot is divided between the provinces • Ontario funding pot is divided between First Nations (but pot is too small, not needs-based)
Interim Funding Model • Unlocks Budget 2016 funding & maintains some additional special education dollars outside the formula – good! But… • Interim: Only intended for the short term • Not needs based: Funding is not tied to needs estimates • Not equitable: Provincially comparable funding is not equitable. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal says: • “A strategy premised on comparable funding levels, based on the application of standard funding formulas, is not sufficient to ensure substantive equality in the provision of child and family services to First Nations children and families living on-reserve. ”FNCFCS v AGC, 2016 CHRT 2, para. 465 • Services must “be sufficiently funded to meet the real needs of First Nations children and families” para. 455 • Funders must “consider the distinct needs and circumstances of First Nations children and families living on-reserve - including their cultural, historical and geographical needs and circumstances – in order to ensure equality” para. 465
Interim Funding Model: Ontario • Data gaps: The provincial formula uses stats not available for First Nations • Wrong proxies/assumptions: The proxies/assumptions used shortchange First Nations (although ISC is open to adjustments) • Fly-in costs: The provincial formula does not account for fly-in First Nations, a major cost driver – this must be layered on • High needs: The prov. formula doesn’t address unique First Nation needs • E. g. arising from the negative impacts of residential schools, colonialism, intergenerational trauma, the 60’s scoop, the taking of land, harm to traditional ways of life, cultural repression, racism, decades of underfunding, and historic and ongoing government policies that are assimilationist, neglectful, and/or otherwise harmful • Etc: The provincial formula doesn’t fund capacity building, assumes schools receive 2 nd & 3 rd level services, assumes economies of scale, etc… Next Step: A needs-based model, asap Gabriel Sékaly, Applying the Ontario Special Education Funding Formula to First Nations, July, 2018 Gabriel Sékaly, Draft Preliminary Analysis of the Draft Ontario First Nations Comparability Funding Model, February, 2018
Needs-Based Model: Overview • Formula-Based Amount • Formula benefits: less paperwork, faster to get money out, more predictable, fairer, etc. • Based on estimates by First Nation special education experts, educators, and administrators re staff and services required perstudent; cost figures; remoteness amounts; etc. • Application-Based Amount • Needed because formulas cannot capture all needs and costs • Addresses needs not met by the formula, including students requiring a full-time staff person Funding Formula-Based Amount Application-Based Amount
Needs-Based Model: Ongoing Processes • Annual updates • Address changes in population, need, and costs • Make adjustments if targets not being met • Fix issues identified throughout the year • Assessment and review process • Larger review within first three years • Expand knowledge of needs at the school level • Propose possible assessment tool to incorporate into model • One-time cost estimates not sufficient • They miss needs that have not been assessed yet • No opportunity to fix problems, track targets, etc. • First Nation staff often do not have the resources, time, and/or capacity to participate in large-scale cost estimate processes • Schools with highest student/capacity needs may not be accounted for
Needs-Based Model: Bottom-Up Approach 4 3 2 1 Overall pot = formula-based + application-based Add application-based funding (for needs not covered by the formula) Multiply by costs (e. g. equitable salaries, remoteness pay, travel, etc. ) Staff, services, and resource needs
Formula-Based Amount: Output • Example of • Formula would
Formula-Based Amount: Key Benefits • Needs-based: Tied to staff/services and realistic costs • No arbitrary cap: Will increase if needs or costs increase • Bottom-up: Adds up costs (vs. dividing up fixed pot) • Transparent: Can see how funding amount determined • Adjustable: Can adjust services & costs annually • Rational & justifiable: Because transparently tied to staff/services • Addresses fly-in costs: Fly-in costs directly worked in (e. g. travel costs, fees for travel time, remoteness pay, housing costs, etc) • Funding adequacy: Can review model to determine adequacy • Sound methodology: Doesn’t depend on unreliable statistics or assumptions • Focus on needs: Debate and negotiation of model focuses on needs, services, and costs
Application-based amount – key aspects • Provide multi-year funding (e. g. for costs expected to last year-after-year or for the duration of a child’s experience) to reduce administrative burden and increase stability; • Provide guaranteed amounts for certain resources (e. g. provincial salary levels for EAs); • Allow for mid-year funding requests for students arriving mid-year; and • Be drawn from an uncapped funding pot to ensure needs are met and to provide greater predictability.
Miigwetch Presenters: Councillor Veronica King-Jamieson, Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, Veronica. K@mncfn. ca, www. mncfn. ca Kent Elson, Elson Advocacy, kent@elsonadvocacy. ca, www. elsonadvocacy. ca
- Slides: 15