Cutting special ed ‘wrongheaded’
I am a concerned parent whose child attends one of the Physical Support Units at Centennial public school.
Justin is a 10-year-old boy who suffers from severe cerebral palsy. While he loves life dearly, he needs YOUR special services to access his education.
I question the wisdom of dropping all physio and occupational services, as has been suggested. Until CCAC gives written consent to pick up all the students as new clients, despite their own waiting lists, it will be the children who suffer.
Without said services, the children will suffer physically:
PT and OT help to prevent hospitalization, serious medical conditions, ensure specialized equipment fits and/or works properly.
Without these services, the children will suffer mentally:
They have a right to an education without discrimination, undue hardship, despite costs. OT and PT are the only way these children are able to access their education.
The proposal being put forward to close one of the two PSUs is completely logical if student numbers were the only item to be considered.
Unfortunately, whenever one is dealing with children, there is so much more to consider than just logic.
It is inappropriate to place children aged six to 13 in one room.
If, in one grade, there is an expected academic difference of five grades levels, what then would be the academic difference in the proposed five grade grouping? Also, how does a Grade 2 student socialize daily with a Grade 7 student?
If these arrangements are not suitable for “typical” students, why are they suitable for the special needs children? Would that not be discrimination?
And what of depending on the educational assistants?
How does one presume to expect a teacher to organize and supervise so many grade levels in a variety of rooms? Eventually, the EAs would end up ”teaching,” as no other option would be plausible.
Diane Bartlett,
Kemptville
New parking policy will make situation worse
Re: Businesses call city parking policy unfair, Feb. 9
I was delighted when I read the “Cash-in-lieu of parking policy to be reviewed” sub-headline. Unfortunately, it sounds like city staff will expend time and energy to make a bad policy worse, at best.
I believe that the practice of accepting cash-in-lieu is flawed. Until the city makes a concerted, thoughtful effort to provide parking in places where the city has cut a deal with merchants for cash-in-lieu, it is the residents of the area who pay the cost. The money taken, equitable or not, from merchants without parking is terribly short-sighted.
Some time ago, I was assured by Coun. (Diane) Holmes, for whom I have a great deal of respect, that I could protest the applications for cash-in-lieu, one application at a time. Her advice did not and does not make sense to me.
The review of the policy is an opportunity to address the issue of parking, and lack thereof, in the core.
I hope the city grabs the opportunity with the same enthusiasm it grabs cash-in-lieu.
Julia Cipriani,
Lorne Avenue