minutes (yy-mm-dd) 99-06-2&9&16&23 · gerri gershon, suzan hall, elizabeth hill, jeff...

Minutes of the Toronto District School Board June 2, 1999

G04(\\tdsbexeshr\Exec_silo\secretariat\staff\archive1999\g04\906.doc)sec.1530 281

Special Meeting

June 2, 1999

A special meeting of the Toronto District School Board convened at 7:54 p.m. in the BoardRoom at 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Gail Nyberg, Chair of the Board, presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Brian Blakeley, Judi Codd, Christine Ferreira,Gerri Gershon, Suzan Hall, Elizabeth Hill, Jeff Kendall, Shelley Laskin, Sheine Mankovsky, RonMcNaughton, Elizebeth Moyer, Barbara Nash, Gail Nyberg, Stephnie Payne, Lilein Schaeffer,Doug Stephens, Mike Thomas and Sheila Ward.

Regrets were received from Trustees Irene Atkinson, Donna Cansfield, Diane Cleary and DavidMoll.

118. Purpose of Meeting

The meeting was called to consider staff changes and a private personnel matter.

119. Resolution into Committee of the Whole (Private Session)

On motion by Trustee Nash, seconded by Trustee Schaeffer, the Board resolved intoCommittee of the Whole (Private Session) at 7:55 p.m. with Trustee Laskin, Vice-Chair of theBoard, presiding.

120. Reconvene

The Special Meeting of the Board reconvened at 10:54 p.m. to consider Report No. 9 of theCommittee of the Whole (Private Session).

121. Report No. 9 of the Committee of the Whole (Private Session), June 2, 1999

Trustee Laskin, seconded by Trustee Gershon, moved: That Item 1, Staff Changes, of ReportNo. 9 of the Committee of the Whole, June 2, 1999, be adopted. (See page 283)

The motion was carried.

Trustee Gershon, seconded by Trustee Laskin, moved: That Item 2, Personnel Matter, ofReport No. 9 of the Committee of the Whole, June 2, 1999, be adopted. (See page 283)

The motion was carried on a recorded vote as follows:

YEAS: Trustees Blakeley, Codd, Ferreira, Gershon, Hall, Laskin, Mankovsky,McNaughton, Moyer, Nash, Nyberg, Payne, Schaeffer and Stephens. (14)

NAYS: Trustees Hill, Kendall, Thomas and Ward. (4)

ABSENT: Trustees Atkinson, Cansfield, Cleary and Moll. (4)


282 G04(\\tdsbexeshr\Exec_silo\secretariat\staff\archive1999\g04\906.doc)sec.1530

122. Adjournment

At 10:56 p.m., Trustee Hall , seconded by Trustee Thomas, moved: That the Special Boardstand adjourned.


Marguerite Jackson Gail NybergDirector of Education and Secretary-Treasurer Chair of the Board

Certified Correct: _____________________________ Director of Education and Secretary-Treasurer

Confirmed by the Board of Education at meeting heldon August 25, 1999.

__________________________________Chair of the Board

Minutes of the Toronto District School Board June 2, 1999Committee of the Whole (Private Session), Report No. 9


Report No. 9, Committee of the Whole(Private Session)

June 2, 1999

To the Chair and Members of theToronto District School Board:

A meeting of the Committee of the Whole (Private Session) convened at 7:55 p.m. in the BoardRoom at 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario with Trustee Shelley Laskin, Vice-Chair of theBoard, presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Brian Blakeley, Judi Codd, Christine Ferreira,Gerri Gershon, Suzan Hall, Elizabeth Hill, Jeff Kendall, Shelley Laskin, Sheine Mankovsky, RonMcNaughton, Elizebeth Moyer, Barbara Nash, Gail Nyberg, Stephnie Payne, Lilein Schaeffer,Doug Stephens, Mike Thomas and Sheila Ward.

Regrets were received from Trustees Irene Atkinson, Donna Cansfield, Diane Cleary and DavidMoll.

1. Staff Changes

The Committee considered a report of the officials recommending appointments of districtwidecoordinators to the Instruction Department and secondments.

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that the staff changes as presented (on file in theDirector’s Office) be approved.

2. Personnel Matter

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that recommendations concerning a personnelmatter as shown in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole, June 2, 1999, beapproved.

Respectfully submitted,

Shelley LaskinChair of the Committee

Adopted June 2, 1999



Blank Page



Special MeetingJune 9, 1999

A special meeting of the Toronto District School Board convened at 5:10 p.m. in the BoardRoom at 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Gail Nyberg, Chair of the Board presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Brian Blakeley, DonnaCansfield, Judi Codd, Christine Ferreira, Gerri Gershon, Suzan Hall, Elizabeth Hill, JeffKendall, Shelley Laskin, Sheine Mankovsky, Ron McNaughton, David Moll, Elizebeth Moyer,Barbara Nash, Gail Nyberg, Stephnie Payne, Lilein Schaeffer, Doug Stephens, Mike Thomas,Sheila Ward and Student Trustee Nadia Salvaterra.

Regrets were received from Trustee Diane Cleary.

123. Purpose of MeetingThe meeting was called to consider staffing and financial matters.

124. Declaration of Possible Conflict of InterestTrustee Brian Blakeley declared a possible conflict of interest with regard to the matter ofeducational assistants (Report No. 5, Standing Committee - Report of Private Session,Number 4). Trustee Blakeley stated that the nature of his interest is that he is an employee ofthe union which represents support staff. Trustee Blakeley did not take part in the discussionor vote on this matter when it was considered by the Standing Committee in private or theBoard.

125. Resolution into Committee of the Whole (Private Session)On motion of Trustee Hall, seconded by Trustee Ferreira, the Board resolved into Committeeof the Whole (Private Session) at 5:10 p. m. with Trustee Laskin, Vice-Chair of the Board,presiding, to consider staffing matters.

126. RecessAt 6:15 p.m., on motion of Trustee Payne, seconded by Trustee McNaughton, the SpecialBoard recessed for dinner, for the Standing Committee meeting and to allow the Committee ofthe Whole to continue consideration of its business.

127. Report No. 7A of the Budget Process Group, June 4, 1999 (page 287)Trustee Cansfield, seconded by Trustee Hall moved: That Report No. 7A of the BudgetProcess Group, June 4 1999, be adopted.Trustee Kendall, seconded by Trustee Cansfield moved, in amendment: Thatrecommendation (b) read as follows (change underlined):

(b) that the detailed departmental budgets be submitted to the appropriate specialcommittee of the Board.

The amendment was carried.

The main motion, as amended, was carried.



128. Report No. 2 of the Chair's Committee, June 7, 1999 (page 299)Trustee Laskin, seconded by Trustee Cansfield, moved: That Report No. 4 of the Chair'sCommittee, June 7, 1999, be adopted.Trustee Ferreira, seconded by Trustee Hill, moved: That the third sentence of 'Presentationof Reports From Area Review Committees' read as follows: (changes underlined)

This information session is scheduled for Monday, June 21, 1999 at7:00 p.m. in the Board Room at 155 College Street.


The main motion, as amended, was carried.

129. Motion to Reconvene to Committee of the Whole (Private Session)Trustee Laskin, seconded by Trustee Kendall, moved: That the Board reconvene inCommittee of the Whole (Private Session) to continue consideration of private matters.The motion was carried.

130. Report No. 10 of the Committee of the Whole (Private Session), June 9, 1999Trustee Laskin, seconded by Trustee Ferreira, moved: That Report No. 10 of the Committeeof the Whole, June 9, 1999, be adopted. (see page 300)The motion was carried.

131. Extension of MeetingAs a result of the ending time procedures being applied, the Board extended the meetingbeyond 11:00 p.m.

132. AdjournmentAt 1:25 a.m. on June 10, 1999, the Special Board meeting stood adjourned for want of aquorum.





Minutes of the Toronto District School Board June 9, 1999Budget Process Group, Report No. 7A


Report No. 7A, Budget Process Group

June 4, 1999


The Budget Process Group met this day at 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, from 8:25 a.m. to 12:05p.m. The following Budget Process Group members were present: Trustees Cansfield (Chair),Codd, Gershon, Hall and Kendall. Alternate member Trustee Schaeffer and Trustee Ferreirawere also present. Trustees Atkinson and Blakeley sent their regrets.

The Budget Process Group is reporting as follows:

1. 1999-2000 Budget (amended, see page 292)

The Budget Process Group considered a report of the officials dated June 4, 1999, providing theproposed 1999-2000 Budget for Board approval on June 9, 1999.

Pages 292 to 298 provide the 1999-2000 budget in detail compared with the 1998-1999 budgetand projected actual expenditures for 1998-1999. The total proposed 1999-2000 budget is$2.096 billion. The budgeted expenditures equals the Ministry of Education’s Total Allocationincluding mitigation funding for 1999-2000.

Budget staff are currently completing the Ministry Estimates for 1999-2000 for submission to theMinistry by June 15, 1999. The preliminary summary of the Board’s 1999-2000 Allocationcompared to 1998-1999 is as follows:

1998-1999(In Millions)

1999-2000(In Millions)

Operating Grants $1,702.3 $1,750.6 Phase-In Adjustment 299.1 170.9 Stable Funding Guarantee - 80.1

Total Operating Grant $2,001.4 $2,001.6 School Renewal 28.1 38.1 Debt Charges Allocation 50.2 57.0 Retirement Gratuity Allocation 8.7 -

TOTAL ALLOCATIONS $2,088.4 $2,096.7

As announced by the Ministry “stable funding” means that the “Total Operating Grants” wouldbe maintained at the 1998-1999 level and so it is.

A multi-year budget projection was prepared and presented in early March, 1999 to theExecutive Council and the Budget Process Group. The report provided a detailed analysis ofthe assumptions and resulting “growth cost” increases in the 1999-2000 fiscal year compared toour 1998-1999 approved budget totaling $27 million based on information available at that time.



Since the preparation of the preliminary 1999-2000 forecast further changes amounting to $37million have now been incorporated to reflect the more current projected expenditure forecastfor 1998-1999 and decisions to adjust staffing. A summary of the changes are as follows:

• Debt charges Increase: $7 million

The estimates reflect the estimated debt service charges to be incurred in 1999-2000 andare expected to be funded by the Ministry.

• School Renewal Increase: $10 million

This change is to reflect the increased grants from the Ministry.

• Classroom Computers Increase: $10 million

This is a one-time increased provision in 1999-2000 to address classroom computerrenewal, local area networking and training.

• Special Education Teachers: $3 million Educational Assistants: $7 million

Staffing changes have been made to provide for 77 special education teachers and 230additional special education assistants for 1999-2000. These provisions will be re-examinedfor 2000-2001 in light of what our Special Education allocation will be for that year.

The proposed 1999-2000 budget has been adjusted to reflect expenditure reductions of $27million relating to the following areas. These planned reductions will provide for a balancedbudget compared to the Ministry’s allocation.

Changes to Adult Day School $ 7.5 million

Reduction to Teacher Consultants $ 7.0 million

Reductions to Board Administration $10.5 million

Reductions to School Operations $ 2.0 million

$27.0 million

The reductions in the areas of Adult Day School and Teacher Consultants reflect the secondyear implementation of decisions made by the board in May 1998.

The $10.5 million reduction in Board Administration was applied in the areas of audit andconsulting fees ($1 million), administrative facility usage ($2 million), administrative staffingreductions ($6 million) and in miscellaneous expenditures ($1.5 million).

A general reduction of $2 million in school operations has been made.



1999-2000 Budget Analysis

The following summary comments are presented on the net increase of about $20 million in the1999-2000 budget compared to the latest 1998-1999 expenditure projection. The 1999-2000budget was developed based on the 1998-1999 expenditure projections as adjusted foranticipated expenditure changes.

Detailed Departmental Budgets

Budget staff are currently working with all departments and with the SAP financial managementimplementation team to develop line-by-line departmental budgets that will be based on theformat as shown on pages 292 to 298. This task is expected to be completed in time to load thebudgets onto the new system by September 1, 1999. The budget staff and the senior staff ofdepartments will present the detailed departmental budgets to be forwarded to each of the threespecial committees of the Board and to the Budget Process Group in October 1999.

Teachers – Net Increase $28 Million

“Teachers” include the Classroom Teachers, Library and Guidance and Preparation Timeexpenditure categories.

The following are the key variables contributing to the change in costs.

• Based on the latest enrolment projections for the 1999-2000 school year, elementaryenrolment will increase by about 2% over the previous year. Secondary enrolment isexpected to grow by about .6%. In addition, the budget includes provision for 77 additionalspecial education teachers. The total teacher cost increase is estimated to be about $27million including adjustments for increments and teacher replacements of recent graduatesfor retirees.

• Retirement information has not been finalized, however, initial estimates of the number ofretirees suggest that the bulge in teacher retirements will represent about 66% of last year’slevels above the normal level of retirements. This assumption is reflected in the 1999-2000budget. The 1999-2000 budget includes a provision for retirement gratuities above the 1998-1999 level of $1 million.

• The cost of the negotiated increase in teacher salaries of .75% and the increase in teacherbenefits will impact the 1999-2000 budget by $7.0 million.

• The final year phase-in of the change in the Adult Day School Program to a ContinuingEducation model will be implemented in September 1999-2000 resulting in a reduction of104 teachers, totaling $7.5 million.

• The budget assumes that the secondary teacher scheduling at 6 of 8 will remain in place for1999-2000.

Educational Assistants – Increase of $7 Million

As noted above, the budget includes a $7 million provision for 230 additional educationalassistants in Special Education.



Support Staff Salary Increase – Increase of $3.8 Million

The increase in support staff salaries takes affect January 1, 1999 for the remaining eightmonths of the 1999-2000 fiscal year. The total cost of this salary adjustment and benefitadjustments for support staff of $3.8 million has been allocated to the various support staffbudget categories in the 1999-2000 budget.

Staff Development – Increase of $2 Million

An additional provision of $2 million has been included in the 1999-2000 budget forimplementation of secondary school reform.

Teacher Consultants – Decrease of $8 Million

The 1999-2000 budget reflects a further reduction in teacher consultants as Phase 2 of theapproved reduction plan.

Board Administration – Net Decrease of $4 Million

Adjustments in the budget for board administration include the following:

• A 1% increase in salary and benefit costs for support staff totaling $1.4 million.

• Provision for the completion of the Financial System project, the HR system project,development of ISA database, integration of the plant work-order system into SAP, andintegration of permit systems estimated to be $3.4 million.

• Provision for the reduction in administration costs of $10.5 million in the areas of audit andconsulting fees ($1 million), administrative facility usage ($2 million). administrative staffingreductions ($6 million) and other administrative efficiencies of $1.5 million to be identified.

School Operations

• The 1999-2000 proposed budget for school operations has been set at the 1998-99 budgetlevel, adjusted for an increase in salary and benefits of 1% beginning in January 1999 in theamount of $2.2 million.

• Increase in revenue offsets and cost recoveries of $4.2 million to the 1998-1999 plannedlevels as we anticipate increased leasing revenue and a negotiated agreement with the Cityof Toronto for community and shared use of our facilities.

• Reduction in expenditures of $5.6 million in certain maintenance categories to the plannedlevels of 1998-1999.

• The proposed budget includes a $2.5-million provision for an increase in utility costs. Asignificant increase in the price of natural gas is anticipated in 1999-2000.

Transportation

A $2-million reduction in transportation contract service costs has been reflected as per the newTransportation Policy approved by the Board in June 1998.



OMERS Contribution Holiday

The Province recently approved the continued contribution holiday for both employees and theiremployers for the period to December 31, 2001. The contributions will then be phased back inover a two-year period. This will provide the Board with temporary funds to help offset theseverance costs to be incurred. The 1999-2000 budget includes a provision for about $20.8million equivalent to what the Board’s annual contribution would have been and is beingtransferred to a Reserve for Severance. It is understood that there is no current intention by theMinistry to reduce the “Allocation” to reflect these temporary savings.

Summary

As noted throughout the report further refinement and detail will be developed prior toimplementation on September 1, 1999. This document continues to be a work in progress.

The Budget Process Group RECOMMENDS:

(a) that the Toronto District School Board’s 1999-2000 Budget amounting to $2,096,709,037be approved;

(b) that the detailed departmental budgets be submitted to the appropriate specialcommittee of the Board.


Donna CansfieldChair of the Budget Process Group

Adopted, as amended, June 9, 1999.



1999-2000 Projected Budget Detail

TDSB Consolidated Budget Detail1998-99 Approved

Budget1998-1999 Projected

Expenditures1999-2000

Proposed BudgetClassroom Teachers - ElementaryRegular Classroom teachers 354,359,176 343,102,910 351,958,066 Other - Centrally Assigned - 2,011,200 2,044,720FSL 9,389,775 17,184,000 17,470,400Compensatory 3,203,699 6,360,000 6,466,000ESL 21,954,647 13,281,600 13,502,960Special education - - Self-contained 52,280,731 42,615,538 46,117,240 Resource/withdrawal 13,597,190 22,019,058 22,564,458 Care treatment & correctional facilities 5,859,584 5,526,678 5,526,678Remedial and Speech Language 9,078,432 10,704,942 10,704,942Benefits for above teachers: - - Retirement Gratuities 19,906,217 20,541,960 20,979,217 All other benefits 49,970,500 46,280,593 48,592,846Sub-Total 539,599,951 529,628,479 545,927,528

Classroom Teachers - SecondaryRegular Classroom teachers 236,025,442 231,845,036 234,600,499 Other - Centrally Assigned - 3,315,250 3,374,850FSL 370,000 3,293,000 3,352,200Compensatory - - -ESL 18,842,819 14,284,500 14,541,300Special education - Self-contained 12,855,127 12,935,977 13,157,769 Resource/withdrawal 7,572,599 9,601,765 9,774,381 Care treatment & correctional facilities 3,289,497 3,518,482 3,518,482Remedial and Speech Language 64,000 64,000 64,000Benefits for above teachers: - - Retirement Gratuities 19,699,802 19,441,960 20,272,802 All other benefits 30,231,037 27,885,801 28,728,948Sub-Total 328,950,323 326,185,770 331,385,231

Total - Classroom Teachers 868,550,274 855,814,249 877,312,758

Supply Teachers - Elementary

Long-term occasional 7,771,470 5,965,151 5,965,151Short Term Occasional - cover sick days 7,539,038 9,422,410 11,028,731Short Term Occasional - cover PD days 4,197,104 5,175,610 5,175,610Other 1,606,321 1,504,785 -Benefits for above teachers 1,476,796 1,664,988 2,216,949Sub-Total 22,590,729 23,732,944 24,386,440

Supply Teachers - Secondary

Long-term occasional 4,317,793 3,617,139 3,617,139Short Term Occasional - cover sick days 941,388 6,696,822 3,996,595Short Term Occasional - cover PD days 1,627,100 1,556,498 4,056,498Other 1,299,773 - -Benefits for above teachers 932,365 896,464 1,167,023Budget Planned Reduction (4,000,000)Sub-Total 5,118,419 12,766,923 12,837,255

Total - Supply Teachers 27,709,148 36,499,866 37,223,695



Educational Assistants - Elementary Ed Assistants for JK/K 11,506,814 8,905,039 8,958,469Ed Assistants Regular, ESL, FSL 3,842,741 3,865,798 Programs-in-Lieu Assistants 490,922 499,896 502,895 Care, Treatment and Correct. Facilities 485,179 518,676 521,788 Special Education Assistants 21,940,193 28,288,700 34,937,072 Compen. Educ. Assist/ Program Assisted 7,780,037 2,103,440 2,116,060 Health Related Education Assistants - - Benefits for above teacher assistants : - - Retirement Gratuities 164,876 25,000 25,000 All other benefits 4,571,887 4,857,434 5,599,229Sub-Total 46,939,908 49,040,925 56,526,311

Educational Assistants - Secondary Ed Assistants for Regular Classes 98,000 200,348 98,588 Programs-in-Lieu Assistants 36,667 59,387 36,887 Care, Treatment and Correct. Facilities - - Special Education Assistants 5,581,106 6,512,140 5,614,593 Compen. Educ. Assist/ Program Assisted 1,134,313 1,141,119 Health Related Education Assistants - - Benefits for above teacher assistants : - - Retirement Gratuities 56,040 25,000 56,040 All other benefits 670,024 744,906 758,031Sub-Total 7,576,150 7,541,781 7,705,257

Total - Educational Assistants 54,516,058 56,582,707 64,231,568

Textbooks and Classroom Supplies - ElementaryTextbooks 2,743,226 5,208,141 7,126,680Books and subscriptions 577,060 599,558 -Telephone-intercom - - -Supplies (library,classroom,audio visual) 15,471,056 13,014,291 20,852,375Non-computer equipment & repair 2,641,093 3,472,592 3,385,173School excursions, commencements, etc. 1,113,162 1,265,618 1,781,670Copiers 1,523,830 1,513,209 -Other (mileage, printing) 536,830 630,325 386,901Sub-Total 24,606,257 25,703,734 33,532,799

Office Supplies and EquipmentTelephone 2,143,888 2,170,426 1,781,670Supplies - - 267,251Equipment 868,318 452,734 267,251Rentals (include copiers) 523,792 520,203 1,781,670Fees and Services (Temp Office Support) 1,293,178 359,753 -Other (postage) 471,713 501,947 890,835Sub-Total 5,300,889 4,005,063 4,988,676

Textbooks and Classroom Supplies - SecondaryTextbooks 5,063,844 6,844,473 7,534,880Books and subscriptions 509,186 536,285 -Telephone-intercom - - -Supplies (library,classroom,audio visual) 17,047,654 17,071,821 13,520,122.00Non-computer equipment & repair 2,497,543 3,411,722 1,883,720School excursions, commencements, etc. 695,434 799,569 941,860Copiers 1,178,178 1,146,329 -Other (mileage, printing) 322,229 438,688 570,930Sub-Total 27,314,068 30,248,887 24,451,512

Office Supplies and EquipmentTelephone 1,923,933 2,005,606 1,130,232Supplies - - 612,209Equipment 323,213 469,425 612,209Rentals (include copiers) 672,756 709,315 941,860Fees and Services 1,862,661 975,372 -Other (postage) 291,818 326,910 188,372Sub-Total 5,074,381 4,486,628 3,484,882Total - Textbooks and Classroom Supplies Supplies 62,295,595 64,444,312 66,457,869



Computers - Classroom - ElementarySchool Based Computer Hardware 7,757,362 14,513,141 12,757,362Sub-Total 7,757,362 14,513,141 12,757,362

Computers - Classroom - SecondarySchool Based Computer Hardware 6,149,765 11,357,878 11,149,765Sub-Total 6,149,765 11,357,878 11,149,765

Computers - classroom - SchoolWAN/LANSchool Based Computer Hardware 9,500,329 9,500,329 9,500,329Sub-Total 9,500,329 9,500,329 9,500,329Total - Computers - Classroom 23,407,456 35,371,348 33,407,456

Professionals and Para-Professionals -Elementary, Secondary

Psychologists 5,023,067 4,924,078 4,957,069 Psychometrists/ Pyschoeducat. Consult. 3,704,481 3,588,165 3,612,206 Psychiatrists 145,580 158,106 159,165 Speech Language Pathologists 2,677,312 2,681,468 2,699,434 Audiologists 39,000 34,312 34,542 Occupational Therapists 1,085,000 981,322 987,897 Physiotherapists 305,000 305,000 307,044 Child Care Workers/community workers 1,231,542 1,121,684 1,128,414 Social Workers 5,123,110 5,004,130 5,034,155 Attendance Counsellors 1,278,548 1,195,912 1,203,087 Guidance Counsellors 221,250 370,569 372,792 Other Professional Staff : - - Community & Multicultural Consultants 2,182,355 2,809,994 2,826,854 Other Para-Professional Staff : - - - Research 1,649,910 1,532,184 1,542,450 Computer Technicians 5,916,420 5,827,924 5,866,972 All other Technicians: - - - Librarian technicians 1,617,460 1,521,970 1,531,102 Lifeguards/instructors 2,698,624 2,472,208 2,487,041 Hall monitors 1,197,623 1,084,258 1,090,764 Food services/cafeteria assistants 1,037,276 663,349 667,329 Outdoor education 2,036,159 1,841,620 1,853,959 After school supervisors 144,553 140,000 140,000 Music instructors 2,928,432 3,013,125 3,031,204 A.V. Technicians 4,393,427 4,170,625 4,198,568Lunchroom/Noon hour supervision: 7,618,460 7,629,125 7,674,899Other 48,871 128,000 128,858Benefits for the above groups: - - - Retirement Gratuities 280,978 50,000 280,978 All other benefits 7,271,648 6,915,887 6,959,655Supplies & Services 2,793,825 2,793,825 2,793,825Total - Professionals and Para-Professionals 64,649,912 62,958,840 63,570,262

Library and Guidance - ElementaryTeacher Librarians 19,219,267 14,857,440 15,105,064Guidance Teachers 3,330,645 2,362,080 2,401,448Benefits - Librarians/Guidance: - - Retirement Gratuities 139,294 - All other benefits 2,321,465 1,721,952 1,750,651Sub-Total 25,010,671 18,941,472 19,257,163Library and Guidance - SecondaryTeacher Librarians 7,886,732 7,064,820 7,191,828Guidance Teachers 18,275,589 12,421,285 12,644,589Benefits - Librarians/Guidance: - - Retirement Gratuities 257,152 All other benefits 3,379,563 1,948,611 1,983,642Sub-Total 29,799,036 21,434,716 21,820,059

Total - Library and Guidance 54,809,707 40,376,188 41,077,222



Staff development - Teachers - ElementaryTeachers on Leave 302,200 271,062 271,062P.D. for other instructional supports 1,488,449 1,522,539 1,522,539P.D. for school administration 46,535 46,535 46,535Staff 569,578 594,806 594,806Benefits 94,171 86,587 86,587Sub-Total 2,500,933 2,521,529 2,521,529

Staff development - Teachers - SecondaryTeachers on Leave 212,800 98,219 212,800P.D. for other instructional supports 940,394 914,127 940,394P.D. for school administration 36,636 36,636 2,036,636Staff 490,578 477,061 490,578Benefits 85,671 57,528 70,338Sub-Total 1,766,079 1,583,570 3,750,746

Total - Staff Development -Teachers 4,267,012 4,105,099 6,272,274

Preparation timePreparation Time - Elementary Teachers 61,494,116 57,725,770 61,039,121On-Call - Elementary Teachers - -Preparation Time - Secondary Teachers 69,290,619 49,189,613 50,369,983On-Call - Secondary Teachers 36,998,976 49,189,613 50,369,983

Total - Preparation time 167,783,711 156,104,997 161,779,087

Principals and Vice-PrincipalsPrincipals - Elementary 38,077,070 38,222,794 38,950,799Vice-Principals - Elementary 17,335,805 19,637,388 17,015,214Benefits - Elementary: - - - Retirement Gratuities 381,478 41,926 381,478 All other benefits 5,399,200 5,287,205 5,036,941Principals - Secondary 9,442,012 9,128,912 9,073,098Vice-Principals - Secondary 15,601,802 15,235,581 16,467,185Benefits - Secondary: - - - Retirement Gratuities 202,776 - 202,776 All other benefits 3,706,509 2,179,958 2,298,625Total - Principals and Vice-Principals 90,146,652 89,733,766 89,426,116

Department headsDepartment Heads - Release Time - Elementary - -Department Heads - Allowances - Elementary 876,190 316,674 316,674Department Heads - Release Time - Secondary - - -Department Heads - Allowances - Secondary 6,510,216 7,451,945 7,451,945Total - Department Heads 7,386,406 7,768,619 7,768,619

School SecretariesClerical/Secretarial Staff - Elementary 23,660,893 25,355,030 25,524,909Benefits - Elementary: - - - Retirement Gratuities 189,484 101,528 189,484 All other benefits 3,522,254 3,803,254 3,828,736Clerical/Secretarial Staff - Secondary 22,910,408 22,915,458 23,068,992Benefits - Secondary: - - - Retirement Gratuities 173,661 590,000 173,661 All other benefits 3,409,071 3,437,319 3,460,349Supplies & Services 13,553,500 13,553,554 13,553,500Total - School Secretaries 67,419,271 69,756,144 69,799,631

Teacher ConsultantsEducator Program Support Staff 21,154,896 23,672,000 15,812,608Benefits for Educator Program Support: - - Retirement Gratuities 240,224 134,345 240,224 All other benefits 3,137,216 2,367,200 1,581,261Educator Program Support-Contract Service 2,033,418 1,838,632 2,033,418Supplies & Services 3,877,146 3,877,105 3,877,146Total - Teacher Consultants 30,442,900 31,889,282 23,544,656



TrusteesBoard of Trustees 120,000 120,000 120,000 Other (newsletters, mileage) 185,000 185,000 185,000

Total - Trustees 305,000 305,000 305,000

Director and Supervisory OfficersExecutive Officers and Supervisory Officers 5,818,658 5,724,572 5,989,865Benefits 639,268 969,647 479,189Total - Director and Supervisory Officers 6,457,926 6,694,219 6,469,054

Board AdministrationAdministrative SalariesAdministrative and Supervisory 21,383,568 18,229,760 16,559,940Technical 8,646,975 8,674,624 8,732,744Central Caretakers/Cleaners 229,676 406,905 409,631Food Services/Cafeteria Assistants 553,014 443,584 446,556Secretarial and Clerical 25,189,367 23,107,443 20,262,263Secretarial and Clerical - Program 1,340,066 539,767 543,384Benefits for above staff: - - - Early Leaving Plan - - - Retirement Gratuities 631,183 1,039,257 1,039,257 All other benefits 9,971,562 7,710,313 7,043,178

Non-Salary ExpendituresSupplies 209,659 1,031,844 1,031,844Equipment: - - Computers - Central Administration 3,442,150 3,689,802 3,442,150Telephone: - - - Voice Lines & Options 2,977,825 2,635,945 2,977,825 Computer Lines 40,000 - - Data Lines (Wan/Lan) 4,780,700 4,267,956 1,745,700IT Projects - - 6,500,000Fees & Services: - - - Legal 3,124,000 2,512,856 3,124,000 Audit 510,000 212,789 110,000 Insurance - Liability 5,063,200 5,063,200 5,063,200 Computer Maintenance & Support 891,110 1,442,931 1,479,931 Consulting 2,904,000 5,789,474 2,200,000 Mailroom - Education Centre 455,400 324,907 455,400 Computer Installation & Network Support 653,600 1,002,839 700,000 Various Fees & Services - Schools 1,293,835 998,000 1,000,000 Contracted Programmers 1,526,000 1,420,961 1,526,000 Other 3,705,833 2,127,603 2,127,603 Mail Delivery to/from Schools 1,054,104 1,050,694 1,054,104 Employee Assistance Program 332,750 290,719 332,750 Postage - Education Centre 459,290 401,433 459,290 Switchboard - Education Centre 227,000 193,266 193,266 Membership Fees 525,803 369,638 369,638Photocopiers and Other Rentals: - - - Central Administration 1,422,110 1,376,348 1,422,110Publications 338,225 275,411 338,225Other: - - - Printing 635,540 608,334 635,540 Other - 405,397 405,397 Mileage 855,735 700,115 855,735 Retirement and 25 Year Dinner 87,000 41,579 87,000 Recruitment of Staff 134,200 299,735 134,200 Bank Charges & Short Term Loan Interest 5,033,600 5,033,600 6,033,600 Ed. Centre Maintenance & Utilities 7,310,314 6,301,447 5,310,314 Workshops & Professional Development 1,816,328 1,144,545 1,144,545Revenue Offsets (7,966,254) - -Total - Board Administration 111,788,467 111,165,023 107,296,321



School Operations - ConsolidatedCustodial and MaintenanceSalaries and Wages Chief and Assistant Chief Caretakers 18,172,992 19,424,101 19,554,242 Caretakers 88,353,884 90,332,044 88,923,869 Ground Maintenance 634,137 1,570,790 638,386 Tradespeople 31,166,624 34,283,617 32,980,241 Other 1,416,815 1,105,526 1,426,308Benefits for above staff: - - - Retirement Gratuities 400,000 550,000 400,000 All other benefits 27,108,093 26,042,406 27,269,379Utilities 47,805,406 48,327,911 50,305,406 Equipment 561,700 680,428 561,700 Caretaking Supplies (cleaning products) 5,904,414 5,338,892 5,338,892 Maintenance Supplies 7,085,858 5,951,354 5,951,354 Trades Supplies 2,000,000 2,529,465 2,000,000 Mileage 260,220 257,082 260,220 Office/ General Supplies 93,900 68,309 93,900 Telephone, Pagers 52,950 48,846 52,950Fees and Contractual Services - - - Security 2,730,692 2,603,851 2,730,692 Repairs/Maintenance - Equipment/Property 5,160,020 8,595,174 5,160,020 Insurance - Property 950,510 1,019,770 950,510Property Maintenance and Repairs: - - - Roof repairs 728,000 728,000 728,000 Window and Glass 473,000 473,000 473,000 Painting 53,500 59,637 53,500 Heating Systems 1,618,336 1,664,849 1,618,336 Building, Portables, Pools 3,827,461 3,755,561 3,827,461 Furniture and Equipment 828,000 727,700 828,000 Electrical 878,000 878,000 878,000 Other contracted services 10,037,893 8,084,413 8,084,413 Other Fees 2,632,990 1,583,937 2,632,990Professional Development 245,751 128,594 245,751Revenue Offsets - permits, GST, pool recovery (9,167,319) (8,447,539) (9,167,319)Cost Recoveries - Rental, Admin (15,062,954) (11,562,954) (15,062,954)Sub-Total 236,950,874 246,802,765 239,737,248Facilities Renewal and Debt ChargesGeneral Renovations and Renewal 28,123,806 28,123,900 38,023,900Debt Charges 50,203,729 50,203,729 57,000,000Sub-Total 78,327,535 78,327,629 95,023,900

Total - School Operations 315,278,409 325,130,394 334,761,148

Continuing EducationSalaries and BenefitsContinuing Education -Adult Citizenship and Language 1,330,865 1,305,696 1,313,530Adult ESL/Adult FSL 11,183,369 11,055,439 11,121,772Adult Native as a Second Language 27,000 30,346 30,528Credit for Diploma 16,554,481 15,846,055 15,964,901International Languages 6,227,892 6,674,235 6,714,280Summer School 6,726,192 6,826,326 6,877,523General Interest 3,744,031 4,054,301 654,301Adult Basic Literacy and Literacy 5,867,355 5,403,603 4,615,000Jobs Ontario Training - - -Federal LINC Programs (590,717) (172,394) (172,394)Human Resources Canada - - -Driver Education - Non Credit 28,100 28,100 -Planned Reductions (3,400,000) (1,900,000)



Overhead -Administrative Salaries 4,568,980 4,885,225 4,596,394Expenditures: - - - Supplies 1,579,455 1,045,359 1,660,299 Equipment 232,100 69,500 69,500 Telephones 18,700 53,700 53,700 Photocopiers 9,000 6,638 6,638 Printing Brochures 222,430 141,989 222,430 Other 341,380 152,588 152,588

Total - Continuing Education 54,670,613 55,506,707 53,880,991

TransportationBus Drivers 3,799,641 3,514,042 3,535,127Clerical/Secretarial Support 484,948 445,590 448,575Benefits - Transportation Staff: - - - Retirement Gratuities 10,000 10,000 10,000 All other benefits 631,953 609,087 599,055Supplies, Equipment and Furniture - - - Supplies - office/general 27,350 24,758 27,350 Equipment 2,500 7,855 2,500 Telephones 19,000 19,000 19,000 Fuel 967,700 908,585 967,700 Other 77,550 - -Professional Development 7,600 7,600 7,600Transportation - Contracted Services 9,232,676 8,641,044 6,641,044Transportation - Board Services 15,370,200 16,785,266 16,785,266School Excusions 944,113 876,905 876,905School to School Delivery 25,600 106,407 106,407TTC Tickets 1,384,100 1,296,220 1,296,220Other - 27,144 -

Total - Transportation 32,984,931 33,279,504 31,322,749

GRAND TOTAL - 1998/1999 BUDGET 2,044,869,447 2,043,486,262 2,075,906,477

Provision for Reserve for Working Funds 30,295,000 30,295,000OMERS transfer to Reserve for Severance 13,244,253 13,244,253 20,802,560Grants Recovered (8,500,000)

2,088,408,700 2,078,525,515 2,096,709,037Funds Available for Other Initiatives 9,883,185

Notes:Revenues have been netted to the appropriateexpenditure categories as per Ministry instruction forEstimates submission.

Minutes of the Toronto District School Board June 9, 1999Chair’s Committee, Report No. 2


Report No. 2, Chair’s Committee

June 7, 1999

To the Chair and Members ofthe Toronto District School Board:

A meeting of the Chair’s Committee was held this day at 155 College Street, Toronto, from 1:10p.m. to 3:10 p.m. The following Committee members were present: Trustees Nyberg (Chair),Ferreira, Kendall and Laskin. The following members were also present: Trustees Gershonand Schaeffer.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

1. Presentation of Reports From Area Review Committees (Amended, see page 286)

For the information of the Board, the Chair’s Committee is scheduling an information session fortrustees to hear presentations from each Area Review Committee concerning its report. At thattime, trustees will be able to direct questions to the members of the ARCs concerning theirreports. This information session is scheduled for Monday June 21 at 7:00 p.m. in the BoardRoom at 155 College Street.

2. Cancellation of Meeting

The Chair’s Committee RECOMMENDS that the regular meeting of the Board scheduled forWednesday, July 7, 1999, be cancelled.

3. Ontario Public School Boards’ Association (OPSBA)

The Chair’s Committee considered the matter of membership in the Ontario Public SchoolBoards’ Association for the period September 1, 1999 to August 31, 2000. The membershipfees for this period are $347,412.00.

The Chair’s Committee RECOMMENDS that the Toronto District School Board renew itsmembership in the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association for the period September 1, 1999to August 31, 2000, at a membership fee of $347,412.00.


Gail NybergChair of the Committee

Adopted, as amended, June 9, 1999.




June 9, 1999To the Chair and Members ofthe Toronto District School Board:

A meeting of the Committee of the Whole (Private Session) convened at 5:10 p.m. in the BoardRoom at 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Trustee Shelley Laskin, Vice-Chair of theBoard, presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Brian Blakeley, DonnaCansfield, Judi Codd, Christine Ferreira, Gerri Gershon, Suzan Hall, Elizabeth Hill, Jeff Kendall,Shelley Laskin, Sheine Mankovsky, Ron McNaughton, David Moll, Elizebeth Moyer, BarbaraNash, Gail Nyberg, Stephnie Payne, Lilein Schaeffer, Doug Stephens, Mike Thomas, SheilaWard and Student Trustee Nadia Salvaterra.

Regrets were received from Trustee Cleary.

1. Declarations of Possible Conflict of Interest

Trustee Brian Blakeley declared a possible conflict of interest with regard to the matter ofeducational assistants (Report No. 5, Standing Committee - Private Session, see Item 4 below).Trustee Blakeley stated that the nature of his interest is that he is an employee of the unionwhich represents support staff. Trustee Blakeley did not take part in the discussion or vote onthis matter when it was considered by the Standing Committee in private or the Committee ofthe Whole.

2. Staff Changes

The Committee considered six reports of the senior officials dated June 9, 1999.

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that the staff changes (on file in the Director’sOffice) be approved.


3. Report No. 5 of the Standing Committee, (Private Session), June 2, 1999

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS: That Report No. 5 of the Standing Committee(Private Session), June 2, 1999 be adopted as follows:

Educational Assistants

(a) That, with regard to staff allocation to support Regular Program, a combination offunding formula and mitigation funds be used to phase-in this model so as to:

(i) ensure that every school has the educational assistant support that theEquitable Distribution Model would provide,



(ii) ensure that for 1999-2000 no school lose the resources they would otherwise losethrough application of the Equitable Distribution Model;

(b) That districtwide implementation of the Equitable Distribution model begin effectiveSeptember 1, 2000;

(c) That the assignment of educational assistants to Special Education programs be phasedin so as to:

(i) ensure that no educational assistant support currently assigned to SpecialEducation programs be reduced for 1999-2000;

(ii) ensure that at least 50 percent of the additional educational assistant support beallocated for the 1999-2000 school year;

(d) That job classifications for educational assistants in Special Education programs beanalyzed to meet the requirements of the new Special Education Plan and that theanalysis be completed by March 31, 2000;

(e) That the following matters be referred to the Director of Education for review andcomment back to the appropriate committees and the Board:

(i) and that any reductions be achieved through a two-year phase-in” [seerecommendation (b) above];

(ii) that processes be developed as provided in the CUPE 4400 Bargaining Unit Ccollective agreement to allow for implementation to begin September 1, 2000.



Adopted, June 9, 1999



Blank Page



Special MeetingJune 16, 1999

A special meeting of the Toronto District School Board convened at 5:05 p.m. in the BoardRoom at 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Gail Nyberg, Chair of the Board, presiding.The following members were present: Trustees Brian Blakeley, Donna Cansfield, Diane Cleary,Judi Codd, Christine Ferreira, Gerri Gershon, Suzan Hall, Elizabeth Hill, Jeff Kendall, ShelleyLaskin, Sheine Mankovsky, Ron McNaughton, Elizebeth Moyer, Barbara Nash, Gail Nyberg,Stephnie Payne, Lilein Schaeffer, Doug Stephens, Mike Thomas and Sheila Ward.

Regrets were received from Trustees Irene Atkinson and David Moll.


The meeting was called to consider staff changes and a private business matter.


On motion by Trustee Ferreira, seconded by Trustee Gershon, the Board resolved intoCommittee of the Whole (Private Session) at 5:06 p.m. with Trustee Laskin, Vice-Chair of theBoard, presiding.

135. Reconvene

The Special Meeting of the Board reconvened at 6:15 p.m. to consider Report No. 11 of theCommittee of the Whole (Private Session).

136. Report No. 11 of the Committee of the Whole (Private Session), June 16, 1999

Trustee Laskin, seconded by Trustee Nash, moved: That Report No. 11 of the Committee ofthe Whole (Private Session), June 16, 1999, be adopted. (See page 304)


137. Adjournment

At 6:20 p.m., Trustee Ward, seconded by Trustee Ferreira, moved: That the Special Boardstand adjourned.









June 16, 1999


A meeting of the Committee of the Whole (Private Session) convened at 5:06 p.m. in the BoardRoom at 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario with Trustee Shelley Laskin, Vice-Chair of theBoard, presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Brian Blakeley, Donna Cansfield, Diane Cleary,Judi Codd, Christine Ferreira, Gerri Gershon, Suzan Hall, Elizabeth Hill, Jeff Kendall, ShelleyLaskin, Sheine Mankovsky, Ron McNaughton, Elizebeth Moyer, Barbara Nash, Gail Nyberg,Stephnie Payne, Lilein Schaeffer, Doug Stephens, Mike Thomas and Sheila Ward.

Regrets were received from Trustees Irene Atkinson and David Moll.

3. Staff Changes

The Committee considered a report of the officials recommending the promotion of schoolprincipals and vice-principals.

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that the promotion of school principals and vice-principals as presented (on file in the Director’s Office) be approved.

2. Private Business Matter

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that the recommendations concerning a privatebusiness matter, as shown in the private minutes of the meeting of June 16, 1999, be approved.






Regular MeetingJune 23, 1999

A meeting of the Toronto District School Board convened at 6:45 p.m. in the Board Room at 155College Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Gail Nyberg, Chair of the Board, presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Brian Blakeley, DonnaCansfield, Diane Cleary, Judi Codd, Christine Ferreira, Gerri Gershon, Suzan Hall, ElizabethHill, Jeff Kendall, Shelley Laskin, Sheine Mankovsky, David Moll, Elizebeth Moyer, BarbaraNash, Gail Nyberg, Stephnie Payne, Lilein Schaeffer, Doug Stephens, Mike Thomas and SheilaWard.

Regrets were received from Trustee Ron McNaughton.

138. Approval of AgendaTrustee Nash, seconded by Trustee Blakeley, moved: That the agenda be approved.The motion was carried.

139. Temporary ChairTrustee Laskin, Vice-Chair of the Board, presided from time to time during the meeting.

140. Confirmation of Minutes(a) Meeting held on May 12, 1999

Trustee Mankovsky, seconded by Trustee Schaeffer, moved: That the minutes of the ofthe Special Board meeting of the Toronto District School Board held on May 12,1999, be confirmed.The motion was carried.

(b) Meeting held on May 26, 1999Trustee Laskin, seconded by Trustee Schaeffer, moved: That the minutes of the regularmeeting of the Toronto District School Board held on May 26, 1999, be confirmed.The motion was carried.

141. Declarations of Possible Conflicts of InterestTrustee Cansfield declared possible conflicts of interest with regard to the items on RFP 99-006P Computer Server and Related Services and the addendum to this report on ComputerServers and Related Services Supplementary Information, contained in Report No. 6 of theStanding Committee. She stated that the nature of her interest is that her husband is anemployee of IBM Canada. Trustee Cansfield did not take part in the discussions or vote onthese matters.

Trustee Blakeley declared possible conflicts of interest with regard to the items on support staffnegotiations and termination of support staff. He stated that the nature of his interest is that heis an employee of the union, which represents support staff. Trustee Blakeley did not take partin the discussions or vote on these matters when they were considered by the Committee of theWhole, in private, and by the Board.



Trustee Atkinson declared possible conflicts of interest with regard to the items on SecondaryOccasional Teachers: Memorandum of Settlement and Declaration of Secondary SurplusTeachers. She stated that the nature of her interest is that her daughter is a member ofOSSTF, District 12. Trustee Atkinson did not take part in the discussions or vote on thesematters when they were considered by the Committee of the Whole, in private, and by theBoard.

142. DelegationsTrustee Hall, seconded by Trustee Nash, moved: That the Board be allowed to hear adeputation from Michelle Sokovnin, former member of the Antiracism and EthnoculturalEquity Policy Task Group, on the Equity in Education Foundation Statement.The motion was carried.

1. Oral Presentations:

The Board heard the following oral presentations:

Adult and Continuing Education Programs (see page 372 of Report No. 7B of the BudgetProcess Group; page 396 of Report No. 2 of the Instruction, Program and Student ServicesCommittee and page 406 of Report No. 3 of the Instruction Program and Student ServicesCommittee):

• Susan Nielsen, Toronto Adult Student Association

Adult and Continuing Education – International Languages (see page 369 of Report No. 7B ofthe Budget Process Group and page 407 of Report No. 3 of the Instruction, Program andStudent Services Committee):

• David Perlman, Ryerson Community Public School Council• Marilia Dos Santos, Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), Local 4400 Vice-

President of International Languages/Concurrent /Black Cultural Program

Adult and Continuing Education: Seniors Daytime Programs (see page 322 and page 408 ofReport No. 3 of the Instruction, Program and Student Services Committee):

• Grant Reimer, Lead Instructor – Seniors Program

Adult and Continuing Education: English as a Second Language (see pages 380 and 385 ofReport No. 7B of the Budget Process Group):

• Terri Preston, Vice-President - Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), Local 4400.

Membership Renewal in The Learning Partnership (see page 358 of Report No. 6 of theStanding Committee):

• Linda Lambert - Teacher at Oakwood Collegiate Institute, on behalf of Camille Natale –Teacher at Oasis Alternative School.



Equity in Education Foundation Statement (see page 349 of Report No. 6 of the StandingCommittee):

• Ihsan El-Sayed, parent.• Owen Leach, Organization of Parents of Black Children.• Michelle Sokovnin, former member of the Antiracism and Ethnocultural Equity Policy Task

Group.

2. Written Submissions:

The Board received the following written presentations in lieu of delegations:

Adult and Continuing Education: Seniors Daytime Programs (see page 322 and page 408 ofReport No. 3 of the Instruction, Program and Student Services Committee):

• Jewish Community Center (J.C.C.) Seniors Pottery Program• The Pottery Class, Laughlen Center• Helen Cameron, Senior

Adult and Continuing Education – International Languages/Concurrent Black History andCulture Program (see page 369 of Report No. 7B of the Budget Process Group and page 407 ofReport No. 3 of the Instruction, Program and Student Services Committee):

• Maureen Boulter, Chairperson of the Board of Directors of Lakeshore Area Multi-ServicesProject Inc. (LAMP)

Community Liaison Groups (see page 359 of Report No. 6 of the Standing Committee):

• Islamic Council of Imams of Canada• Muslim Education Network, Training and Outreach Service• The Federation of Muslim Women

Trustee Hall, seconded by Trustee Nash, moved: That the oral presentations from thedelegations and the written submissions in lieu of delegations be received.


143. Good News: TDSB Staff and Students

The Board considered a report from the officials providing information about TDSB staff andstudents who have been recognized for outstanding achievements in various areas.

Trustee Hall, seconded by Trustee Stephens, moved: That the congratulations of the Boardbe extended to:

(a) Rose DiVincenzo, Community Services Administrator, presented with theCanadian Community Educator of the Year Award by the Canadian Associationfor Community Education.

(b) Michael Taylor, Churchill Heights Public School, honoured by the GovernorGeneral of Canada for excellence in teaching Canadian history.



(c) Lynne Cotton, Area Support Teacher at Cedar Drive Junior Public School,recipient of the CEC Scarborough Chapter 568 Educational Leader of the YearAward in recognition of her work with special needs students.

(d) Chris Cowperthwaite, Lawrence Park Collegiate Institute student, who wasawarded a scholarship by the Canadian Merit Scholarship Foundation.

(e) Don Mills Middle School recipient of a School Recognition Award for QualityDaily Physical Education (QDPE) from The Canadian Association for Health,Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.

(f) George Harvey Academy, York Humber High School, Vaughan Road Academy,Weston Collegiate Institute, and C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute, inpartnership with Rose Technology Group, who are the recipients of one ofCanada’s National Energy Efficiency Awards for their Leaders in SustainabilityCooperative Education Program. These awards recognize Canadian expertiseand innovation in the field of energy efficiency.

(g) Marc Garneau Collegiate Institute student Aaron Judah, who won a gold medalfor the best physical sciences project in Canada at the intermediate level of theCanada-Wide Science Fair held in Edmonton, Alberta. He also won theCanadian Association of Physicists’ Prize for the best intermediate levelphysics project. Also, Marc Garneau Collegiate Institute students Alex Ince-Cushman, won a gold medal for the best senior physical sciences project atthe Canada-Wide Science Fair, and Jay Weymouth and Edward Lo received anHonourable Mention for their Calculus project on vector analysis.

(h) The following recipients of the Metropolitan Region Science Fair award:Northern Secondary School students Vivienne Sze, The Intel ComputerScience Gold Award; Louis Hobson and Jeffrey Ng, Society of Tribologists andLubrication Engineers Award; Bronwen McCurdy, The Sigma Si Book Award;Max Kelly, Gold Prize Senior Life Sciences; Elena Andreeva and Robert Quick,Gold Prize Senior Engineering and Information Sciences Award and theFaculty of Art and Science Dean’s Award.

(i) Northern Secondary School student Max Kelly, whose research on a newbiological weapon to kill off antibiotic resistant bacteria earned him tophonours in the 1999 Connaught Student Biotechnology Exhibition for theGreater Toronto Region.

(j) The following winners of the 31st Canadian Mathematical Olympiad: First Prizeand Sun Life Cup winner Jimmy Chui, Earl Haig Secondary School; Third Prizewinner David Pritchard, Woburn Collegiate Institute; Honourable MentionEdmond Choi, A.Y. Jackson Secondary School.

(k) Sue Daniels, Downsview Secondary School, and Mel Greif, HumbersideCollegiate Institute, who have been named Teachers of the Year by the TheToronto Sun and the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

(l) Michelle Alexiou, R.H. King Academy student, who won second place in theSenior Division of the Holocaust Education & Memorial Centre of Toronto’swriting contest. Michelle’s essay examined the issue of genocide in themodern context of the Kosovo crisis.

(m) Mitchell Wong and Daniel Urbain, students at Whitney Public School, who arewinners of the district-wide French Public Speaking Contest.



(n) Feir Johnson, Wexford Public School, winner of the Elementary Teachers’Federation of Ontario’s Publication and Distribution of Multi-Media Award –Women only Program.

(o) Islington Jr. Middle School (for their Anti-racist Committee) and Briarcrest Jr.Public School (for their “My Pal” program), recipients of the Pat GordonAward for outstanding contributions to Equity and Social Justice.

(p) Francie Maroosis, Oakwood Collegiate Institute, Joanne Sleightholm, ArmourHeights Public School and Angela Vavitas, Northern Secondary School,recipients of certificates of merit at the eight annual TV Ontario Teachers’Awards ceremonies.

(q) Dayna Linton, 1999 recipient of the G.L. Phillips Achievement Award. Theaward is given to a graduating student of the Special Education Program:Developmental Handicap.

(r) The following from Woburn Collegiate Institute: Rachel Chang, a Certificate ofMerit winner at the Chemical Institute of Canada Chemistry Contest; NeeloyBhattacharyya and Jonathan Neuhold, multiple award winners at the Canada-Wide Science Fair; David Pritchard, for finishing first in Canada in theCanadian Association of Physicists’ Prize Examination; Andrew Thomas,National Biology Scholar with Distinction; Fraser Allen, Jeremy Walker, KevinQuan, National Biology Scholars; Andrew Thomas, for finishing sixth inCanada in the DaVinci Contest, University of Toronto Engineering; and NiharPasala, David Pritchard, Andrew Luft, Chris Enright, for finishing first inRegion Three (Ontario, Quebec, Maritimes, New York State) at the AmericanAssoc. of Physics Teachers Physics Bowl.


Business Arising from the Good News Reports

As business arising, Trustee Laskin informed the Board that earlier in the evening, a recognitionceremony was held for the 1999 Toronto District School Board recipients of the Gerald L.Phillips Achievement Award, The Prime Minister’s Awards for Teaching Excellence and TheHerbert H. Carnegie Future Aces Foundation Citizenship Award and Scholarship. Some of therecipients of these Awards are mentioned in the Good News Report. She requested that thecongratulations of the Board be forwarded to the following recipients of The Herbert H. CarnegieFuture Aces Foundation Citizenship Award and Scholarship not mentioned in the Good NewsReport:

• Assema Baig, Sir Sandford Fleming Academy• Alene Barcia, Bathurst Heights Secondary School• Shaun Chen, Sir John a. Macdonald Collegiate Institute• Kristen Evans and Noufissa Kabli, Leaside High School• Aliya Ladha, East York Collegiate Institute• Sherri Mehrafzoon, George S. Henry Academy• Joseph Millones, Emery Collegiate Institute• Sopana Premachandran, Rosedale Heights Secondary School



• Lisa Vanhala, Vistoria Park Secondary School• Isabel Wong, Jarvis Collegiate Institute

144. Area Review Committee Reports: Phase One – School Closures

The Board considered a report of the officials dated June 23, 1999, presenting for information,the reports of the Area Review Committees, Phase One – School Closures.

The report noted that as a result of the provincial government funding formula, coupled with theamalgamation of the public boards in Metropolitan Toronto on January 1, 1998, the TorontoDistrict School Board has focused its efforts on making the most efficient use of its resources,most notably in the area of school operations.

The Board, on February 24, 1999, approved a report entitled Pupil Accommodation Review:2000 and Beyond, which identified the need to close up to 30 schools over the next three years,to not only reduce its surplus pupil places, but to increase operating efficiencies as well asprogram viability. In that report, it was also recommended that a maximum of 10 schools beclosed in any given year.

On Wednesday, April 28, 1999 the Board received the staff report School Closures: September2000, recommending nine (9) schools (10 buildings) for closure. The total number of pupilplaces of the nine (9) schools identified in that report was approximately 5,700 spaces. Thisamount represents 8% of a total surplus pupil places of the approximately 70,000 surplus pupilspaces within the new amalgamated TDSB. On April 29, 1999 a copy of the report wasforwarded to school principals, school council chairs and student council presidents (secondaryschools) for the schools identified in the report for membership on the Area Review Committees.A copy of the report was also forwarded to the Ministry of Education and Training and the City ofToronto.

The report recommended that an Area Review Committee, for each of the nine (9) designatedsites, be formed as per Board Policy and that they begin deliberations the week of May 10,1999. Further it was recommended that the reports of the nine (9) Area Review Committees beforwarded to the Executive Officer of Facility Services no later than June 21, 1999, forsubsequent forwarding to the June 23, 1999 meeting of the Board.

Area Review Committee (ARC) Process

The nine (9) Area Review Committees commenced their deliberations the week of May 10,1999 and each Committee established its own meeting dates in accordance with the schedulesof its members and established its own decision-making process, with the majority of theCommittees opting for simple majority.

Early in the process, a presentation was made to each Committee by the planning staffassigned as resource staff to each ARC. The presentation provided an in-depth analysis of thearea and the rationale for the staff recommendation for school closure in that area. All of theCommittees met a minimum of six times, with some Committees holding task group and sub-committee meetings beyond the regular meeting dates. In accordance with the proceduresapproved by the Board, each ARC held a public meeting in its fifth week to share its conclusionsand to receive community feedback prior to deciding upon its final recommendation(s) to theBoard.



ARC Reports

On Monday, June 21, 1999, members of the Board attended a public Information Session whereeach Area Review Committee presented its report and answered questions.

The Area Review Committee Reports (Appendices 1 to 9, which are listed below and are on filein the Secretariat’s Office for temporary consultation), were received by the Executive Officer,Facility Services, from each of the Area Review Committees and contain the recommendationsfrom the Committees.

Appendix 1: Recommendations of the Givins/Shaw Area Review CommitteeAppendix 2: McNicoll Public School Area Review Committee ReportAppendix 3: Hughes Junior Public School Area Review Committee ReportAppendix 4: Heydon Park Secondary School Area Review Committee ReportAppendix 5: Area Review Committee Report for Midland Avenue Collegiate InstituteAppendix 6: Area Review Committee: D. B. Hood Community SchoolAppendix 7: Report of the Cordella Area Review CommitteeAppendix 8: Area Review Committee: Earlscourt Public SchoolAppendix 9: Brookbanks Public School Area Review Committee Report

During discussion, staff responded to questions from the Trustees and noted their concerns,suggestions and requests for additional information to be included in the report to the StandingCommittee on September 15, 1999.

On behalf of the Board, Trustee Laskin expressed appreciation to the various schoolcommunities that attended the public Information Session on June 21, 1999.

Trustee Hall, seconded by Trustee Cansfield, moved: That the following recommendations ofthe officials be approved

(a) that the report, Area Review Committee Reports: Phase One - School Closures,be received;

(b) that the report be forwarded to staff for analysis and comment; and(c) that staff report the findings and recommendations at the September 15, 1999

Standing Committee meeting of the Board.


Business Arising from the foregoing report on Area Review Committee Reports: Phase One –School Closures

As Business Arising, the following matters were considered by the Board:

• Trustee Atkinson moved: That the Area Review Committees be given an opportunity torespond to the recommendations of the officials prior to the Board Meeting onSeptember 29, 1999; and a date and time for the meeting be determined by the Chairand the Director of Education and the Area Review Committees be informed.Trustee Kendall moved in amendment: That appropriate staff from the PlanningDepartment meet with the Area Review Committees prior to the Board Meeting onSeptember 29, 1999, to give them an opportunity to respond to the recommendationsof the officials.




The motion as amended, was carried.

• Trustee Hill, seconded by Trustee Ferreira, moved: That a letter of commendation be sentto members of the Area Review Committees and the Humberwood Downs BoundariesCommittee, under the signature of the Chair of the Board, in appreciation for theirwork.The motion was carried.

145. Enterprise Help DeskThe Board considered a report from staff dated June 23, 1999, providing a recommendation forthe selection of an Enterprise Help Desk system for the Toronto District School Board along withthe implementation plan and proposed budget for the project.

The report advises that technical support of computer systems and software within the TDSB isstill provided through a number of groups operating from former Board administration andComputers in Education offices. Groups which supply these services include computer serviceshelp desks, repair centres, training centres, network support groups, library services, mediaservices and computers in education centres. The processes and procedures as well as thequality and timeliness of responses varies across the organization.

As part of the formation of the new Information Technology Services Department, these supportfunctions will all be coordinated through a single, consolidated “Enterprise Help Desk”. The newHelp Desk will provide a single point of contact for all staff using a personal computer oroperating TDSB supported software, as well as, a single point of management for all informationtechnology requests. This includes classroom-based systems as well as administrative andoperations systems across the Board.

The Help Desk system will serve a primary client group of approximately 17,000 teachers andover 13,000 support staff across up to 600 locations. It is estimated that it will process as manyas 20,000 calls per month. Approximately 40 staff will form the key Help Desk team withanother 300 Information Technology Services staff using the system to manage and report onsupport calls to staff. It is also anticipated that the problem solutions database created throughthe Help Desk will be made available to all staff to assist in self-sufficient problem resolution.Finally, the software for the Help Desk will also provide the basis for computer asset inventorymanagement across the TDSB.

The expected support will include the following:

• Over 250 Ministry supported instructional software packages on both Macintosh and Intelsystems.

• Over 300 Personal Computer Applications• Over 80 school boards and individual business systems and applications• Approximately 45,000 desktop computers and another 10,000 printers• A variety of Wide Area and Local Area Network services covering up to 600 locations• A variety of desktop and server operating systems and several different electronic mail and

messaging products



Project History:

The recommendation for the purchase of a particular Help Desk product and thisimplementation plan results from the following activities:

• Establishment of a Help Desk project team - January 1998• Issue of Help Desk Request for Proposal (RFP No 98-027) - June 1998• Independent Consultants report regarding telephone support options - November 16, 1998• Toronto District School Board Help Desk Project Team Report - January 1999• Situation Analysis interviews with current Help Desk Groups and key project teams (SAP,

HR / Payroll) – May 1999

The Request for Proposal resulted in seven company responses on nine Help Desk productsand services ranging in costs from $700,000 to $1,500,000. Companies responding includedNext Generation, Computer Associates, Network Associates, Allen Systems, Applix, MollyGroup and SystemHouse.

Each proposal was reviewed by the Help Desk Committee and rated using 36 items that werepre-established as the evaluation criteria. The recommended supplier, Next Generation with theproduct ARS-Remedy, was the lowest cost and scored highest on the non-financial evaluationcomponent. It has a proven track record with installations in over 25 school Boards acrossCanada and in organizations such as Bell Mobility, KPMG, Clearnet, Greater Toronto AirportAuthority, ATI Technology, Shoppers Drug Mart and the B.C. Government.

Help Desk Implementation Plan:

The new Help Desk services will be implemented in a phased approach to maintain minimalcurrent support requirements, maximize early successes and create a solid foundation for thefull system and services. The following outlines the implementation plan:

1) Fast Track priority requirements - Implement the Help Desk software in majorinitiatives such as SAP and HR/Payroll to support the fall 1999 product rollout. July15, 1999

2) Interim consolidation of existing servicesa) Create a single contact number (395-HELP) using existing telephone services.

June 15, 1999;b) Implement software and train staff in each existing centres replacing current

systems with the new standard for problem tracking, support of Year 2000 andother existing applications. July – October 1999;

c) Implement the Enterprise Help Desk prototype. November 1999

3) Full Help Desk Implementation - January to June 2000a) Consolidation of all existing Help Desks;b) Incorporation of Information Technology Service Level Agreements and TDSB

policies and procedures;c) Measurement and accountability of client services and overall performance.



Synergy with Other TDSB Service Initiative:

The Help Desk will be implemented in conjunction with other telephone-based services currentlybeing investigated across TDSB administration. All efforts to date have included consultationwith the Facilities Call Centre and the TDSB Communications public access initiatives, alsounderway. This consultation and shared service planning will continue throughout thedeployment and operation of the Information Technology Services Help Desk.

Estimated Project Costs:

• Help Desk Software (ARS-Remedy) & Consulting $718,000• Remedy Maintenance $115,000• Centrex and new Telephony enhancements $248,000• Telephony Maintenance $ 36,000• Furniture, Computer Equipment (desktops, servers, etc) $400,000• Ancillary services (lab, technical library, etc.) $100,000• Training (systems, processes, technology) $100,000

Total Estimated Project Costs $1,717,000Plus 10.2% net taxes 175,134

Total Project Cost $1,892,134Ministry Restructuring Funding - 750,000*Net Project Costs to TDSB $1,142,134

*$750,000 for Software and Consulting services is provided through Ministry restructuring funds identified specificallyfor this project. The remaining funds will be drawn from the 1999/2000 operating budget.

During discussion, staff provided clarification to various aspects of the report in response toquestions from the Trustees.

Trustee Kendall, seconded by Trustee Laskin, moved: That the following recommendationscontained in the report be approved:

(a) that the ARS Remedy Problem Management Software be purchased asproposed through the recommended supplier, Next Generation (NGS) and thatNGS also provide the necessary design, configuration, installation, productsupport, procedure, integration and measurement development and training asproposed and quoted in the original RFP response; and

(b) that the additional funding as per the Estimated Project Costs detail beallocated from the 1999/2000 Information Technology Services operatingbudget to support the full implementation of the Help Desk Services.


146. Change in Order of AgendaTrustee Kendall, seconded by Trustee Thomas, moved: That the order of business bechanged to that which follows.The motion was carried.

147. Electronic MeetingsThe Board considered a report from the Director of Education dated June 23, 1999, outlining theneed for an interim policy for electronic Special Board Meetings during the summer months, andrecommending an interim policy and accompanying procedures.



The report advises that Regulation 463/97, Electronic Meetings, states in part:

2. (1) Every district school board shall develop and implement a policy providingfor the use of electronic means for the holding of meetings of a district schoolboard and meetings of a committee of a district school board, including acommittee of the whole board.

Therefore, a school board must have a policy governing electronic meetings in order to holdsuch a meeting.

This matter has some urgency as the Board has to decide to cancel the Regular Board Meetingin July 7, 1999. Interviews from the most recent round of staff appointments in the BusinessServices Department will be completed by June 30th. The Business Services Departmentrequires approval of these staff changes relatively soon after that time, in order to facilitate workrequired for a successful start to the school year in September.

A solution to this unique short-term problem would be to approve an interim policy andaccompanying guidelines to allow for an electronic Special Board Meeting to approve staffchanges. This interim policy could have an expiry date with a request that the Chair’sCommittee review the matter.

It should be noted that Regulation 463/97 addresses a variety of issues, including meetinglocation, staff and Trustees required to be present at the meeting location, recording ofattendance of Board members, and that electronic means are provided in such a way that rulesgoverning conflict of interest can be met.

Trustee Kendall, seconded by Trustee Cansfield moved adoption of the followingrecommendations contained in the report:(a) That the Board adopt the following interim policy for the holding of electronic meetings:

(i) A Special Board Meeting, including a Committee of the Whole, may be held andallow for participation through electronic means at the call of the Director and Chair.

(ii) That written notice of the Special Board Meeting, including the Committee of theWhole, will include notification that there will be provision for participation throughelectronic means.

(iii) An electronic Special Board Meeting, including Committee of the Whole, will be heldin conformity with the provisions of the Education Act and Regulations, and theapplicable Bylaws of the Board.

(b) That the attached procedures be approved for the holding of an electronic meeting as perthe above policy.

(c) That the matters to be considered at an electronic meeting held under the above interimpolicy be limited to approval of urgent staff changes for which delay would impact theBoard’s operations.

(d) That the interim policy for the holding of electronic meetings remain in force until notice isgiven of the August 25, 1999 Regular Board Meeting.

(e) That the Chair’s Committee be requested to present a policy for the holding of electronicmeetings to the August 25, 1999 Regular Board Meting.



Trustee Kendall, seconded by Trustee Mankovsky, moved in amendment: That the words“staff changes” in recommendation (c) be replaced with “matters”, so that it now readsas follows (the amendment is underlined):

Recommendation (c):That the matters to be considered at an electronic meeting held under the aboveinterim policy be limited to approval of urgent matters for which delay wouldimpact the Board’s operations.

Trustee Moll, seconded by Trustee Laskin, moved in further amendment: That the words “orproforma” be added to the above amendment, so that recommendation (c) now reads asfollows (the amendment is underlined):

Recommendation (c):That the matters to be considered at an electronic meeting held under the aboveinterim policy be limited to approval of urgent or proforma matters for which delaywould impact the Board’s operations.

The amendment to the amendment was carried.

The main amendment as amended, was carried.

Changes to Procedures/Administrative Guidelines:

Trustee Moll, seconded by Trustee Laskin, moved: That the word “LAN” in Item 2 of theaccompanying procedures to the interim policy [on electronic Special Board Meetings]be replaced with “regular phone”, so that it now reads as follows (change is underlined):

Item 2:Only telephones on regular phone lines may be used by Trustees to participate inan electronic meeting. Cellular, portable or radio telephones are not to be used forelectronic meetings.


Trustee Moll, seconded by Trustee Laskin, moved: That the phrase “read aloud” in Item 5 ofthe accompanying procedures to the interim policy [on electronic Special BoardMeetings] be replaced with “communicated”; and the statement “if not previouslycommunicated” be added to the guideline, so that it now reads as follows (the changesare underlined):

Item 5:

At the beginning of the meeting, agenda material will be communicated to allparticipating Trustees, if not previously communicated.


The motion to: (a) adopt the interim policy for electronic Special Board Meetings during thesummer months, as amended; and (b) approve the accompanying procedures/administrativeguidelines, as amended, which were voted on ad seriatim, was carried.



Therefore, the decision of the Board with regard to the interim policy for electronic SpecialBoard Meetings during the summer months and the accompanying procedures/administrativeguidelines is as follows:

(a) That the Board adopt the following interim policy, as amended, for the holdingof electronic meetings:

(i) A Special Board Meeting, including a Committee of the Whole, may beheld and allow for participation through electronic means at the call of theDirector and Chair.

(ii) The written notice of the Special Board Meeting, including the Committeeof the Whole, will include notification that there will be provision forparticipation through electronic means.

(iii) An electronic Special Board Meeting, including Committee of the Whole,will be held in conformity with the provisions of the Education Act andRegulations, and the applicable Bylaws of the Board.

(b) That the attached procedures, as amended (see page 337), be approved for theholding of an electronic meeting as per the above policy.

(c) That the matters to be considered at an electronic meeting held under theabove interim policy be limited to approval of urgent or proforma matters forwhich delay would impact the Board’s operations.

(d) That the interim policy for the holding of electronic meetings remain in forceuntil notice is given of the August 25, 1999 Regular Board Meeting.

(e) That the Chair’s Committee be requested to present a policy for the holding ofelectronic meetings to the August 25, 1999 Regular Board Meeting.

148. Purchasing Policy

The Board considered a report from the officials dated June 23, 1999, recommendingamendments to the Board’s Purchasing Policy that will clarify the dollar amount of contracts thatrequire Board approval and the process for the approval of contract awards during periods whenno Regular Board Meetings are scheduled.

The report advises that on September 23, 1998 the Board approved the following PurchasingPolicy:

Purchasing activities shall be carried out and orders awarded in accordance with Boardpolicy and administrative procedures.

The Purchasing & Distribution Services Department shall be responsible for the purchaseand supply of all materials, equipment and services required by the Board, except landpurchases, insurance, employee fringe benefit contracts and miscellaneous petty-cashand purchase card purchases.

The Purchasing & Distribution Services Department shall make no purchase on behalf ofemployees or Members of the Board.



The report, which was presented and approved by the Board on September 23, 1998, requiresthat all contracts with a value of $500,000 or more (excluding taxes) must be approved by theBoard prior to the award. However, this requirement is not included in the Policy.

The report also indicated that during the months of July and August,

Most former Area Boards adopted an approval policy which allowed the Directorof Education, in consultation with the Chair of the Board, to approve contractsthat would normally be approved by the Board and report all such approvedcontracts to the Board in the following September for information.

In order to provide clarity and allow Board operations to proceed during the months of July andAugust, it is recommended that the Purchasing Policy be amended to include the dollar amountfor which Board approval is required and the process of approval to be followed during periodswhen there are no scheduled Board meetings.

Trustee Cansfield, seconded by Trustee Cleary, moved: That the Purchasing Policy beamended by adding the following:

(a) All contracts over $500,000 must be approved by the Board prior to the award;(b) In the months when there are no scheduled Board meetings, e.g. July and

August and where timing is critical, the Director of Education in consultationwith the Chair of the Board, or their designates, may approve contracts inexcess of $500,000. All such approvals shall be reported to the next scheduledBoard meeting.

The motion to approve the recommendations was voted on ad seriatim with the results of thevote as follows:

• Recommendation (a) was carried.

• Recommendation (b) was defeated on a recorded vote as follows: YEAS: none.NAYS: Trustees Atkinson, Blakeley, Cansfield, Cleary, Codd, Ferreira, Gershon,Hall, Hill, Kendall, Laskin, Mankovsky, Moll, Nash, Nyberg, Payne, Schaeffer,Stephens and Ward (19). ABSENT: Trustees McNaughton, Moyer and Thomas (3).

Therefore, the decision of the Board with regard to the Purchasing Policy is as follows:

That the Purchasing Policy be confirmed by adding the following:All contracts over $500,000 must be approved by theBoard prior to the award.

149. Report No. 5 of the Standing Committee, June 2, 1999 (see page 338)Trustee Kendall, seconded by Trustee Ferreira, moved: That Report No. 5 of the StandingCommittee, June 2, 1999, be adopted.Item 1: Indicators of Success (see page 342)

Trustee Moll, seconded by Trustee Atkinson, moved: That the word “Aspiration” containedin the Indicators of Success be replaced with the phrase “Hopes and Expectations”



The amendment was defeated.

The motion to adopt Report No. 5 of the Standing Committee, June 2, 1999, was carried.

150. Report No. 6 of the Standing Committee, June 9, 1999 (see page 347)Trustee Ferreira, seconded by Trustee Kendall, moved: That Report No. 6 of the StandingCommittee, June 9, 1999 (i.e., Items three through eleven) with the exception of Item 12,Deferral of Agenda Items, be adopted.The Board discussed Item 4: Equity in Education Foundation Statement; Item 5: RFP 99-006P,Server and Related Services; and Item 10: Membership Renewal in The Learning Partnership,separately.

Item 4: Equity in Education Foundation Statement (see page 349):

During discussion, staff responded to questions that were raised by the Trustees; and noted therequest that was made concerning the implementation of the principles inherent in the EquityFoundation Statement.

On behalf of the Board, Trustee Laskin expressed appreciation to senior staff and members ofthe Equity in Education Advisory Committee for their work in developing the FoundationStatement.

Trustee Hall, seconded by Trustee Laskin, moved: That the following recommendationscontained in the report be adopted:

(a) that the Equity Foundation Statement (see page 361) be approved; and(b) that the Director of Education approach the Toronto District Muslim Education

Assembly with a view to addressing the several issues raised and report backon the results of the discussions by December 1999.


Item 5: RFP 99-006P, Server and Related Services (see page 349) and Computer Servers andRelated Services Supplementary Information

Earlier in the meeting, Trustee Cansfield declared possible conflicts of interest with regard to theabove captioned reports.

In conjunction with the report on RFP 99-006P, Server and Related Services, which wasreferred to the Board without recommendation by the Standing Committee, the Boardconsidered a report from the officials on “Computer Servers and Related ServicesSupplementary Information”, which provided additional information on the plans for serverdeployment across the organization over the next three years.

The report on “Computer Servers and Related Services Supplementary Information” advisedthat at present the TDSB is operating over 1000 servers in schools, Board offices and otherfacilities. These servers are generally categorized as small, medium and large. A large serveroperates similar to mainframe computers of the 80’s supporting hundreds of users. Mediumservers support departmental or specialized functions like electronic messaging for anEducation Office or family of schools and small severs support local servers like managing agroup of printers or supporting a specialize classroom function that did not use the corporate-wide area network.



Today the 1000 servers are used by approximately 20,000 personal computers including bothIntel and Apple systems. Most are located in schools or offices and used to store data and runshared application programs. This type of use is generally referred to as file and print services.With the introduction of the Internet and the cost advantages for more sharing of software andcomputing power, the wide area network is becoming a more integral part of all School Boardscomputing environment. With that change also comes the economic advantage to consolidateand centralize much of the computer power into larger servers shared by more people. If wewere to continue the current practice of local servers while meeting the connectivityrequirements of our schools we would need to add as many as another 1000 servers to oursystem.

TDSB Computer Server Deployment Plan

The objective of the plan is to deliver the current and future technology services effectively byleveraging the wide area network and the advances in centralized computer servermanagement. Information Technology Services will be locating a number of large servers in acentral computer facility (server farm) and use the high speed wide area network to deliver andmanage the services to all schools and other Board locations. With a significantly reducednumber of these “large” servers the ratio of PC’s to server can be increased from the currentaverage of 20:1 to 200:1. Additional medium and small size servers will be added or replacedas well in this plan to deliver specialized regional services such as First Class and Exchange e-mail, etc. and local services for printing and specialized instructional or operationalrequirements.

The estimated numbers of servers purchased over the next three years are as follows:

Number of Servers

Common Infrastructure Build – large servers

Y2K Replacement – small servers

Common Server Farm – large servers

Special program needs – small servers

99/00

50

100

10

30

00/01

40

50

20

01/02

20

100

20

The estimated costs per server depends on its usage and particular configuration, but the rangeis approximately the following:

Larger Servers $15,000 to $30,000Medium Servers $9,000 to $15,000Small Servers $6,000 to $10,000

From these estimates, using the average costs per server type and the projected serverquantities, the estimated annual expenditure for servers under the recommended contractpricing would be:



1999/2000 $2,390,0002000/2001 $2,185,0002001/2002 $2,860,000

Funding

Funding for computer server acquisition is split among several information technology projects.There are specifically budgeted funds within the Student Information System, Library Systemand Financial Information System projects for the required servers to run those applications. Inaddition, funds have been budgeted within the Year 2000 project to replace servers that can notbe upgraded to operate after December 1999. Finally, an annual operating expense has beenestablished to maintain the Local Area Network services, which includes a replacementcomponent for servers supporting school networks.

Dell Proposal

This proposal provided through Dell and MFP represents pricing 10% to 20% less than the otherbids received. In addition, the selection of a third party distributor (MFP) allows for increasedflexibility for the TDSB to substitute equipment from the alternative recommended supplier (IBM)with minimal administrative processes. This allows the flexibility for the Board to takeadvantage of special requirements within the system or address delays in product availability.Both Dell and IBM servers are currently in use within the TDSB and they represent provensolutions within our technology plan.

Trustee Ferreira, seconded by Trustee Kendall, moved:

(a) That the following recommendation of the officials contained in the report on RFP99-006P, Server and Related Services, be approved:

That MFP Financial Services Ltd. be awarded the contract for the supplyof servers for a one-year term plus four additional one-year options atthe discretion of the Board.

(b) That the report on Computer Servers and Related Services SupplementaryInformation, be received as additional information to the report on RFP 99-006P Server and Related Services.


Item 10: Membership Renewal in The Learning Partnership (see page 358):

Trustee Ferreira, seconded by Trustee Kendall, moved adoption of the followingrecommendation of the Standing Committee:

That the membership of the Toronto District School Board in The LearningPartnership in the amount of $60,000 for the period January 1, 1999, toDecember 31, 1999, be approved.

Trustee Moll, seconded by Trustee Laskin, moved in amendment: That the recommendationnoted above, be amended by adding the following:

and, that in view of the Board’s changes and changing financialcircumstances, the Board’s representatives on The Learning Partnershipexplore with the Partnership ways in which the Board’s membership fee willbe paid in kind.



The amendment was carried on a recorded vote as follows: YEAS: Trustees Cansfield, Codd,Cleary, Gershon, Hall, Kendall, Laskin, Moll, Moyer, Nyberg, Stephens and Thomas (12).NAYS: Trustees Atkinson, Blakeley, Ferreira, Hill, Mankovsky, Nash and Schaeffer (7).ABSENT: Trustees McNaughton, Payne and Ward (3).

Therefore, the decision of the Board concerning membership renewal in The LearningPartnership is as follows:

(a) that the membership of the Toronto District School Board in TheLearning Partnership in the amount of $60,000 for the period January 1,1999 to December 31, 1999 be approved; and

(b) that in view of the Board’s changes and changing financialcircumstances, the Board’s representatives on The LearningPartnership explore with the Partnership ways in which the Board’smembership fee will be paid in kind.

The motion to adopt Item three, items six through nine and item eleven, contained in Report No.6 of the Standing Committee, June 9, 1999, was carried on an ad seriatim vote.

Therefore, the motion to adopt Report No. 6 of the Standing Committee, June 9, 1999, asamended, with the exception of Item 12, Deferral of Agenda Items (i.e., the Report on Adult andContinuing Education: Seniors Daytime Programs and Report No. 7B of the Budget ProcessGroup), was carried.

151. RecessTrustee Kendall, seconded by Trustee Laksin, moved: That the Board recess for approxi-mately ten minutes.The motion was carried.

152. Resolution into Committee of the WholeTrustee Kendall moved: That the Board meet in Committee of the Whole, in public, toconsider the items of business which follows, that were not considered by the StandingCommittee on June 9, 1999.The motion was carried.

153. Matters Considered by the Committee of the Whole

153A. Adult and Continuing Education: Seniors Daytime ProgramsThe Committee of the Whole considered a report from the officials dated June 23, 1999,regarding the rationalization of services, program delivery and fee structure for the SeniorsDaytime Program within Adult and Continuing Education. This matter was also considered bythe Budget Process Group as shown in Report No. 6, which advised the Standing Committeethat staff would provide additional information, as reflected in the report which follows.



The report advised that the United Nations General Assembly has declared 1999 theInternational Year of Older Persons (IYOP). It is fitting that the Toronto District School Board isreaffirming its commitment to lifelong learning and honouring the seniors in our communities fortheir contributions and achievements.

Through the Adult and Continuing Education Department, seniors have the opportunity to take awide variety of course offerings including computers, cooking, dance, fitness, music, pottery,technological studies and visual arts. Offering these programs allow our seniors to maintaintheir health, alertness and state of well-being.

Proudly, these programs are attended by approximately 14,000 seniors and are located in morethan 140 non-school sites across the city including community centres, seniors’ homes,retirement and nursing homes.

Funding

It is important to underscore that the new funding model established by the provincialgovernment provides no monies to support programming for our Seniors Program. In fact, theBoard’s inability to levy taxes in support of such programs places the Board in a difficult positionto choose funding certain programs in lieu of others. To offset some of the costs, fees arecharged for the program.

Current Configuration

The following chart indicates our current practice:

Former Board# of Students

(approximately)Program

Length (weeks) Age Fees Net Cost

East York, Etobicoke Available to seniors in conjunction with General Interest CoursesNorth York 3,000 10-10-10 60 $1.75 $104,000.00Scarborough 160 10-10 65 $1.75 $6,000.00Toronto 9,000 17-17 60 $1.75 $572,000.00York 2,000 10-10 60 Free $34,000.00

TOTAL $716,000.00

As an incentive to seniors, the former North York issues a Learning Card for $40 per term whichgives the senior unlimited access to Seniors Programs and to General Interest Courses. Informer Toronto, a Flat Fee of $50 per term is charged for unlimited access to Seniors Programsonly. Further, considerable adjustments of fees occur for financial hardship situations.

Proposal

The proposed recommendations would rationalize offering to three (3) terms of nine (9) weekseach. Although this represents a twenty percent (20%) and ten percent (10%) decrease forformer Toronto and North York respectively, it does represent an increase elsewhere.

Further, it is proposed that the Learning Card and Flat Fee be eliminated and that a standardfee of $1.75 per hour be charged. This figure represents a fifty percent (50%) savings on thestandard fee of $2.50 per hour charged for similar courses in General Interest. Adjustments will



be made for individuals on disability pensions and a set of criteria for financial hardship iscurrently under review in consultation with the Seniors Advisory Committee.

The elimination of the Learning Card and Flat Fee will have an impact on student enrolment andpotential loss of assignments. It is projected that approximately thirty percent (30%) fewerstudents will attend former North York programs and approximately fifty percent (50%) fewerstudents will attend former Toronto programs. The anticipated reduction in enrolment translatesto approximately 179 fewer assignments (1-2 hours per assignment).

The proposed recommendations will reduce the Board’s subsidy for the Seniors Program from$716,000 to $302,000.

Clearly, the proposed recommendations are only a first step in addressing the financialimplications of offering the Seniors Program. Hence, it will be incumbent upon staff and otherinterest groups to seek alternative sources of funding to ensure the viability of these programs inthe future.

Item 5: Adult and continuing Education – Seniors Daytime Programs within Report No. 3 of theInstruction, Program and Student Services Committee (see page 408)

In conjunction with the report of the officials, the Committee of the Whole considered the abovecaptioned item. That Committee recommended that recommendations (c) and (d) in the reportof the officials be deleted and replaced by incorporating the proposals of the Seniors AdvisoryCommittee, which were submitted to that Committee with regard to the report of the officials.

Trustee Laskin moved: That the following recommendations contained in the report of theofficials be adopted:

(a) That the duration of the programs be consistent with General Interest courses, i.e.,Term 1 (9 weeks), Term 2 (9 weeks), Term 3 (9 weeks).

(b) That all participants pay a fee of $1.75 per hour.(c) That fees be waived for any individual on a disability pension.(d) That criteria to address financial hardships be developed.(e) That as mitigation funding runs out, all Seniors Daytime courses, in conjunction with

General Interest courses, be offered at full cost-recovery.(f) That the senior’s age be defined as 60 years of age or older.(g) That site locations be reviewed to provide equity of access to Seniors Programs

across the Toronto District School Board.

Trustee Kendall moved in amendment: That the recommendations of the officials, beamended by adding the following:

(h) That the Board’s subsidy for the Seniors Daytime Programs budget for 1999-2000 be$302,000.


Trustee Laskin moved in amendment: That as recommended by the Instruction, Programand Student Services Committee, recommendations (c) and (d) in the report of theofficials, be deleted and replaced by substituting the following proposals of the SeniorsAdvisory Committee:



i) The “GAINS CERTIFICATE” or “proof of equivalent or less income” is the bestavailable measure of financial hardship on which to base fee reduction.

ii) A suggested fee minimum of $10 per course per term is recommendedregardless of circumstance.

iii) Confidentiality should be maintained in these transactions.

iv) Any case of acute financial distress beyond the above should be referred to aTDSB manager.

v) Only residents of the City of Toronto are considered eligible for a fee adjustment


Trustee Moll moved in amendment: That the following recommendation be added to therecommendations of the officials on Adult and Continuing Education: Seniors DaytimePrograms:

Recommendation to be Added:

That there be no limitations on the number of courses which a senior may take.


The motion to adopt the recommendations on Adult and Continuing Education: Seniors DaytimePrograms, as amended, was carried.

Therefore, the decision of the Committee of the Whole with regard to Adult and ContinuingEducation: Seniors Daytime Programs is as follows:

(a) That the duration of the programs be consistent with General Interestcourses, i.e. Term 1 (9 weeks), Term 2 (9 weeks), Term 3 (9 weeks).

(b) That all participants pay a fee of $1.75 per hour.

(c) That:

i) the “GAINS CERTIFICATE” or “proof of equivalent or less income” is thebest available measure of financial hardship on which to base feereduction.

ii) A suggested fee minimum of $10 per course per term is recommendedregardless of circumstance.


iv) Any case of acute financial distress beyond the above should bereferred to a TDSB manager.

v) Only residents of the City of Toronto are considered eligible for a feeadjustment.



(d) That as mitigation funding runs out, all Seniors Daytime courses, inconjunction with General Interest courses, be offered at full cost-recovery.

(e) That the senior’s age be defined as 60 years of age or older.

(f) That site locations be reviewed to provide equity of access to SeniorsPrograms across the Toronto District School Board.

(g) That there be no limitations on the number of courses, which a senior maytake.

153B. Report No. 7B of the Budget Process Group, June 4, 1999 (see page 369)

Trustee Cansfield moved: That Report No. 7B of the Budget Process Group, June 4,1999, be adopted.

Item 1: Adult and Continuing Education – International Languages (see page 369):

The Committee of the Whole considered recommendations (a) through (i) of the BudgetProcess Group concerning Adult and Continuing Education – International Languages.

In discussion, staff undertook to ensure that the questionnaires referred to in recommendation(c) be written clearly and translated into other languages as necessary.

Trustee Hill moved in amendment: That recommendation (b) on Adult and ContinuingEducation – International Languages, be amended to read as follows:

Recommendation (b):

That the Integrated/Extended Day program will continue if fifty percent (50%) of thereturned questionnaires in (a) so indicate based on criteria established inrecommendations (c), (d), and (e).


Trustee Moll moved in amendment: That recommendation (d) on Adult and ContinuingEducation – International Languages, be amended to read as follows:

Recommendation (d):

That effective September 1, 2000, it is the expectation of Board staff that students inall Integrated/Extended Day schools will be enrolled in either the InternationalLanguages program or the Black History and Culture program.


Recommendations (a) though (h) of the Budget Process Group, on Adult and ContinuingEducation – International Languages, as amended, were voted on separately and carried.

The Committee of the Whole then considered recommendation (i) of the Budget Process Groupregarding Adult and Continuing Education - International languages, in light of therecommendation on this matter contained in Item 4 of Report No. 3 of the Instruction, Programand Student Services Committee (see page 407). The recommendation of that Committeeconcerning recommendation (i) of the Budget Process Group is as follows:



That recommendation (i) of the Budget Process Group regarding InternationalLanguages not be approved.

Consequently, the motion to adopt recommendation (i) of the Budget Process Group, wasdefeated.

Therefore, the decision of the Committee of the Whole with regard to Adult and ContinuingEducation – International Languages is as follows:

(a) that a community survey be conducted at each of the existingIntegrated/Extended Day schools to determine whether the school communitywishes to continue as an Integrated/Extended Day school;

(b) that the Integrated/Extended Day program will continue if two-thirds (2/3) of thereturned questionnaires in (a) so indicate based on criteria established in[recommendations] (c), (d), and (e);

(c) that Integrated/Extended Day sites that offer their programs using a “blockscheduling” configuration, convert to a “fully integrated scheduling”configuration, effective September 1, 2000;

(d) that effective September 1, 2000, it is the expectation of Board staff thatstudents in all Integrated/Extended Day schools will be enrolled in either theInternational Languages program or the Black History and Culture program;

(e) that effective September 1, 2000, class sizes in existing Integrated/ExtendedDay schools for International Languages and Black History and Cultureprograms be 20 to 30;

(f) that parents and children affected by Recommendation (b) be fully informed ofthe options available to them;

(g) that ongoing review of the demographics of the communities occur to ensuredelivery models that will ensure the viability of the Integrated/Extended Dayprograms and the Black History and Culture programs;

(h) that criteria be developed for the formation of Integrated/Extended Dayschools for the possible inclusion of other schools across the Toronto DistrictSchool Board effective September 1, 2001.

Item 2: Adult and Continuing Education (see page 372):

(a) Section 1: Policy Statement: Adult and Continuing Education (see page 373):

The Committee of the Whole considered recommendation 1.1 (a) of the Budget ProcessGroup concerning the Policy Statement on Adult and Continuing Education.

Trustee Hill moved in amendment: That as recommended by the Instruction, Programand Student Services Committee, the Policy Statement on Adult and ContinuingEducation be amended as follows:



• First paragraph:

That the first part of the second sentence of paragraph 1 read: “The Toronto DistrictSchool Board, through its Adult and Continuing Education Department, is committed to…”

• Third Paragraph:

a) That the term “program accessibility” in the first sentence of paragraph 3 be changedto “equity of access to programs.”

b) That the words “fiscal accountability” be removed from the first sentence ofparagraph 3.

• Fourth paragraph:

That the term “year round” in the last sentence of the policy statement be changed to“throughout the year”.

That the words “fiscal accountability” be removed from the first sentence of paragraph 3


Note: The full text of the Policy Statement as approved by the Board is found on page 373within Report No. 7B of the Budget Process Group.

(b) Section 2.1: Academic and Special Education Summer School (see page 374):

The Committee of the Whole considered recommendations 2.1 (a) to 2.1 (d) of the BudgetProcess Group regarding Academic and Special Education Summer School.

Trustee Laskin moved in amendment: That as recommended by the Instruction,Program and Student Services Committee, recommendations 2.1 (a) and 2.1 (b) of theBudget Process Group, respecting Academic and Special Education Summer School,be amended to read as follows:

2.1 (a) That the Toronto District School Board continue to deliver focusedelementary academic summer programs for students with achievementlevels below Level 3 on report cards in the areas of English/Literacy andMathematics/Numeracy for grades 1 – 8, and that readiness summerprograms for students going into Senior Kindergarten, based onrecommendations from the day school staff, be implemented.

2.1 (b) That ESL summer programs be available for Toronto District School Boardstudents.

The amendments, which were voted on ad seriatim, were carried.

Therefore the decision of the Committee of the Whole with regard to Academic and SpecialEducation Summer School is as follows:

2.1 (a) That the Toronto District School Board continue to deliver focusedelementary academic summer programs for students with achievementlevels below Level 3 on report cards in the areas of English/Literacy andMathematics/Numeracy for Grades 1-8; and that readiness summerprograms for students going into Senior Kindergarten, based onrecommendations from the day school staff be implemented.

2.1 (b) That ESL summer programs be available for Toronto District School Boardstudents.



2.1 (c) That Special Education Summer School funded through Special Educationcontinue to be offered.

2.1 (d) That continued efforts be made to secure further funding for elementarysummer academic programs from the Ministry of Education and Training.

(c) Section 2.2: Enrichment Summer Programs (see page 375):

The Committee of the Whole considered recommendations 2.2 (a) and 2.2 (b) of the BudgetProcess Group, respecting Enrichment Summer Programs.

Trustee Ferreira moved in amendment: That as recommended by the Instruction,Program and Student Services Committee, recommendation 2.2 (b) of the BudgetProcess Group respecting Enrichment Summer Programs, be amended to read asfollows:

2.2 (b) That the Board endeavour to access alternative sources of funding toprovide opportunities to children not able to afford the cost of theseprograms.


Therefore, the decision of the Committee of the Whole with regard to Enrichment SummerPrograms is as follows:

2.2 (a) That the Toronto District School Board continue to provide enrichmentsummer programs on a cost-recovery basis.


(d) Section 2.3: After-School/Saturday Enrichment Programs (see page 375):

This section was separated into recommendations relating to: (1) After-School EnrichmentPrograms and (2) Saturday Enrichment Programs by the Instruction, Program and StudentServices Committee (see page 407).

1. After-School Enrichment Programs (see page 375)

The Committee of the Whole considered recommendations 2.3 (a) and 2.3 (b) of the BudgetProcess Group respecting After-School/Saturday Enrichment programs.

Trustee Ferreira moved in amendment: That as recommended by the Instruction,Program and Student Services Committee, recommendations 2.3 (a) and 2.3 (b) of theBudget Process Group, respecting After-School/Saturday Enrichment Programs, bereplaced with the following recommendations of the Instruction, Program and StudentServices Committee on After-School Enrichment Programs:

2.31 (a) That a standard fee for these programs be set at $1.75 per hour.




2.31 (c) That the TDSB phase-in at cost-recovery basis for implementation acrossthe Board for September 2000.

The amendments were carried on an ad seriatim vote.

2. Saturday Enrichment Programs (see pages 376)

Trustee Hill moved in amendment: That the following additional recommendationsrespecting Saturday Enrichment Programs, of the Instruction, Program and StudentServices Committee, be adopted:

2.3 II (a) That the TDSB provide the Saturday Enrichment programs on a cost-recovery basis.

2.3II (b) That alternate sources of funding be accessed to provide opportunities tochildren who may not be able to afford the cost of these programs.


(e) Section 3: Credit Programs (see page 376):

The Committee of the Whole considered recommendations 3.1 (a) to 3.1 (e) of the BudgetProcess Group regarding Credit Programs.

Recommendation 3.1 (e) was defeated. Therefore, the decision of the Committee of theWhole with regard to Credit Programs is as follows:

3.1 (a) That credit programs be rationalized in respect of start and end dates,hours of operation, grade reporting timelines, administrative structure andsalaries.

3.1 (b) That immediate priority and resource support be given to develop a fullyintegrated computerized system to ensure a seamless transition to aneffective, amalgamated continuing education operation.

3.1 (c) That a Safe Schools Policy referencing the unique contingencies of night,weekend and summer settings be developed through consultation withstakeholders and implemented by January 2000.

3.1 (d) That credit programming continue to reflect and to extend the currentvariety of alternate study opportunities in the Toronto District SchoolBoard (summer study abroad, online credits, mentorship, etc.)

(f) Section 4.1: General Interest Programs (see page 377):

The Committee of the Whole considered recommendations 4.1 (a) to 4.1 (d) of the BudgetProcess Group regarding General Interest Programs.

Trustee Atkinson moved in amendment: That the “GAINS” Statement be spelled out inthe recommendations.




Therefore the decision of the Committee of the Whole with regard to General InterestPrograms is as follows:

4.1 (a) That the duration of the programs be standardized to: Term 1 (9 weeks);Term 2 (9 weeks); Term 3 (9 weeks), while keeping room for flexibility.

4.1 (b) That the following be applied to seniors:

1. All participants pay a fee of $1.75 per hour.

2. The “GAINS CERTIFICATE” or “proof of equivalent or less income” isthe best available measure of financial hardship on which to base feereduction.

3. A suggested fee minimum of $10 per course per term is recommendedregardless of circumstance.

4. Confidentiality should be maintained in these transactions.

5. Any case of acute financial distress beyond the above should bereferred to a TDSB manager.

6. Only residents of the City of Toronto are considered eligible for a feeadjustment.

7. That the senior’s age be defined as 60 years of age or older.

8. That site locations be reviewed to provide equity of access to seniors toGeneral Interest Programs across the Toronto District School Board.

9. That there be no limitations on the number of courses, which a seniormay take.

4.1 (c) That as Mitigation funding runs out, all General Interest courses be offeredat full cost-recovery.

Note: The Policy for Financial Hardship with respect to Seniors and General InterestPrograms, as approved by the Committee of the Whole, is found on page 409.

Business Arising from Section 3: Credit Programs

As business arising, Trustee Kendall requested that the Finance Department present areport to the Board showing where the Mitigation Funds have been used this year andwhere they will be allocated next year.

Staff undertook to advise the Board where the Mitigation Funds have been used this yearand where they will be allocated next year.



Section 4.2: Parenting (see page 378):

The Committee of the Whole considered recommendations 4.2 (a) to 4.2 (i) of the BudgetProcess Group concerning parenting centres, parenting courses and special programs.

Trustee Laskin moved in amendment: That as recommended by the Instruction,Program and Student Services Committee, recommendation 4.2 (e) of the BudgetProcess Group, respecting Parenting Centres, be amended to read as follows:

Recommendation 4.2 (e):

That the months of operations for parenting centres be reviewed forMarch 2000.


Trustee Ferreira moved in amendment: That recommendation 4.2 (f) of the BudgetProcess Group respecting Parenting Courses, be amended to read as follows:

Recommendation 4.2 (f):

That fees for parenting courses be offered at the current level until parenting Centresare in place across the District.


Therefore the decision of the Committee of the Whole with regard to parenting centres,parenting courses and special programs is as follows:

Parenting Centres:

4.2 (a) That the Toronto District School Board continue to offer parenting centresand affirm their immense value and investment in the early interventionprocess for disadvantaged children.

4.2 (b) That alternate sources of funding be investigated and aggressivelypursued that will fully support parenting centres.

4.2 (c) That criteria be developed for the formation of parenting centres across theToronto District School Board.

4.2 (d) That appropriate site locations be determined to provide equity of accessto parenting centres across the Toronto District School Board.

4.2 (e) That the months of operations for parenting centres be reviewed for March2000.

Parenting Courses:

4.2 (f) That fees for parenting courses be at the same level as General Interestcourses, i.e., $3.50 per hour.



Special Programs:

4.2 (g) That Roots of Empathy programs be maintained to a level that can besupported by the private foundation grants.

4.2 (h) That costs to run Family Literacy programs be shared by the day school.

4.2 (i) That alternate sources of funding be investigated that will fully supportRoots of Empathy and Family Literacy programs across the TorontoDistrict School Board.

Business Arising from the above sections pertaining to Adult and Continuing Education

• For the information of the Board, Trustee Laskin reported that Mary Gordon, Head of theParenting Department, was the only non-American invited guest to attend a nationalmeeting on the family in Tennessee on June 21 and 22, 1999. The meeting wassponsored by Al Gore, Vice-President of the United States of America and his wife,Tipper Gore. An outcome of the meeting was the acknowledgement of the family as thechild’s first teacher.

• Trustee Cansfield requested that the Chair of the Board endorse a letter to the TorontoFoundation for Student Success requesting that they consider investigating parentingprograms as a supported activity for the Foundation.

(h) Section 5: Non-Credit Programs (see page 380)

The Committee of the Whole considered the recommendations outlined in Section 5 of theBudget Process Group report, regarding Non-Credit Programs.

With respect to the recommendations in section 5.2 regarding ESL for Non-residents of Canada,Trustee Hill moved in amendment: That recommendation 5.2 (b) be amended to read asfollows:

Proposed amendment to Recommendation 5.2 (b)

That the hourly fee for the program be established at $4.50.


Accordingly, Section 5, Non-Credit Programs, was adopted as recommended by the BudgetProcess Group.

Business Arising from the foregoing Section on Non-Credit Programs

Trustee Mankovsky moved: That staff report at the first Standing Committee meeting inNovember of 1999, addressing their initiatives, including which community groups theyhave involved and how they have involved them with respect to finding alternativefunding for Adult and Continuing Education – International Languages and SeniorsDaytime Programs.




Item 3: Before and After-School Programs: Former City of York (see page 386):

The Committee of the Whole considered recommendations (a) to (c) of the Budget ProcessGroup with regard to Before and After-School Programs – Former City of York., referred to theBoard without recommendation.

Trustee Cansfield moved: That the following recommendations of the Budget ProcessGroup, regarding Before and After-School Programs – Former City of York, be adopted:

(a) that the York Before and After-School Care programs be funded for the year1999-2000;

(b) that the City be advised that this funding will terminate at the end of the 1999-2000 School Board budget year; and

(c) that parents be advised that the new funding model means that theseprograms cannot be funded after next year unless alternate funding isobtained.


Item 4: School Budget Model (see page 387):

Trustee Atkinson moved in amendment: That the library allocation be added to thecomponents of the proposed school budget model.


The motion to adopt Report No. 7B of the Budget Process Group, June 4, 1999, as amended,was carried.

Rise and Report

Trustee Laskin moved: That the Committee of the Whole rise and report itsrecommendations to the Board.


153C. Recommendations of the Committee of the Whole (Public) - Adopted

Trustee Kendall, seconded by Trustee Ferreira, moved: That the recommendations of theCommittee of the Whole (Public), be adopted.


The recommendations of the Committee of the Whole with regard to Report No. 7B of theBudget Process Group, June 4, 1999, are now reflected in that report (see page 369).

154. Report No. 2 of the Instruction, Program and Student Services Committee, June 16,1999 (see page 396)

Trustee Ferreira, seconded by Trustee Hill, moved: That Report No. 2 of the Instruction,Program and Student Services Committee, June 16, 1999, be adopted.




Note: The recommendations contained in this report concerning the Adult and ContinuingEducation Policy Statement and Academic and Special Education Summer School have beenincorporated into the sections dealing with these matters within Report No. 7B of the BudgetProcess Group, June 4, 1999 (see pages 373 and 374).

155. Report No. 5 of the Special Education Advisory Committee, June 7, 1999 (see page399)

Trustee Hall, seconded by Trustee Blakeley, moved: That Report No. 5 of the SpecialEducation Advisory Committee, June 7, 1999, be received.


156. Report No. 1 of the Business Administration and Human Resources Committee,June 17, 1999 (see page 404)

Trustee Ward, seconded by Trustee Kendall, moved: That Report No. 1 of the BusinessAdministration and Human Resources Committee, June 17, 1999, be received.


157. Report No. 3 of the Instruction, Program and Student Services Committee, June 21,1999 (see page 406)

Trustee Hill, seconded by Trustee Ferreira, moved: That Report No. 3 of the Instruction,Program and Student Services Committee, June 21, 1999, be received.


Note: The recommendations contained in this report are now reflected in Report No. 7B of theBudget Process Group, June 4, 1999 (see page 369).

158. Written Notices of Motions

The Chair of the Board advised members that Written Notices of Motions should be submitted toher for placement on the agenda of the next scheduled meeting of the Chair’s Committee.

159. Report from Board Representative on Other Organization

For the information of the Board, Trustee Laskin reported that the Toronto District School Boardwas presented with a plaque by The Ontario Association for Mathematics Education on June 5,1999 at York University, in recognition of the outstanding achievements of TDSB students at theThirty-first Canadian Mathematical Olympiad. The students are mentioned in the Good NewsReport to the Board (see page 308). On behalf of the Board, trustee Laskin extendedcongratulations and appreciation to all TDSB students who participated in the MathematicalOlympiad.


On a motion by Trustee Cansfield, seconded by Trustee Kendall, the Board resolved intoCommittee of the Whole (Private Session), with Trustee Shelly Laskin, Vice-Chair of the Boardpresiding, to complete its consideration of private matters.




161. Report No. 12 of the Committee of the Whole (Private Session)

Trustee Laskin, seconded by Trustee Hill, moved: That Report No. 12 of the Committee ofthe Whole (Private Session), June 23, 1999, be adopted (see 410).

The motion was carried

162. Extension of Meeting

As a result of the Ending Time procedures being applied, the meeting was extended by theCommittee of the Whole (public) and by the Board until consideration of business had beencompleted.

163. Adjournment

Trustee Hall, seconded by Trustee Hill, moved: That the meeting now stand adjourned at2:38 a.m., Thursday, June 24, 1999.






Minutes of the Toronto District School Board June 23, 1999Electronic Meetings


Electronic Meetings

A. Interim Policy(Adopted June 23, 1999 – In effect until August 23, 1999, see page 314)

(i) A Special Board Meeting, including a Committee of the Whole, may be held andallow for participation through electronic means at the call of the Director and Chair.

(ii) The written notice of the Special Board Meeting, including the Committee of theWhole, will include notification that there will be provision for participation throughelectronic means.

(iii) An electronic Special Board Meeting, including Committee of the Whole, will be heldin conformity with the provisions of the Education Act and Regulations, and theapplicable Bylaws of the Board.

B. Administrative Procedures(As approved by the Board June 23, 1999, in effect until August 23, 1999)

1. Electronic Meetings are defined as those carried out via a conference telephone call.

2. Only telephones on regular lines may be used by Trustees to participate in anelectronic meeting. Cellular, portable or radio telephones are not to be used forelectronic meeting.

3. Trustees will be provided with a copy of the agenda package in the regular manner.Should Trustees not be at their Toronto residence during the period in which theInterim Policy is in place, the trustee will be contacted as per instructions the Trusteeleaves with the Secretariat.

4. Public Notice of the Special Board meeting will be posted 48 hours in advance of themeeting in the Office of the Secretariat. Public access to the meeting will be throughattendance in the meeting room, for the public portion of the meeting only.

5. At the beginning of the meeting, agenda material will be communicated to allparticipating Trustees, if not previously communicated.

6. Trustees participating electronically will inform the Chair of their departure from ameeting, whether temporary or permanent, to ensure a quorum is maintained at alltimes.

7. The Chair will conduct voting by asking trustees to indicate to those in favour bystating their name, followed by those opposed.

8. Should a ruling of the Chair be appealed, the Chair will poll Trustees alphabeticallyby last name to verify the decision.

Minutes of the Toronto District School Board June 23, 1999Standing Committee, Report No. 5


Report No. 5, Standing Committee(Public Session)

June 2, 1999


The Standing Committee of the Toronto District School Board convened for the public sessionat 6:40 p.m. on June 2, 1999, in the Board Room at 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, withCo-Chair Jeff Kendall presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Brian Blakeley, Judi Codd, Christine Ferreira,Gerri Gershon, Suzan Hall, Elizabeth Hill, Jeff Kendall, Shelley Laskin, Sheine Mankovsky, RonMcNaughton, David Moll, Barbara Nash, Gail Nyberg, Stephnie Payne, Lilein Schaeffer, MikeThomas and Sheila Ward.

Regrets were received from Trustees Irene Atkinson, Donna Cansfield, Diane Cleary, ElizebethMoyer and Doug Stephens.

1. Declarations of Possible Conflict of Interest

Trustee Brian Blakeley declared a possible conflict of interest with regard to the matter ofEducational Assistants. Trustee Blakeley stated that the nature of his interest is that he is anemployee of the union which represents support staff. Trustee Blakeley did not take part in thediscussion or vote on this matter when it was considered by the Standing Committee in private.

2. Report No. 2 of the Committee to Build an Education Plan, May 26, 1999

The Committee RECOMMENDS that Report No. 2 of the Committee to Build an Education Plan,May 26, 1999, (see page 340) be approved.

3. Report No. 5 of the Budget Process Group, May 26, 1999

The Committee RECOMMENDS that Report No. 5 of the Budget Process Group, May 26, 1999,(see page 346) be received.

4. Commercial Signage on Board Properties

The Committee considered a Notice of Motion presented by Trustee Moll.

The Standing Committee RECOMMENDS:

That the Director of Education report on the possibility of leasing Board properties forcommercial signage and that the report, among other things will consider or adviseupon:

(a) The estimated number of reasonably marketable sites;

(b) The estimated net revenues which might reasonably accrue to the Board;

(c) A method for approving the advertisers, their products and services and the



specific nature and form that each advertisement would take;

(d) A method or formula for the division of the revenues between the individual schooland the general revenues; and further, that the Director may report on an interimbasis as may be appropriate.

5. Preserving the Names of Closed Schools

The Committee considered a Notice of Motion presented by Trustee Ward.

The Standing Committee RECOMMENDS that when a school is closed, the Board, whereappropriate and in consultation with any affected communities, should endeavour topreserve the name of the closed school in a neighbouring school, at a new school site, oranother appropriate Board location.


Jeff KendallCo-Chair of the Committee


Minutes of the Toronto District School Board June 23, 1999Committee to Build an Education Plan, Report No. 2


Report No. 2, Committee to Build an Education Plan

May 26, 1999


The Committee to Build an Education Plan met this day at 12:10 p.m. and adjourned at 2:00p.m. The following members were present: Trustees Cansfield (Chair), Hall, Laskin, Nash andSchaeffer; Executive Officer E. Campbell. Trustees Hill and Ward sent their regrets.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

1. Indicators of Success

The Committee was advised that, as approved by the Board on March 24, 1999 (see 1999Board minutes, page 132), additional public consultation sessions were held on May 1 and May10, 1999 with participants from the January focus groups, to develop the 'Indicators of Success'for the 'Aspirations' of the Education Plan.

Subsequently, Committee members and staff associated to the Committee, assisted by BillStuart, Co-ordinator of Strategic Planning, prepared the revised version , which is attached.

Communications Plan

Following approval by the Board, it is expected that the 'Aspirations' of the Education Plan andits 'Indicators of Success' will be forwarded to the school system, starting with school principalsand the chairs of school councils. Subsequently, a pamphlet or brochure will be prepared forgeneral distribution and public information.

The Committee to Build an Education Plan RECOMMENDS:

(a) that the Board approve in principle the Indicators of Success (see page 342); and

(b) that staff proceed with the Communications Plan immediately following the June 2, 1999meeting.

2. Disbandment of the Committee

On June 24, 1998, the Board approved the creation of this Committee to establish priorities forthe building of an education plan. The Committee considers that this goal has been achievedand that its work is completed.

The Committee to Build an Education Plan RECOMMENDS that the Committee be disbanded.

3. Appreciation to Participants in the Preparation of the Education Plan

The Committee to Build an Education Plan RECOMMENDS that the appreciation of the Boardbe extended to all those who assisted the Committee in the process to build the education plan

Minutes of the Toronto District School Board June 23, 1999Committee to Build an Education Plan, Report No. 2


for the Toronto District School Board, including community members who participated in theconsultation process, Bill Stuart, Co-ordinator of Strategic Planning, Earl Campbell and otherstaff who worked with the Committee and the Trustees who provided valuable input.


Donna CansfieldChair of Committee


Minutes of the Toronto District School Board June 23, 1999Education Plan, Indicators of Success


INDICATORS OF SUCCESS

(Approved in Principle June 23, 1999)

Introduction

In the Toronto District School Board Education Plan, the components have names with specificimplications.

'Aspirations' is the term used in the Plan for statements of our hopes and expectations for thoseserved by and those working in our education system. These statements point to the desiredbenefits and accomplishments of our education system.

'Indicators of Success' is the term used in the Plan for the sub-results to be achieved to matchup with, and clarify the intent of, each Aspiration statement. The Indicators statements carry thebeginning stem 'We will know this Aspiration has been achieved when...'. The Indicatorsamount to a set of 'targets aimed at' in order to accomplish their related Aspiration, and whenimplementation by staff turns these Indicators into 'targets hit', the Aspiration will be beingfulfilled.

Aspiration A

That our school system’s activities focus on achieving success for all students through abalanced curriculum

We will know this Aspiration has been achieved...

when all schools have equitable access to staff with suitable expertise to deliver and supportthe school’s program

when all schools have equitable access to needed resources to deliver and support theschool's program

when assessment and evaluation tools to improve teaching and learning are readilyavailable to classroom teachers

when each school-based plan addresses the range of student needs and experiences inthat school

when school-based plan includes co-curricular1 experiences as a necessary part of thelearning process

when school timetables provide time to allow and encourage staff to participate in leadershiproles in the co-curricular programs in the schools

when funding is provided for the needs of the balanced curriculum when the learning activities in each school address each student' person

1 Note: "Co-curricular" is a term which incorporates the concept "extra-curricular", but implies a clearrelationship to the curriculum for the activities or events concerned.



Aspiration B

That our students have equity of access to learning opportunities


when all students have equity of access to learning opportunities through clearly definedpolicies and procedures

when students with special needs have access to an increasing number of barrier-freeschools

when each school-based plan addresses the range of student needs and experiences inthat school

when school timetables provide time to allow and encourage staff to participate in leadershiproles in the co-curricular programs in the schools

Aspiration C

That each of our students is valued and feels valued


when each student is provided with a program to meet his or her needs when each student's accomplishments are recognized regularly when school timetables provide time and personnel for teachers and students to meet for

mentoring and conferencing when school timetables provide time to allow and encourage staff to participate in leadership

roles in the co-curricular programs in the schools when the learning activities in each school address each student’s development as a whole

person

Aspiration D

That each of our students reaches high levels of achievement and acquires the knowledge,skills and values needed to become a responsible member of a democratic society


when students show that they have learned how to learn when each student exits his or her program with confidence in his or her own skills and with

a sense of future goals when students demonstrate awareness of, and actively participate in, social and global

issues when students act in accordance with expected standards

Aspiration E

that each of our staff members is valued and feels valued


when each staff member is treated with dignity



when each staff member contributes actively and positively to the system’s improvement when each staff member has opportunities to use his or her special personal talents when school timetables provide time to allow and encourage staff to participate in leadership

roles in the co-curricular programs in the schools

Aspiration F

That each of our staff members is encouraged and supported in her of his responsibilities andopportunities within our school system


• when any systemic barriers to employment opportunity have disappeared• when each staff member has access to the resources, equipment and development

opportunities needed to perform at a high level• when each staff member is given the opportunities to reach his or her professional goals• when school timetables provide time to allow and encourage staff to participate in leadership

roles in the co-curricular programs in the schools

Aspiration G

That our families and communities work with our schools in helping our students learn


• when the expertise of the community members is creatively and innovatively used inteaching and learning

• when the membership on, and involvement with, each School Council is reflective of thecomposition of that school’s community

• when clear communication plans make our services and opportunities known across thesystem and within each school community

• when each school develops and implements policies and practices which support familyinvolvement with student learning

• when each school implements practices which support codes of behaviour in our learningenvironments

Aspiration H

That our families and communities share in celebrating the range of accomplishments of ourstudents and school system


• when each student’s accomplishments are recognized regularly• when each school-based plan addresses the range of student needs and experiences in

that school• when the learning activities in each school address each student’s development as a whole

person• when each student exits his or her program with confidence in his or her own skills and with

a sense of future goals



Aspiration I

That our school system encourages innovation and creativity in our learning and workingenvironments


• when proposals which reflect innovative approaches to learning opportunities within themandated curriculum receive support for their implementation

• when learning partnerships are established, according to Board policy, to promote andencourage active student participation and community involvement across the curriculum

• when ideas and best practices are shared among schools across our system and beyond• when opportunities are provided for flexible assignments (e.g. job-sharing and short-term

internships)• when employee incentive programs acknowledge and reward innovative and helpful ideas

Aspiration J

That our students and staff are able to function effectively in their daily lives in this age ofinformation


• when resources, training and support are provided equitably to assist staff and students toacquire the necessary skills and knowledge to use information technology effectively in theirdaily lives

• when all schools and sites have information literacy plans to develop a continuum of skillsand knowledge for students and staff

• when partnerships are developed according to Board policy to acquire and provide trainingin the use of information technology and resources

Aspiration K

That our school system demonstrates responsible use of resources in implementing ourEducation Plan


• when policies are in place to ensure that all resources -- finance, equipment, materials andpersonnel -- are strategically aligned to the Education Plan

• when a comprehensive accountability policy is in place to ensure the implementation,monitoring and review of the Education Plan

• when clear communication plans actively explain to all system partners how resources arebeing used to support the implementation of the Education Plan.

Minutes of the Toronto District School Board June 23, 1999Budget Process Group, Report No. 5


Report No. 5, Budget Process Group

May 26, 1999


The Budget Process Group met this day at 155 College Street, Toronto, from 2:15 p.m. to 5:05p.m. The following Budget Process Group members were present: Trustees Cansfield (Chair),Codd, Gershon, Hall and Kendall. Alternate members Trustees Hill, Laskin and Schaeffer werealso present. Trustees Atkinson and Blakeley sent their regrets.

The Budget Process Group decided to report as follows:

1. Information/Consultation Feedback

For the information of the Board - Committee members and staff provided feedback on the fourpublic information sessions held in May 1999. It was suggested that the publication oradvertisement protocol be revisited for future public information or consultation sessions.

2. Draft School Budget Model

For the information of the Board - The draft school budget model is out for consultation withprincipals and schools. Implementation is expected for September 1999. An update on thisitem will be provided later in June 1999.

3. 1999-2000 Proposed Budget

For the information of the Board - The Budget Process Group plans to report to the Board onJune 9, 1999 on the proposed budget. The approved budget will then be forwarded to theMinistry of Education and Training by June 15, 1999.



Received June 23, 1999



Report No. 6, Standing Committee(Public Session)

June 9, 1999


The Standing Committee of the Toronto District School Board convened for the public sessionat 6:45 p.m. on June 9, 1999, in the Board Room at 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, withCo-Chair Christine Ferreira presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Brian Blakeley, DonnaCansfield, Judi Codd, Christine Ferreira, Gerri Gershon, Suzan Hall, Elizabeth Hill, Jeff Kendall,Shelley Laskin, Sheine Mankovsky, Ron McNaughton, David Moll, Elizebeth Moyer, BarbaraNash, Gail Nyberg, Stephnie Payne, Lilein Schaeffer, Doug Stephens, Mike Thomas, SheilaWard and Student Trustee Nadia Salvaterra.

Regrets were received from Trustee Cleary.

1. Conflict of Interest

Trustee Cansfield declared a possible conflict of interest with regard to RFP 99-006P Serverand Related Services (Item number 5 of this report) due to the fact that her husband is anemployee of IBM Canada. She did not take part in the discussion or vote on this matter.

2. Delegations

The Committee heard eight (8) oral presentations as follows:

(a) Re Membership Renewal in The Learning Partnership (see page 358)

Jim McQueen, Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF) Doug Little, Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF)

(b) Re Adult and Continuing Education: Seniors Daytime Programs (see page 322)

Sandra Berkowitz, Seniors' Instructors Carmen Benoit, Dixon Hall Neighbourhood Centre

(c) Re Adult and Continuing Education: International Languages (see page 369)

Edith Kettle for Mimi Shew, Ryerson Community Public School, Chinese Program Karen Goldenthal, Orde Street Public School Council Patricia Walshe, King Edward Public School Council

(d) Re Equity Foundation Statement (see pages 349 and 361 )

Ibrahim El-Sayed, Toronto District Muslim Education Assembly



Written submissions were received from the following:

(a) Re Adult and Continuing Education: Seniors Daytime Programs (see page 322)

Busy Bees Advisory Committee, Dixon Hall Neighbourhood Centre Lilian Morgenthau, Canadian Association of Retired Persons

(b) Re Adult and Continuing Education: International Languages (see page 369)

The Parents of the Ryerson Community Public School Council

(c) Re Safe Arrival Policy for Elementary Schools (see page 355)

John G. Althouse Middle School Council Smithfield Middle School Council

3. RFT 99-020T, HVAC System Renovation: Phase I/II, Albert Campbell C.I.

The Committee considered a report from the officials dated June 9, proposing that a contract beawarded to Pipe-All Plumbing & Heating Ltd. for the HVAC System Renovation: Phase I/II forAlbert Campbell C. I.

Following Board approval and budget allocation, Purchasing and Distribution Services, inconsultation with Facility Services, issued a Request for Tender for the above project.

Consistent with Board policy, tenders were requested by notice from six prequalified contractorsand notices were placed on two electronic bulletin boards on May 10, 1999 and closed on May21, 1999.

Valid tenders were received from four contractors as follows:

Contractor Amount

Black Creek Mechanical Ltd. $ 1,625,000.00Gorbern Mechanical Ltd. $ 1,785,000.00Pipe All Plumbing & Heating Ltd. $ 1,523,000.00The State Group Ltd.. $ 1,789,623.00

Note: Prices include PST but exclude GST.

A complete file on all tenders received is on file in the Purchasing and Distribution ServicesDepartment.

Evaluation

Facility Services and Purchasing and Distribution Services staff evaluated all tenders receivedand are recommending the lowest tender that meets the required criteria.

The Standing Committee RECOMMENDS that Pipe-All Plumbing & Heating Ltd. be awardedthe contract for Phase I/II of a System Renovation at Albert Campbell Collegiate Institute in theamount of $1,523,000.00.



4. Equity in Education Foundation Statement (see page 319)The Committee considered a report from the officials, dated June 9, 1999, which provided aFoundation Statement for equity to guide the policies and procedures of the Board.

In the final report of the LEIC Subcommittee on Equity a statement entitled “Basic Principles ofEquity” was included. The LEIC Subcommittee recommended that this statement be used as abasis for the development of a policy statement by the Toronto District School Board as it beganto formulate policy.

With the formation of the Equity In Education Advisory Committee over the past five months,attention has been turned to refining this statement of basic principles and utilizing it as theBoard’s Equity Foundation Statement. This strategy has been suggested by the Board’sInstruction, Program and Student Services Committee with the developmental work being doneby a subcommittee of staff and community members on the Equity In Education AdvisoryCommittee.

On Monday, May 31, the draft Foundation Statement was considered by the members presentat the Instruction, Program and Student Services Committee meeting. It was subsequentlyreviewed by the Equity In Education Advisory Committee on Tuesday, June 1, 1999, withconsensus being achieved on the wording of the proposed Equity Foundation Statement. Thisstatement is presented as a basis to guide the Board’s ongoing work in addressing the issues ofequity in the school system.


(a) that the Equity Foundation Statement (see page 361) be approved; and

(b) that the Director of Education approach the Toronto District Muslim Education Assemblywith a view to addressing the several issues raised and report back on the results of thediscussions by December 1999.

5. RFP 99-006P, Server and Related Services (see also page 319)The Committee considered a report from the officials, dated June 9, 1999, provided for approvalof a contract for Servers and Related Services.

Purchasing and Distribution Services, in consultation with Information Technology Services,issued a Request for Proposal for the provision of Servers and Related Services.

A committee was established to develop the specifications and evaluating criteria for thisRequest for Proposal.

The purpose of this proposal was to establish a vendor(s) of record to provide servers andrelated services to the Toronto District School Board and develop equipment standards forservers used within the Board. The Toronto Catholic District School Board also participated inthis process.

A $100,000 bid bond, and manufacturer ISO-9000 certification, were part of the mandatory entrycriteria.

Consistent with Board policy, proposals were requested from 51 bidders and notices wereplaced on two electronic bulletin boards on February 2nd, 1999. The Request for Proposal



closed on February 24, 1999 and 13 qualified bidders submitted valid proposals. All proposalsreceived are on file in the Purchasing and Distribution Services Department.

Evaluation

Information Technology Services and Purchasing and Distribution Services staff evaluated allproposals received. Using a weighted scoring process, the committee evaluated each proposaland six bidders were eliminated during the first round of evaluation. The committee nextattended presentations by the seven remaining bidders to further evaluate their proposals. Ashort list of three leading bidders was developed from these presentations and a list of individualquestions for clarification were presented to each bidder. Based on the outcome of thesequestions, the committee unanimously selected MFP Financial Services Ltd. to provide DellServers to the Toronto District School Board, with IBM selected as a backup Servermanufacturer. The committee members representing the Toronto Catholic District School Boardwill also be presenting a recommendation to their board.

Dell servers were clearly the most economical to purchase, and were only bid by MFP and DellDirect. The committee felt the school boards would be better positioned using MFP with twopossible manufacturers than to award the bid to a single manufacturer. The proposal providesfor a four-hour on-site response and a three-year parts and labour warranty.

The Standing Committee RECOMMENDS:That MFP Financial Services Ltd. be awarded the contract for the supply of servers for aone-year term plus four additional one-year options at the discretion of the Board.

Note: Additional information clarifying the above report is found on page 319.

6. Safe Schools Foundation StatementThe purpose of this report is to provide a foundation statement for approval regarding the beliefsand practices across the Toronto District School Board with regard to safe schools.

The Safe Schools Foundation Statement has been developed using the work of the SafeSchools Policy Task Group.

In implementing the foundation statement, it is intended that it will be communicated throughoutthe Toronto District School Board to all schools and associated supervisory staff.

The Standing Committee RECOMMENDS that the Safe Schools Foundation Statement (seepage 363) be approved.

7. Update on Secondary School Reform

The Committee considered a report from the officials providing information with regard to theprogress of Secondary School Reform initiatives.

Over the last year, the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) began the implementation of thechanges to the secondary education program mandated by the Ministry of Education (MET).This has been a major task, complicated by delays in the release of the policy documentsthemselves. It has required an extensive commitment of time and effort by many staff acrossthe TDSB. The task has just started--with the coming school year the first group of students willenter secondary school under the new policy. The process of implementation will take manyyears and will be reviewed and adjusted constantly in order to ensure that we are providing thebest possible education for our students.

This report will outline and summarize the accomplishments of this year, and provide someindication of the tasks facing us in the near future.



Fall 1998

• The TDSB Secondary School Reform Implementation Steering Committee is formed. RobinShepherd, Superintendent, is charged with creating a committee. Bonnie Hamilton,Centrally Assigned Administrator with secondary curriculum responsibilities, is selected tochair the committee. An administrator and a central program leader from each of the formerboards is asked to serve on the committee. In addition, representatives from the elementarypanel, special education, guidance services, staff development, and the special schoolsadministrators network are identified and asked to serve. The full committee meets on a bi-weekly basis throughout the remainder of the year.

• A summary of the policy changes, as we know them from draft releases, is prepared forsenior staff, and a presentation made at a TDSB Senior Staff meeting.

• The summary of the policy is shared with school administrators across the TDSB. Groups ofadministrators and central program staff invite the two leaders, Robin Shepherd and BonnieHamilton, to make presentations throughout the city.

• The course codes for Grade 9, with brief descriptions of each course, are released inOctober. A revised memo incorporating a number of significant changes follows inNovember. The draft versions of the curriculum policy documents are posted on the internetfor teachers to examine. They are under review, and many changes are still occurring, butteachers get their first look at the new curriculum.

• In the absence of a document from the MET, the TDSB prepares two information documentsfor parents. A four-page “Questions and Answer” flyer is printed, and distributed in Englishand in translation to parents of students in Grade 8, as well as to all elementary andsecondary schools. A major document, “AFTER 8” is prepared and distributed to all parentsof Grade 8 students, and again to all schools. This document contains information aboutsecondary school in general, the new secondary school policies, and the courses availablein Grade 9 for September, 1999. Several weeks later, the MET releases “Stepping Up”, asimilar document, released to parents of students in Grade 8 across the Province.

• The first edition of the “REFORM REPORT” is released in December, and distributed to allschools, all central program leaders, school council chairs, trustees, and senior staff. This isintended to be a vehicle for keeping staff informed about what is occurring with respect tothe secondary reform implementation.

• The first Project Team is struck. It will focus on the Teacher Advisor program.Superintendent Natalie Stein takes on the leadership of this group. The group begins toplan how best to support schools as they implement the Teacher Advisor system and theAnnual Education Plan. They have access to The Learner’s Edge, a TDSB publication withtwo accompanying videos prepared over the summer, now ready for system distribution.

• TDSB teachers are involved in a pilot project at the MET to design two units for each ofthree Grade 9 courses: Science, Health and Physical Education, and English.

Winter 1999• The other five Project Teams are created and begin to work.

(a) The Curriculum Implementation Project Team is chaired by Superintendent JohnReynolds, joined by Ellen Anderson. Ellen is a central program leader recently returnedfrom secondment to the MET curriculum branch where she was responsible for thesecondary curriculum policy documents. The team is composed of a central programleader from each subject area.

(b) The Assessment, Evaluation, and Reporting Project Team is chaired by SuperintendentJim McCarron. It will work closely with the “Integrated Assessment, Instruction, andReporting (AIR) Committee” under the Accountability department. The AIR Committee’smandate is extended to include Grade 9. Information Technology experts from each



former board also serve on this team. It will address the challenges of the newprovincial report card and the new Ontario Student Transcript as immediate tasks. Theteam will liaise with the Curriculum Implementation team to provide support for teachersas the new expectations around assessment and evaluation are implemented.

(c) The Special Needs Students Project Team is co-chaired by Cliff Prentice, representingSpecial Education, and Norm Leslie, chair of the Special Schools AdministratorsNetwork. This group is instrumental in arranging meetings with MET staff to identify ourconcerns with the degree to which special students’ needs are being addressed by thenew policies. The creation of the three locally developed core courses in Grade 9English, Math, and Science (to meet the needs of students formerly studying at the basiclevel) are a direct result of one of these meetings. Meetings continue to be held, and it ishoped that further modifications to the policy will occur.

(d) The “After 8” Project Team is chaired by Kathleen McCabe, a secondary administrator.It includes representatives from guidance and administration. Its primary mandates arethe creation of common TDSB option sheets for Grade 9 and for Grades 10-OAC; thecreation of common TDSB program books for Grade 9 and for Grades 10-OAC, one foreach Education Office area; the revision and distribution of AFTER 8; and the creation ofa common set of practices across the TDSB for the appropriate promotion andplacement of students from Grades 8 to Grade 9.

(e) The Community Involvement Project Team is chaired by Jackie Drew, central programleader, and includes representatives from the community, parents, administration, andother staff. With the release of PPM124A, outlining the policies around the CommunityInvolvement diploma requirement, the team has a number of identified tasks, includingthe creation of an information brochure for parents to accompany that pending from theMET, and including the board’s list of approved activities. A tracking sheet will also beproduced.

• The Teacher Advisor/AEP Project Team holds its first set of in-service sessions, which areover-subscribed. Additional sessions are added. School teams (middle and secondary)receive training in the expectations of the policies, copies of The Learner’s Edge and the twovideos, and copies of Keys to Success, an OSSTF sponsored publication dealing with theTeacher Advisor system.

• Volume 2 of the “REFORM REPORT” is released in late January.• On March 2, the long awaited policy documents are released by the MET, including OSS:99,

Choices Into Action, and the curriculum policy documents. The Provincial District SteeringCommittees are in-serviced at the MET on March 2, 3, and 4.

• Volume 3 of the “REFORM REPORT” is released in March to provide a summary of the newpolicies and to inform staff of planned training sessions.

Spring 1999• Each school sends a team of five teachers, including one administrator, to three days of

School Implementation Team training held at the Peckham Centre and led by the DistrictSteering Committee. Five sets of three days each are required to train all 625 teachers,plus the central program leaders. Release time coverage is paid for by the MET. Resourcebinders are also supplied by the MET, providing information as well as suggested strategiesfor presenting the information back at each school. Support materials, including electronicpresentations, are created by the TDSB staff.

• Phase II of the in-service for the Provincial Steering Committee meetings is held at the METon April 26, 27, and 28. A second set of resource binders is shared by the MET.

• TDSB staff decide to restructure Phase II sessions for the School Implementation Teams.Four sets of one-day training are delivered, this time using facilities at the Macdonald Blockto accommodate the size of the crowd. Again, 625 staff members are trained.



• The Curriculum Implementation Project Team takes over the second part of the training.Each school is given 10 half-day supply-teacher days to be used to cover teachers receivingsubject-specific training from the central program leaders. All subject areas are covered,and schools sign up for the subjects in which they wish to be trained. The MET funds thecoverage. These are completed by the end of the second week of June.

• Grade 9 course profiles (first half) are released in electronic and print form, and distributedto all schools. These provide the basis for the subject-specific training sessions. Writingteams complete the profiles for provincial release in late July.

• The Assessment, Evaluation and Reporting Project Team provides report card commentsfor all subject areas tied to the expectations, and representing student progress at all fourlevels of achievement. These are vetted through focus groups and will be distributed to thesystem through a series of in-service sessions in the early fall.

• The exemplars for Grades 1-8 are released, and arrangements are made to have the Grade8 exemplars delivered to secondary schools. These will be addressed in the subject-specific training.

• The TDSB agrees to pilot the new provincial report card with the levels of achievementincluded on the front page. In-service for staff will be provided by both the Project Teamand the MET during the fall, and throughout the coming year to help teachers make best useof the new report card.

• Training for Information Technology staff and central guidance staff is provided through theMET for the implementation of the new Ontario Student Transcript.

• Sixteen schools across the TDSB agree to pre-pilot the secondary school “literacy” test inMay, 2000. They will provide feedback about the design of the test and its appropriateness.The first pilot of the test will occur in October 2000.

• The second set of in-service sessions are run by the Teacher Advisor Project Team in earlyJune. Each school is given copies of the materials that have been written by TDSB staffover the last few months. These provide 30 teacher-ready lessons and worksheets for eachof Grades 7, 8, and 9 for schools to use “as-is”, in September, or to modify to fit individualschool programs.

• Presentations continue for individual schools, families of schools, central staff groups, wardmeetings, and other groups by the District Steering Committee.

• The website for TDSB Secondary School Reform is launched in April. All documentsproduces internally are included. Electronic presentations are included for schools todownload and use, as required. Links to the MET site, to EQAO, to the Ontario CurriculumClearinghouse (where the course profiles can be found), and other related sites areincluded. A Suggestions and Questions section is also included.

• The PPM for Community Involvement is released. The guide for the Ontario StudentTranscript is released. The guide for the Provincial Report Card is released. The guide forthe Annual Education Plan is released. This completes the release of all policy documentsthat are needed for September 1999. Appropriate school staff training for all of the above isplanned.

• The MET funds the purchase of Learning Resources for Grades 9 and 10, with a total of $60million over two years. Schools may purchase approved texts for Grade 9 English, Math,Science, Geography, and French as a Second Language, as well as the graphic calculatorsnecessary for the Grade 9 Math program using these funds. Ordering is co-ordinatedacross the TDSB through the Purchasing Department. A Book Fair is held on May 31 andJune 1 to allow teachers to examine the approved materials, as well as materials for othersubject areas.

• Volume 4 of the “REFORM REPORT” is released.



• Resource binders containing summaries of the new curriculum and analyses of the changesto the Grade 9 program, as well as “gap analyses” of the Grades 8 to 9 program arecompleted by the Curriculum Implementation Project Team and distributed to all schools.

• A parent flyer providing clarification in areas where changes have occurred since therelease of the fall flyer is written, and distributed in English and in translation.

Summer 1999• Summer Institutes are designed and offered by TDSB staff to support all the aspects of

secondary reform. These are all free of charge. Staff may select the sessions mostappropriate to their needs and their time.

• A Summer Institute, with follow up session in October, is offered by the AssessmentConsortium, in co-operation with OISE/UT and OPC.

• Two sets of Summer Institutes are planned for the last two full weeks of August, offeredjointly by the MET and by the Ontario Teachers’ Federation. These are supported by all theProvincial Teachers’ Federations.

• The second half of the Grade 9 course profiles are distributed in print form to all schools,including profiles for the three Locally Developed Courses.

• All Learning Resources ordered through the MET funding initiative are delivered to schoolsby September 3.

• Summer school programs for Grade 8 students, funded through an MET initiative, will beprovided for identified groups of students.

Fall and Winter 1999-2000• In-service sessions for the new provincial report card are planned.• In-service sessions on a subject-by-subject basis will continue through the four Education

Offices, led by the Curriculum Implementation Team personnel. Some will require releasetime, others will be after school hours. These will cover both the new curriculum and thenew expectations around assessment and evaluation.

• The Community Involvement brochure and tracking sheet will be released, and in-serviceprovided.

• Work on the Grade 10 course profile writing will be completed, and these released acrossthe province. Training will be provided on a subject by subject basis.

• The Grades 11 and 12 curriculum policy documents will be released in February, 2000 andcourse profile development will begin.

• The second half of the funding for Learning Resources will be allocated for purchase ofmaterials to support the new Grade 10 courses.

• A revised version of “AFTER 8” is distributed to parents of all students now in Grade 8across the TDSB.

The May edition of the “REFORM REPORT” provides greater detail about many of theseinitiatives.

All necessary policy documents from the MET have now been released, and present fewchanges to the information with which we have been working up to this point. All schools havecopies of all relevant documents. All schools have received extensive training on the newpolicies and have been provided with considerable resources to help prepare them for the newprograms. Although training will continue over the coming year, there is a level of confidenceshared by all staff that they will be sufficiently prepared to begin implementing the new programin September 1999. This confidence will continue to grow as more support is offered and asstaff become more comfortable with the requirements of the new curriculum and the newassessment and evaluation expectations. Now that they have seen the profiles, staff haverecognized that the new curriculum is not as different from their current courses as, perhaps,



they had feared. They have also come to recognize that many of their current evaluationstrategies are still valid and may be used.

Although there is a significant task still ahead for the Project Teams and the Steering Committeeguiding the implementation of the new secondary system, systems are well in place to supportschools and staff in ensuring that secondary school students in the TDSB are provided with ahigh quality, relevant education.

The Standing Committee RECOMMENDS that the report "Update on Secondary SchoolReform" be received.

8. Safe Arrival Policy for Elementary Schools (see page 365)The Committee considered a report from the officials presenting a Safe Arrival Policy forElementary Schools for approval based on the policy statement: “The Toronto District SchoolBoard (TDSB) values the safety and security of its students. To assist parents and guardians inensuring their children’s safety, we require each elementary school to develop a Safe ArrivalProgram.”

Background: Ministry of Education and Training’s Policy/Program Memorandum No.123

The Ministry of Education and Training’s Policy/Program Memorandum No. 123, Safe Arrivalsrequires school boards to develop a policy statement, applying to all of its elementary schools,for the development and implementation of a Safe Arrival program. It is suggested that schoolsbegin implementation of a Safe Arrival program at the start of the 1999-2000 school year withfull implementation by the end of October 1999.

A Safe Arrival program is a system of procedures, which are performed together with dailyschool attendance-taking. Parents and guardians are responsible for their children’s safety.Safe Arrival programs are a mechanism that parents and schools can use to account for anypupil’s unexplained failure to arrive at school.

The provisions and intent are highlighted as follows:

• All elementary schools will have procedures in place that are conducted in conjunction withdaily school attendance-taking procedures and that aim to account for any pupil’sunexplained failure to arrive at school through reasonable efforts to make timely contact withparents, guardians or caregivers.

• Schools, parents, school councils, and communities work co-operatively for the successfuldevelopment and implementation of Safe Arrival programs.

• The design of specific procedures reflects local needs and the particular circumstances ofthe school and the community.

• Safe Arrival programs are designed to be flexible, with a view to achieving overalleffectiveness, efficiency and economy.

Existing Practices

TDSB elementary schools already have procedures in place to monitor the safe arrival ofstudents. These programs are school-based and rely on the co-operation of staff, parents andvolunteers to be successful.



A survey of schools indicates that elementary schools have developed procedures inconjunction with daily attendance-taking that includes a mandatory response to all unexplainedabsences of pupils.

Policy Development

A TDSB Safe Arrival Policy and Procedures has been developed using the guidelinessuggested in Policy/Program Memorandum No. 123 and is consistent with the provisions andintent of that memorandum.

An abbreviated consultation process was conducted in April and May 1999 due to the shorttimelines provided by the Ministry of Education. The Interim Parent Community Networkprovided comments on the proposed policy and wrote a letter to the Minister of Educationexpressing concern for the quick turnaround time and the resultant diminished opportunity forinput from parents, school councils and community members. They also expressed concern forthe availability of staff to complete a safe arrival process each day in our schools, given thefunding cutbacks in the “non-classroom” area.A focus group of principals and vice-principals met to revise the draft policy and developrecommendations for the Board’s consideration.The distribution of the revised draft Safe Arrival Policy to school council chairs and principalsbrought the following comments:• support for a mandatory Safe Arrival Program and its positive impact on student safety, and

the school-community partnerships;• concern for the time required, particularly in instances when parents/guardians do not

provide accurate, up-to-date phone numbers;• concern that paid employees will no longer be used to operate Safe Arrival Programs, and if

so, what will schools that have extreme difficulty soliciting volunteers to work on a regularbasis do?;

• recommendation that safe arrival information be included on Confirmation Forms that aresent home in September for parents and guardians to update information (phone numbers,medical concerns, etc.). The Student Office Card, which is part of the OSR, will reflect theupdated information;

• recommendation that the procedures provide for the opportunity for parents/guardians to optin and that forms clearly indicate this option;

• recommendation that when volunteers are utilized to make safe arrival calls, they receiveinstruction in the use of the school’s Safe Arrival Procedures.

While recognizing that many exemplary programs are currently in place, this proposed policyseeks to renew and re-emphasize safe arrival programs in all elementary schools in Toronto. Itsuggests the exercise of local discretion in the design and implementation of the programs inorder to take into account the unique circumstances of every school. Such uniquecircumstances may include, but are not limited to, the number of staff available to implement theSafe Arrival program, the size of the student body, and the age of the pupils, as well as thegeographic conditions in the vicinity of the school, the kind of transportation used by pupils totravel to school, and the communication methods available in the area.




(a) that the Safe Arrival Policy for Elementary Schools (see page 365) , be approved;

(b) that the appropriate safe arrival information be incorporated into the Student InformationSystem used by schools;

(c) that a committee, in association with the Toronto School Administrators’ Association, beestablished to identify successful practices in implementing this policy during the 1999-2000 school year; and

(d) that all elementary schools have sufficient telephone lines and answering equipment toeffectively carry out Safe Arrival Procedures.

9. RFP 99-013P, Cafeteria Services

The Committee considered a report of the officials dated June 9, 1999 provided to recommendapproval to award contracts for Cafeteria Services to the thirteen (13) contractors as identified inthe recommendations.

Purchasing and Distribution Services, in consultation with the Comptroller of Board Services,issued a Request for Proposals for the provision of Cafeteria Services to eighty-nine (89) Boardcafeterias. These exclude those operated by Board staff and those of the former EtobicokeBoard of Education.

Fifteen different companies varying from large national companies to small one-personindependent operators catered these eighty-nine (89) locations.

The Request for Proposal intentionally broke down these eighty-nine (89) locations into twenty-one (21) groups as per their current caterer. This was done to provide small independentcaterers with an opportunity to compete with larger national caterers by being able to bid onsmaller groups of cafeterias and/or the cafeteria(s) that they currently operate only.

The Request for Proposal also provided the bidders with a standard price list for nutritionalitems. This was done to establish standard pricing throughout TDSB for nutritional items atbetter value to encourage healthy eating habits.

In addition, the Request for Proposal provided the Board an opportunity to obtain revenue fromthe cafeteria operations where appropriate.

Consistent with Board policy, proposals were requested from twenty-eight (28) Bidders andnotices were placed on two electronic bulletin boards on April 30, 1999. The Request forProposal closed on May 21, 1999 and twenty-one (21) caterers submitted proposals. Allproposals received are on file in the Purchasing and Distribution Services Department.

Evaluation

Nutrition Services and Purchasing and Distribution Services staff evaluated all proposalsreceived according to the following criteria:

• Quality of the submitted proposal;• Experience of the Caterer;• Nutritional Value of proposed menus;



• Satisfaction of school staff with the caterer as expressed in a customer satisfactionsurvey;

• Proposed revenue for the Board; and,• Other Value-added services.


(a) that Aramark Food Services be awarded the contract for Groups 2, 6, 15, 16, and 21;

(b) that Restauronics be awarded the contract for Groups 1, 5, and 10;

(c) that Beaver Foods be awarded the contract for Groups 8 and 17;

(d) that Tayler’s Foods be awarded be awarded the contract for Group 3;

(e) that Village Host be awarded the contract for Groups 4 and 7;

(f) that Elsie Peters, be awarded the contract for Group 9;

(g) that Myrna Gibbs, be awarded the contract for Group 11;

(h) that L & D Catering, be awarded the contract for Group 12;

(i) that L & G Food Service, be awarded the contract for Group 13;

(j) that Bramlea Foods, be awarded the contract for Group 14;

(k) that Bobbye’s Kakes & Krafts, be awarded the contract for Group 18;

(l) that Canada Catering, be awarded the contract for Group 19; and

(m) that Dallaire's Cuisine, be awarded the contract for Group 20.

10. Membership Renewal in The Learning Partnership (Amended, see page 321)

The Committee considered a report from the officials dated June 9, 1999 regarding the renewalof the Board's membership in The Learning Partnership.

The Learning Partnership was founded six years ago in Metropolitan Toronto to create newrelationships by bringing together people from education, business and the community toestablish innovative programs for publicly funded schools. It later expanded to includebusinesses and all public and separate school boards in the Greater Toronto Area and remainsa strong proponent of publicly funded education.

Numerous public schools in the Toronto District School Board have benefited from fundingthrough this partnership. Well known projects include:

Hands On IT focuses on using technology effectively to expand and enhance learning andproviding equity and access for all students. The program is structured to provide students withlife-long skills as self-directed, self-motivated problem-solvers who can easily manipulate andprocess relevant and current information.



Take Our Kids to Work involves Grade 9 students and is aimed at strengthening the bondsbetween parents and children, as well as advancing community responsibility for the future ofour young people.

Principal and Community Leader for a Day provides an opportunity for community and businessleaders to visit, observe and be actively involved in a school for a day; and, reciprocally allowsprincipals to have a similar experience in non-educational organizations. As well, it affordsparticipants the opportunity to gain a better understanding of each other, exchange ideas, clarifyperspectives and develop positive linkages.

Kidsmuse enhances numeracy and literacy by immersing students in integrated programs ofarts and technology and provides students in grades one to three with the opportunity todevelop imagination, analytical thinking skills, critical judgement, appreciation for diversity,communication skills and vision through the development of creative learning methods.

Change Your Future involves secondary school students, at risk of dropping out of school, in jobshadowing and counselling around personal growth and career plans.

It is estimated by staff of The Learning Partnership that schools in the Toronto District SchoolBoard have received well over $5 million in goods and services through the Hands on It andKidsmuse projects alone. The cost for renewing membership in The

Learning Partnership for the period January 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999, remains the sameas in 1998--$60,000.


(a) that the membership of the Toronto District School Board in The Learning Partnership inthe amount of $60,000 for the period January 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999 beapproved; and

(b) that in view of the Board’s changes and changing financial circumstances, the Board’srepresentatives on The Learning partnership explore with the Partnership ways in whichthe Board’s membership fee will be paid in kind.

11. Community Liaison Groups – Implementation (see page 367)The Committee considered a report from the officials dated June 9, 1999, presenting theproposed criteria and procedures for implementation of Community Liaison Groups as outlinedin the Board’s policy C.01: Parent, Community and Student Involvement.

On November 25, 1998, the Board approved the following recommendations of the report fromthe Task Group on Parent, Community and Student Involvement.

Rec. 8 That the Board establish the category of Community LiaisonGroups to permit system-wide community groups to work with theBoard in contributing to the development of educational policiesand practices of interest to those groups and to the Board.

Rec. 9 That criteria and a procedure for formal recognition of system-widecommunity groups as Community Liaison Groups of the TDSB bedeveloped, such procedure to include a written request from thegroups, stating their objectives, how they wish to work with the Board,their constituencies represented, and the name, address and telephonenumber of their chairperson(s) and other appropriate representatives.



Rec. 10 That the Board maintain a list of all recognized Community LiaisonGroups for the purpose of communication and involvement, andthat this list be updated annually.

The policy on Community Liaison Groups is intended to facilitate an ongoing workingrelationship between the Board and system-wide community groups that wish to contribute tothe mission and work of the Board in areas of specific interest to their group. Staff estimatethat, based on the interest of existing groups, there will be no more than 15 to 20 groups whowill be interested in becoming Community Liaison Groups of the Board over the next two tothree years. Other broad-based community advocacy groups will prefer to have input into theBoard through involvement in the Parent Community Network or through the deputation processof the Board.

Proposed procedures for the implementation of the policy on Community Liaison Groups areshown on page 367. These procedures are based on the deliberations of a staff steeringcommittee that considered the implementation of the recommendations in the Parent,Community and Student Involvement Policy, and consultation with representatives of fourteen(14) system-wide community groups.

Budget

The resources required to support the Board’s work with each Community Liaison Group willvary from group to group. Operating costs for the Toronto District School Board would beincurred mainly for the meetings of the groups, and for the production and dissemination ofmaterials (meeting notices, meeting notes, and reports). The TDSB’s annual expenditures forthese activities are estimated to be in the range of $500 per Community Liaison Group. Thestaff assigned to each Community Liaison Group would keep watch of expenses and submitsuch data to the staff co-ordinator of Student & Community Services in order to monitor thisbudget held by Student & Community Services.The Standing Committee RECOMMENDS:

(a) that requests for consideration as Community Liaison Groups, including staffrecommendations, be referred to the appropriate Board committee; and

(b) that a maximum total budget of $10,000.00 be allocated to the Student and CommunityServices Department to cover the operating costs for Community Liaison Groups.

12. Deferral of Agenda ItemsThe Standing Committee reports that the staff report on Seniors Daytime Programs: Adult andContinuing Education and Report No. 7B of the Budget Process Group, which were presentedfor consideration at this time, were referred, without recommendation, to the June 23, 1999Board meeting for consideration.

13. AdjournmentThe Standing Committee adjourned its meeting at 11:15 p.m.


Christine FerreiraCo-Chair of Standing Committee

Adopted, as amended, June 23, 1999

Minutes of the Toronto District School Board June 23, 1999Equity Foundation Statement


Equity Foundation Statement

(Approved June 23, 1999)

The Toronto District School Board values the contribution of all members of our diversecommunity of students, staff, parents and community groups to our mission and goals. Webelieve that equity of opportunity, and equity of access to our programs, services and resourcesare critical to the achievement of successful outcomes for all those whom we serve, and forthose who serve our school system.

The Board recognizes however, that certain groups in our society are treated inequitablybecause of individual and systemic biases related to race, colour, culture, ethnicity, linguisticorigin, disability, socio-economic class, age, ancestry, nationality, place of origin, religion, faith,sex, gender, sexual orientation, family status, and marital status. Similar biases have alsoimpacted upon Canada's aboriginal population. We also acknowledge that such biases existwithin our school system.

The Board further recognizes that such inequitable treatment leads to educational, social andcareer outcomes that do not accurately reflect the abilities, experiences and contributions of ourstudents, our employees, and our parent and community partners. This inequitable treatmentlimits their future success and prevents them from making a full contribution to society.

The Board is therefore committed to ensuring that fairness, equity, and inclusion are essentialprinciples of our school system and are integrated into all our policies, programs, operations,and practices.

The Board will therefore ensure that:

(a) The curriculum of our schools accurately reflects and uses the variety of knowledge of allpeoples as the basis for instruction; that it actively provides opportunities for all studentsto understand the factors that cause inequity in society and to understand thesimilarities, differences and the connections between different forms of discrimination;and that it helps students to acquire the skills and knowledge that enable them tochallenge unjust practices, and to build positive human relationships among their fellowstudents, and among all members of the society.

(b) All our students are provided with equitable opportunities to be successful in our system;that institutional barriers to such success are identified and removed; and that alllearners are provided with supports and rewards to develop their abilities and achievetheir aspirations.

(c) Our hiring and promotion practices are bias-free, and promote equitable representationof our diversity at all levels of the school system; that all our employees have equitableopportunities for advancement; that their skills and knowledge are valued and usedappropriately; and that they have equitable access to available support for theirprofessional development needs.

(d) The contributions of our diverse community of parents and community groups to ourschools are valued and encouraged; and that they are provided with equitableopportunities for working with staff and with each other for the benefit of all students.

Minutes of the Toronto District School Board June 23, 1999Equity Foundation Statement


(e) Students, employees, parents and community partners are provided with effectiveprocedures for resolving concerns and complaints which may arise from their experiencesof unfair or inequitable treatment within the school system.

(f) Financial and human resources are provided to support the work of staff, students,parents and community groups, and for staff development, in promoting equity andinclusion in the school system.

(g) Procedures are in place at all levels of the system for implementing, reviewing anddeveloping policies, programs, operations and practices which promote equity in thesystem, for assessing their effectiveness, and for making changes where necessary.

Minutes of the Toronto District School Board June 23, 1999Safe Schools Foundation Statement


Safe Schools Foundation Statement

(Approved June 23, 1999)

The mission of the Toronto District School Board is to provide “learning environments that aresafe, nurturing, positive and respectful.”

Such learning environments are peaceful and welcoming for all. They must be free of negativefactors such as abuse, bullying, discrimination, intimidation, hateful words and deeds andphysical violence in any form. They must also clearly demonstrate respect for human rights andsocial justice and promote the values needed to develop responsible members of a democraticsociety.

The Toronto District School Board:

• is committed to providing a safe learning and working environment for all students, staff andvisitors to our schools;

• will include in its Safe Schools Policy clear expectations and consequences for behavioursfor all students, parents and staff, which will be communicated on a regular and ongoingbasis;

• will ensure that each school establishes a safe schools committee and develops a code ofbehaviour and a safe school plan;

• will continue to incorporate violence prevention and peaceful problem solving into thecurriculum beginning in kindergarten, with peer mediation encouraged in dispute resolution ;

• expects its students, parents/guardians, employees, and community members to activelyparticipate as partners in maintaining a safe learning and work environment in its schools,offices, work sites and at all Board sponsored activities;

• will not tolerate on Board property, on school contracted transportation, or at Boardsponsored events:

- violence of any kind;- the possession or presence of weapons;- harmful, threatening or actual acts of violence or other unlawful acts;- verbal abuse in any form;- the presence of any intruder or any activity which places the safety of students,

staff or visitors at risk; and- the possession of, use of, or trafficking in alcohol, illegal drugs or unauthorized

prescription drugs;

• will ensure that school officials and staff respond appropriately, without delay and in aconsistent fashion when violent incidents threaten the safety and security of our schools andthe well-being of our students, staff and larger community;

Minutes of the Toronto District School Board June 23, 1999Safe Schools Foundation Statement


• will ensure that there are serious consequences to any student who commits a violent act,up to and including expulsions as outlined in the Education Act;

• acknowledges its responsibility to educate all students, including those who commit violentacts, and to provide these students with opportunities to attend programs and accessservices appropriate to their academic and social/emotional needs;

• will offer support for victims of school-related violence, their families and schoolcommunities.

Minutes of the Toronto District School Board June 23, 1999Safe Arrival for Elementary Schools Policy


Policy: Safe Arrival for Elementary Schools(Approved June 23, 1999)

Statement

The Toronto District School Board values the safety and security of its students. To assistparents and guardians in ensuring their children’s safety we require each school to develop aSafe Arrival Program.

Administrative Procedures

1.0 School-Home Attendance Check

1.1 The principal will request parents/guardians notify the school when their child isabsent.

1.2 Under normal circumstances, the school personnel or a volunteer will attempt tocontact the parents/guardians or designate if the school has not been advisedthat the child will be absent.

1.3 Parents/Guardians are requested to provide their home and work phonenumbers to the school as well as the name and telephone number of a neighbouror relative to contact if their child does not arrive at school. The principal willcommunicate with parents/guardians the necessity of providing accurate andcomplete current information. It is the principal’s responsibility to ensure that aprocedure is established for updating this information.

Each September, it is the principal’s responsibility to inform the parent/guardian of theBoard’s policy regarding school-home communication when a pupil is absent. At thattime, the principal will request the parent/guardian to provide the consent necessary tocarry out the policy. Parents must also be informed of their right to waive participation inthe program. (Translation will be provided as determined by Board policy – currentlybeing developed) Parents wishing to waive participation in the Safe Arrival Programmust inform the school on an appropriate Confirmation Form (sample Confirmation Formwill be made available).

1.4 The program will commence for children as soon as their forms are returned.

1.5 In the event that the parent/guardian does not supply the information necessaryfor the implementation of the Board’s policy within 20 school days, the principalwill issue, by registered mail, after documenting three attempts to obtain accurateinformation, a letter to the parent explaining that until the necessary informationis provided, his/her child(ren) will be excluded from the Safe Arrival Program. Acopy of the above letter should be sent to the superintendent of schools.(sample letter will be made available).

2.0 Morning Attendance

2.1 The classroom teacher, in accordance with procedures required by the principalor designate, will report all absences to the office promptly after the start of theschool day.

Minutes of the Toronto District School Board June 23, 1999Safe Arrival for Elementary Schools Policy


2.2 The principal or designate will record the following each day:

(i) All pupils whose parents/guardians have informed the school of thechild’s absence.

(ii) All pupils who have arrived late (these pupils may be on the classroomabsence list).

2.3 The office will identify those pupils on the classroom list whose parents/guardianshave telephoned or who have arrived late.

2.4 As soon as the identification process in 2.3 (above) has been completed, theprincipal or designate will attempt to contact the parent/guardian of each childunaccounted for, provided that the parent/guardian of the particular child isparticipating in the Safe Arrival Program.

2.5 The principal or designate is not required to attempt to contact theparent/guardian of any child who is unaccounted for if that parent/guardian haseither waived participation in the Safe Arrival Program under Item 1.4, or hasfailed to supply the information necessary for the implementation of the programunder item 1.6.

2.6 The attempt to contact the parent/guardian at home, through business or byemergency numbers of all unaccounted for pupils should be completed aspromptly as possible.

2.7 If the parent/guardian cannot be reached and the child cannot be traced, or foulplay is suspected, the decision to take further action, including calling the police,rests with the principal. If the principal involves the police, the principal willadvise the Communications Office and the superintendent of schools. TheCommunications Office will inform the trustee.

3.0 Afternoon Attendance

3.1 The procedure outlined above for morning attendance should be used again inthe afternoon session for each unaccounted for child.

4.0 Volunteers

4.1 The Toronto District School Board supports the efforts of volunteers in theschools.

4.2 Volunteers may be enlisted for attendance calling. They will receive instruction inthe use of the school’s protocol for volunteers to carry out the program effectively.

Minutes of the Toronto District School Board June 23, 1999Community Liaison Groups


Community Liaison Groups(Approved June 23, 1999)

Criteria and Implementation Procedures

1. Criteria

Groups that are interested in becoming Community Liaison Groups of the Toronto DistrictSchool Board (TDSB) are expected to meet the following criteria:

(a) The members are public school supporters, a majority of whom live in Toronto;(b) Participation in the group is open to interested parents/guardians whose children attend

TDSB schools, as well as (open to) other TDSB community members;(c) Active membership is drawn from across the school system;(d) The group demonstrates a focus on educational matters relevant to the TDSB;(e) The leadership of the group, e.g. Chair, Executive, Steering Committee, is democratically

elected or appointed from among its members;(f) There is a willingness to maintain written records (notes, reports, minutes, etc.) of the

group’s activities and to provide them on a regular basis to the TDSB.

2. Registration and Approval Procedure

(a) An information sheet outlining the criteria and procedures for Community Liaison Groupsand a Registration Request Form (Appendix F-3) are made available to any system-widecommunity group interested in being registered as a TDSB Community Liaison Group;

(b) The group submits a completed Registration Request Form to the Student and CommunityServices Office;

(c) The appropriate staff reviews the request including follow-up contact with the requestinggroup to clarify or verify information;

(d) Requests for consideration as Community Liaison Groups, including staff recommendationswould be brought to the appropriate sub-committee of the Board’s Instruction, Program andStudent Services Committee; Business Administration and Human Resources Committee;or Budget Process Group;

(e) The requesting group is formally informed of the decision of the Board.

3. Services

(a) Access to Meeting Space in a Board Facility

Staff arranges space in a Board facility for meetings of the group. In order to minimize costs,such meeting space will be arranged in locations that are already open because of existingpermits. In some cases, Community Liaison Groups will choose to make their ownarrangements to meet in non-Board locations.

Minutes of the Toronto District School Board June 23, 1999Community Liaison Groups


(b) Staff Liaison Assistance

Each Community Liaison Group will have a staff person assigned to be the liaison with thegroup. Some groups will require very little staff assistance, others will require more—at least inthe short term. The responsibilities of the staff may include the following functions, dependingon the needs of the group:

(i) Securing meeting space for the group in a Board facility; (ii) Arranging for senior staff and trustees to meet with the group where necessary; (iii) Providing relevant Board information and advice to the group where required; (iv) Facilitating consultation with the group on relevant Board policies and programs; (v) Maintaining on-going communication with the group’s representative(s) (vi) Attending meetings of the group as needed; (vii) Facilitating the dissemination of notices of meetings to its members; (viii) Maintaining a record of the group’s activities (notes, reports, minutes, etc.).

4. Assignment of Staff

Appropriate staff will be identified and assigned to be the staff liaison with the group. Staffassignments will be allocated in such a way as to ensure that Community Liaison Groups haveequitable access to staff assistance.

As part of his/her responsibilities, a staff co-ordinator of Student and Community Services willoversee the entire procedure regarding Community Liaison Groups, provide advice anddirection to staff, and report to the senior administrator on matters relating to the implementationof this procedure. The co-ordinator will also maintain the updated list of all Community LiaisonGroups, and provide information about the status of the groups to senior administration andtrustees as required.

Minutes of the Toronto District School Board June 23, 1999Budget Process Group, Report No. 7B


Report No. 7B, Budget Process Group

June 4, 1999


The Budget Process Group met this day at 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, from 8:25 a.m. to 12:05p.m. The following Budget Process Group members were present: Trustees Cansfield (Chair),Codd, Gershon, Hall and Kendall. Alternate members Trustee Schaeffer and Trustee Ferreirawere also present. Trustees Atkinson and Blakeley sent their regrets.

The Budget Process Group is reporting as follows:

1. Adult and Continuing Education - International Languages (Amended, see page326)

The Budget Process Group considered a report from the officials dated May 20, 1999 which isprovided as a review of the Integrated/Extended Day programs and to propose a new deliverymodel.

The Adult and Continuing Education Department offers students the opportunity to appreciateother cultures and learn additional languages other than English and French. Currently, 48different languages are offered in after-school, weekend or extended day programs. In addition,the Black History and Culture Program offers students the opportunity to explore and appreciatethe history, culture, traditions and contribution people of African descent make to Canada andthe world.

Funding for the Program

International Language programs are attended by more than 40,000 students in 231 sitesacross the City. These programs are funded by the Ministry of Education and Training at therate of $41 per hour. Each language program can run a maximum of 80 hours per year with a150 minute maximum per week. For the 1998-99 school year, the Toronto District School Boardhas offered these programs for 75 hours per year. Based on a Toronto District School Boardaverage of twenty-five (25) students per class, the Ministry of Education and Training grantallocated is $123 per student*.

* $41/h x 75 h = $123/student25

Integrated/Extended Day Program

Presently, twenty-one (21) elementary schools in the former Toronto Board offer InternationalLanguage programs as part of the daytime curriculum. These schools have extended theirschool day by 30 minutes, and through either an integrated timetable or block scheduling,deliver 150 minutes per week of International Language instruction. For children not choosingthe International Language program, either Black History and Culture or concurrent programs



are offered. Concurrent programs include: Arts and Crafts, Music, Dance, Drama and NativeStudies.

Established over twenty (20) years ago, these programs have become an integral and criticalcomponent of the culture of these schools, providing language-rich environments wherestudents learn to value not only their own heritage and language but the cultures and languagesof their classmates as well.Further, there is evidence that the acquisition of a first, second and third language has beneficialeffects in overall academic achievement and the promotion of family literacy.

Notwithstanding the many positive benefits of the Integrated/Extended Day program, there is acost factor that needs to be addressed.

The accompanying chart illustrates that the average cost per student in the Integrated/ExtendedDay program is $294.65. This is significantly higher than the Ministry of Education and Traininggrant of $123.00 per student. Factors that contribute to the increased cost include small classsize and the provision of the concurrent and Black History and Culture programs that are totallyunfunded.

Integrated/Extended Day Program

Costs for InternationalLanguage Programs

Costs for Concurrent andBlack History and Culture

Programs

Instructors 700,363.20 385,265.60Materials 26,016.00 16,572.00Program Facilitators 149,399.04

Subtotal 726,379.20 551,236.64

# of Students 4,336 2,782# of Classes 331 185# of Instructors 99 60

Total Cost $1,277,615.84

Options Available

(i) After School/Weekend Program:

Offer the program to the students of the twenty-one (21) affected sites using the afterschool or weekend model.

This option would rationalize the delivery of International Language across the TorontoDistrict School Board. Further, there would be a cost-savings of approximately $934,236(see following chart on the next page).



After School/Weekend Program

Costs for InternationalLanguage Program

Instructors 245,232.00Materials 20,250.00Class Co-ordinators 68,897.60

# of Students 4,336 *# of Classes 135# of Instructors 135

Total Cost $334,379.60

Average Cost Per Student $77.12

* The assumption is that all students currently taking an International Language wouldopt for the After School/Weekend program.

(ii) New Model for Integrated/Extended Day Program:

In order to honour the value of the delivery model and to maintain the benefitsassociated with the International/Extended Day program, the new model would proposethe following changes within the International Language program:

(a) class size to be in the range of 20 – 30 students(b) concurrent programs would no longer be offered(c) students attending the school must select either an International Language or a

Black History and Culture class(d) all integrated/extended day schools would follow a fully integrated schedule.

Cost Analysis

The following analysis (see next page) assumes that eighty percent (80%) of the students willtake an International Language and that twenty percent (20%) will select the Black History andCulture program.

Costs for InternationalLanguage Programs

Costs for Black Historyand Culture Program

Instructors 536,712.00 133,707.20Materials 34,164.00 8,544.00Program Facilitators 102,444.80 25,611.52

Subtotal $673,320.80 $167,862.72

# of Students 5,694 1,424# of Classes 285 71# of Instructors 63 12

Total Cost $841,813.52

Average Cost per Student $118.18



Comparison: Option (i) vs. Option (ii) vs. Status Quo

Option Students Hours/Week

Instructors Cost Grant Balance Average/Student

Option (i) 4,336 337.50 135

(2.5h/wk)

$334,379 533,328 $198,949 $77.12

Option (ii) 5694 890.00 75

(10-30 h/wk)

$841,183 655,949 ($185,234) $118.18

Status Quo 4,336 1637.20 159

(2.5-30 h/wk)

$1,277,615 499,507 ($778,108) $294.65


(a) that a community survey be conducted at each of the existing Integrated/Extended Dayschools to determine whether the school community wishes to continue as anIntegrated/Extended Day school;

(b) that the Integrated/Extended Day program will continue if two-thirds (2/3) of the returnedquestionnaires in (a) so indicate based on criteria established in (c), (d), and (e);

(c) that Integrated/Extended Day sites that offer their programs using a “block scheduling”configuration, convert to a “fully integrated scheduling” configuration, effective September 1,2000;

(d) that effective September 1, 2000, it is the expectation of Board staff that students in allIntegrated/Extended Day schools will be enrolled in either the International Languagesprogram or the Black History and Culture program;

(e) that effective September 1, 2000, class sizes in existing Integrated/Extended Day schoolsfor International Languages and Black History and Culture programs be 20 to 30;

(f) that parents and children affected by Recommendation (b) be fully informed of the optionsavailable to them;

(g) that ongoing review of the demographics of the communities occur to ensure deliverymodels that will ensure the viability of the Integrated/Extended Day programs and the BlackHistory and Culture programs;

(h) that criteria be developed for the formation of Integrated/Extended Day schools for thepossible inclusion of other schools across the Toronto District School Board effectiveSeptember 1, 2001.

2. Adult and Continuing Education (Amended, see pages 327 to 333)

The Budget Process Group considered the following report of the officials on the rationalizationof services, fees and program delivery for Adult and Continuing Education programs excludingthe International Languages and Seniors Daytime programs.



The Adult and Continuing Education Department provides programs and services to more than240,000 learners in day, night, weekend and summer programs. As the Toronto District SchoolBoard moves to rationalize the programs, fees, and services, it is important to underscore thatthe new funding model imposes a target of $13.4 million reduction over the next four years.

This report is presented in sections. Each section is immediately followed by therecommendations that pertain to it. The Compendium of Recommendations section at the endof the report lists all the recommendations. The sections are as follows:

1. Policy Statements: Adult and Continuing Education

2. Elementary Programs2.1 Academic and Special Education Summer School2.2 Enrichment Summer Programs2.3 After-school and Saturday Enrichment Programs

3. Credit Programs

4. Community Programs4.1 General Interest Programs4.2 Parenting

5. Non-credit Programs5.1 English as a Second Language5.2 ESL for Non-residents of Canada5.3 Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC)5.4 Literacy and Basic Skills (LBS)5.5 Native Language Instruction for Adults

6. Externally Funded Programs

1. Policy Statement: Adult and Continuing Education (Amended, see page 327)

Learning is a lifelong experience. The Toronto District School Board, through its Adult andContinuing Education Department, is committed to developing and providing high qualityeducational programs and activities that enhance the personal, professional, and academicdevelopment of lifelong learners of all ages. Such programs include literacy and basic skills,English as a Second Language, International Languages, parenting, elementary academic andenrichment, credit, job skills training and general interest courses. Adult and ContinuingEducation enables learners to fulfil their educational and lifelong learning goals by providingalternative programs which are responsive to the unique needs and interests of the learners inour diverse city.

The department’s mandate is to develop continuing education activities consistent with theToronto District School Board’s mission to serve all of its constituents and assist them to reachhigh levels of personal and academic growth.

Guiding principles for the department include equity of access to programs, recognition ofchanging community needs, collaboration with students, teachers, parents and the community,and the provision for alternative or special learning opportunities.



The Adult and Continuing Education Department co-ordinates program development, promotesinnovation, supervises the marketing of programs, manages an extensive database of learnerinformation and ensures equity in safe and nurturing learning environments. As an efficient andeffective learning organization within the Toronto District School Board, the Adult andContinuing Education Department’s main focus is the successful delivery of quality daytime,evening and weekend programs throughout the year in our communities.

Policy Statement Recommendation

1.1. (a)That the above policy statement on Adult and Continuing Education, be adopted.

2. Elementary Programs

The Elementary unit of Adult and Continuing Education serves the needs of approximately48,000 children through the delivery of programs in the areas of:

Academic and Special Education Summer School (2.1)Enrichment Summer School (2.2)After-school/Saturday Enrichment (2.3)

2.1 Academic and Special Education Summer School (Amended, see page 328)

These programs are attended by approximately 16,000 children across the Toronto DistrictSchool Board. Offered in each of the predecessor boards, these programs provide basicremediation in the areas of English/literacy and mathematics/numeracy. Programs in SpecialEducation and in ESL are also offered in most jurisdictions.

These academic remedial programs have become a significant component for studentsexperiencing academic difficulty.

Currently these programs are unfunded, however, the Ministry of Education and Training is inthe process of reviewing the need for and funding of elementary summer academic programs.For the summer of 1999, there is an expectation that Ministry funding will be available forstudents in Grade 8.

Impact Analysis

Current cost to run programs ..............................................................$2,315,000 Additional cost to rationalize program deliver for Grades 1 - 8 ..............$250,000 Anticipated grants for Grade 8 population ............................................$200,000 Net subsidy for programs is approximately.........................................$2,365,000

Note: The restructuring of program delivery will have minimal, if any impact on job loss.

Academic and Special Education Summer School Recommendations

2.1. (a)That the Toronto District School Board continue to deliver focused elementary academicsummer programs for students with achievement levels below Level 3 on report cards inthe areas of English/Literacy and Mathematics/Numeracy for Grades 1-8; and thatreadiness summer programs for students going into Senior Kindergarten, based onrecommendations from the Day school staff be implemented.



2.1. (b)That ESL summer programs be available for Toronto District School Board students.

2.1. (c) That Special Education Summer School funded through Special Education continue tobe offered.

2.1. (d)That continued efforts be made to secure further funding for elementary summeracademic programs from the Ministry of Education and Training.

2.2 Enrichment Summer Programs (Amended, see page 329)

A wide range of enrichment summer programs are offered by the Toronto District School Board.In most cases, fees are charged which vary significantly from area to area. Programs areavailable for elementary and secondary students in the areas of computers, visual and dramaticarts, music and outdoor education.

Impact Analysis

Subsidy required to run the programs approximately $190,000. Offering programs on a cost recovery basis as indicated in 2.2 (a) will impact significantly in

former Toronto where it is anticipated that a thirty percent (30%) reduction in studentenrollment will occur.

Subsidies may be available to children based on financial hardship. NET savings approximately $190,000.

Enrichment Summer Programs Recommendations

2.2 (a) That the Toronto District School Board continue to provide enrichment summerprograms on a cost-recovery basis.

2.2 (b) That the Board endeavour to access alternative sources of funding to provideopportunities to children not be able to afford the cost of these programs.

2.3 A After-School Enrichment Programs (Amended, see page 329)

These After-School programs for children include arts and crafts, chess, cooking, sports,homework clubs and reading tutorials. A variety of challenging programs also available toelementary students include Primary French, computer literacy, drama and dance andenrichment math. Fees charged for these programs vary from area to area.

Impact Analysis

Fees vary from $.75/hour (York), $1.75/hour (Toronto) to $2.50/hour (East York). Theseprograms were not offered in Scarborough, Etobicoke and North York.

There is a significant adjustment of fees in one former jurisdiction. Current subsidy to run these programs is approximately $470,000. Setting a cost recovery fee will result in an enrolment decrease of 40-50%, resulting in the

loss of approximately 130 non-union jobs (at 1 to 3 hours per week per assignment).

After-School Enrichment Programs Recommendations

2.31 (a) That a standard fee for these programs be set at $1.75 per hour.



2.31 (b) That the Board endeavour to access alternative sources of funding to provideopportunities to children not able to afford the cost of these programs.

2.31 (c) That the TDSB phase-in at cost-recovery basis for implementation across the Boardfor September 2000.

2.3 B Saturday Enrichment Programs (see page 330)

2.311 (a) That the TDSB provide the Saturday Enrichment programs on a cost-recovery basis.

2.311 (b) That alternate sources of funding be accessed to provide opportunities to childrenwho may not be able to afford the cost of these programs.

3. Credit Programs (Amended, see page 330)

Credit courses for adults and secondary school students are offered in daytime continuingeducation classes, evening and summer school programs. Approximately 50,000 students inover 50 school sites are accommodated by these programs.

The main purpose for providing continuing education through day to evening classes is tobenefit adults who have left school. However, day school students who have special curriculumneeds do qualify for admission.

Impact Analysis

The credit programs are funded by the Ministry of Education and Training at $2,257 per FullTime Equivalent Student. Notwithstanding Ministry of Education and Training funding, theBoard’s costs exceed revenue by approximately $1M. Operational changes such asconsolidating sites, reducing from four (4) nights to two (2) nights per site and adjusting classsizes, will significantly reduce the subsidy required. It is anticipated that cost savings will beapproximately $500,000. Restructuring operations will likely result in job loss at theadministrative level only.

Credit Programs Recommendations

3.1. (a)That credit programs be rationalized in respect of start and end dates, hours ofoperation, grade reporting timelines, administrative structure and salaries.

3.1. (b)That immediate priority and resource support be given to develop a fully integratedcomputerized system to ensure a seamless transition to an effective, amalgamatedcontinuing education operation.

3.1.(c) That a Safe Schools Policy referencing the unique contingencies of night, weekend andsummer settings be developed through consultation with stakeholders and implementedby January 2000.

3.1.(d) That credit programming continue to reflect and to extend the current variety of alternatestudy opportunities in the Toronto District School Board (summer study abroad, on-linecredits, mentorship, etc.).



4. Community Programs

The community unit offers services to approximately 33,000 learners in the following areas ofoperation:

General Interest Programs (4.1)Parenting Centres, Programs and Courses (4.2)

4.1 General Interest Programs (Amended, see page 330)

These programs are attended by more than 27,000 students in more than 90 sites includingschools and community centres. Courses offered include arts and crafts, computers, dancing,fitness and sports, games and hobbies, music and technological studies.

Course fees are $3.50 per hour ($1.75 per hour for seniors). In addition, some courses chargematerial fees to support their operation.

The duration of the programs vary from two 10-week terms (East York, Scarborough, Toronto,York) to three terms (Etobicoke 10-8-8 and North York 10-10-10).

Impact Analysis

The costs to run the General Interest courses exceed revenues by approximately $865,000.Although many of the courses are cost recovery, there is considerable subsidy for seniors withtheir reduced fee of $1.75 per hour and the use of the Learning Card.

With the senior’s age defined as 60 years of age or older, there will be more students in theformer Etobicoke and Scarborough Boards that will qualify for the $1.75 per hour reduction infees. This will result in additional subsidies of approximately $13,000.

The proposed twenty-seven (27) weeks per year program length would result in an additionalsubsidy of approximately $71,000.

General Interest Programs Recommendations4.1. (a)That the duration of the programs be standardized to: Term 1 (9 weeks); Term 2 (9

weeks); Term 3 (9 weeks), while keeping room for flexibility.4.1. (b)That the following be applied to seniors:


2. The “GAINS CERTIFICATE” or “proof of equivalent or less income” is the bestavailable measure of financial hardship on which to base fee reduction.

3. A suggested fee minimum of $10 per course per term is recommended regardless ofcircumstance.


5. Any case of acute financial distress beyond the above should be referred to a TDSBmanager.

6. Only residents of the City of Toronto are considered eligible for a fee adjustment.




8. That site locations be reviewed to provide equity of access to seniors to GeneralInterest programs across the Toronto District School Board.

9. That there be no limitations on the number of courses, which a senior may take.

4.1. (c) That as Mitigation funding runs out, all General Interest courses be offered at full cost-recovery.

4.2 Parenting (Amended, see page 332) and (see also page 394 for additional information)

Parenting programs range from no programs in some areas to a full service program of courses,special programs and parenting centres.

A. Centres

Located primarily in the former Toronto and York Boards of Education

Time of operation ranges from four hours per week in a 10-week term to fivehours per day for 42 weeks

Attended by approximately 7,000 children (infants to age four) and caregivers

School readiness program includes: family literacy and numeracy activities,music and active play, multilingual book library

Employs approximately 40 parenting workers

No fees are charged.

B. Courses

Parenting courses operating during the day are similar to General Interestcourses

Attended by approximately 3,100 students

Fees range from $1.75 per to a flat fee per course

C. Special Programs

Roots of Empathy:

A classroom parenting program for elementary schools (JK-8)

Children learn child development and an awareness of a baby’s needs and howto respond appropriately

Monthly visits to the school by a community parent and infant provide hands-onlearning

Full funding received through private foundation grants

D. Family Literacy:

Program offered for families in the evenings

Stories read in both English and the languages of the community

Parents taught how to foster the development of literacy in the home

Follow-up activities for children and parents



Impact Analysis

Parent and Family centres are offered in thirty-four (34) sites in Toronto and fifteen (15) sites informer York. Indications are that an additional twenty (20) to thirty (30) parenting centres arerequired across the Toronto District School Board. Their immense value to children and thecommunity has been highlighted in the “Early Years Study” by McCain and Mustard.Unfortunately, these centres are unfunded by any level of government. The cost to the Board iscurrently $1.1M. There is, however, considerable discussion at various levels of governmentthat these programs will receive some funding.

In the interim, it is proposed that the centres not operate during the summer months. This willresult in savings of approximately $110,000 and result in a nine percent (9%) reduction in salaryfor each parenting worker.

Increasing fees for parenting courses to $3.50 per hour (as proposed in 4.2 (f)) will increaserevenues by approximately $40,000 and offset the present subsidy of $100,000 for parentingcourses. However, the increase in fees will result in an approximate forty percent (40%) declinein enrolment and a loss of approximately fifty-six (56) assignments (approximately 10-20hours/assignment).

Parenting Centres Recommendations

4.2 (a) That the Toronto District School Board continue to offer parenting centres and affirmtheir immense value and investment in the early intervention process fordisadvantaged children.

4.2 (b) That alternate sources of funding be investigated and aggressively pursued that willfully support parenting centres.

4.2 (c That criteria be developed for the formation of parenting centres across the TorontoDistrict School Board.

4.2 (d) That appropriate site locations be determined to provide equity of access to parentingcentres across the Toronto District School Board.

4.2 (e) That the months of operations for parenting centres be reviewed for March 2000.

Parenting Courses Recommendation

4.2 (f) That fees for parenting courses be at the same level as General Interest courses i.e.$3.50 per hour.

Special Programs Recommendations

4.2 (g) That Roots of Empathy programs be maintained to a level that can be supported bythe private foundation grants.


4.2 (i) That alternate sources of funding be investigated that will fully support Roots ofEmpathy and Family Literacy programs across the Toronto District School Board.



5. Non-Credit Programs (see page 333)

The Non-credit unit of Adult and Continuing Education provides programs to approximately60,000 students through the delivery of programs in the following areas:

English as a Second Language (ESL) (5.1)ESL for non-residents of Canada (5.2)Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) (5.3)Literacy and Basic Skills (LBS) (5.4)Native Language Instruction for Adults (5.5)

5.1 English as a Second LanguageNon-credit ESL programs are offered in either unilingual or bilingual environments. Theseprograms are conveniently located in school sites, and a variety of community basedorganizations and agencies such as: recreation centres, libraries, immigration services centres,hospitals, churches, cultural centres and workplaces.In addition, several special programs are offered including Citizenship Preparation and TOEFL(Test of English as a Foreign Language).

Impact Analysis

Currently there are seven (7) classes that run less than two hours/week and three classes atmore than 25 hours/week. Establishing a range of 2-25 hours/week will have no impact onclass closures and consequently no job loss.

English as a Second Language Recommendations

5.1 (a) That entry and exit criteria based on Canadian Language Benchmarks be uniformlyand consistently applied across the Toronto District School Board.

5.1 (b) That program time be established at a minimum of two hours per week to a maximumof 25 hours per week.

5.1 (c) That opening and closing numbers for student attendance be established consistentwith funding levels.

5.1 (d) That a uniform school year calendar be established.

5.1 (e) That summer programs be independent and exclusive of the regular school yearprograms.

5.2 ESL for Non-residents of Canada

This fee-paying, cost recovery, ESL program is designed for adults who are visitors to Canadaand who do not have permanent residency status.

Impact Analysis

Current fees range from $4.50/hour (former Toronto) to $9.00/hour (former North York andEtobicoke). The suggested fee of $9.00/hour is closely aligned with the VISA student rate. Theincreased fee will result in some job loss in former Toronto (approximately seven (7) classes).However, this will be offset by the expansion of the program in other parts of the city.



ESL for Non-residents of Canada Recommendations

5.2 (a) That this program be expanded across the Toronto District School Board to ensuregreater accessibility.

5.2 (b) That the hourly fee for the program be established at $9.00.

5.2 (c) That a uniform school year calendar be established.

5.2 (d) That summer programs be independent and exclusive of the regular school yearprograms.

5.3 Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC)

Established in 1992, LINC is an English language training program fully funded by Citizenshipand Immigration Canada. It is available to newcomers, who are 17 years of age or older andwho are landed immigrants or convention refugees, to assist them in their settlement andintegration into Canadian society.

The Board’s participation in the LINC program is twofold. First, through a direct contract withCIC (approximately $16 million), it agrees to deliver and administer all aspects of the program toapproximately 12,000 students in 215 classes. Second, the Board sub-contracts with 19 CIC-funded, community service agencies (approximately $1.9 million) for the delivery of classroominstruction only.

Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) Recommendation

5.3 (a) That an administrative relationship between the Non-credit unit in Adult and ContinuingEducation and the Externally Funded unit in the Finance Department be established inorder to minimize gaps and duplication with respect to the operational aspects of LINCand those aspects related to contract development and compliance.

5.4 Literacy and Basic Skills (LBS)

Fully funded by the Ministry of Education and Training, Workplace Preparation Branch, the LBSprogram is open to Ontario residents who are 19 years of age and older, who wish to improvereading, writing, spelling and math skills in preparation for training, employment, furthereducation at the credit level, or greater independence in daily living. Since the program isconducted entirely in English, students are expected to have first language fluency in spokenEnglish.

Funding for the program is approximately $4.5 million. This program serves the needs ofapproximately 2,000 students in a total of 170 classes across the Toronto District School Board.

Literacy and Basic Skills (LBS) Recommendation

5.4 (a) That an administrative relationship between the Non-credit unit in Adult and ContinuingEducation and the Externally Funded unit in the Finance Department be established inorder to minimize gaps and duplication with respect to the operational aspects of LBSand those aspects related to contract development and compliance.



5.5 Native Language Instruction for Adults

This program, offered by the Toronto District School Board since 1994, adopts a practical andholistic approach to emphasize that native languages, specifically Ojibwe and Oneida, are livinglanguages.

Native culture, as well as all aspects of language learning, are taught, including spelling,listening, reading and writing.

The program serves approximately 110 adults in five classes across the Toronto District SchoolBoard.

Native Language Instruction for Adults Recommendations

5.5 (a) That the Native Language Instruction for Adults program be promoted and expanded toensure accessibility across the Toronto District School Board.

5.5 (b) That additional curriculum materials be developed to enhance program support.



6. Externally Funded Programs

At the present time there are a large number of externally funded projects that can be pursuedby the Toronto District School Board. These projects offer opportunities to provide a wide rangeof programs and services that can be delivered by the Toronto District School Board, and thatsupport or augment school board activities (i.e. HRDC Youth Initiatives, Employment AssistancePrograms, Fee for Service). They extend from a broad diversity of funding sources includingfederal, provincial and charitable foundations which can be conducted at no cost to the Board(full cost recovery) or provide incentive in dollars or equipment.

All of these projects are negotiated individually on a project-by-project basis, with clearlymeasured program outcomes and fiscal accountability to the funding organization.

At the present time the Toronto District School Board holds contracts for a range of externallyfunded programs and services which total in excess of $40 million.

Examples of Successful Externally Funded Programs

Language instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) and Literacy and Basic Skills (LBS) aretwo programs currently being delivered by Continuing Education instructors. The total contractvalue of these two programs is approximately $20 million. These are examples of full cost-recovery programs as they include coverage of costs such as salaries, rent, consumables andprovide sufficient administrative dollars to cover any Board costs (i.e. couriers, financial processand human resource costs, etc.).

Other sources of revenue have been received from private and charitable foundations,Community and Social Services Ontario, and Board-initiated entrepreneurial projects such asoverseas teacher training, General Educational Development (GED), and the CurriculumBookstore.



Currently, staff is investigating the possibility of accessing funding for Parenting Centres andSeniors Programs.

The following is a summary of the recommendations regarding Adult and Continuing Education,as approved by the Board:

Policy Statement Recommendation

1.1 (a) That the policy statement, Adult and Continuing Education, as amended, be adopted.

Academic and Special Education Summer School Recommendations

2.1 (a) That the Toronto District School Board continue to deliver focused elementary academicsummer programs for students with achievement levels below Level 3 on report cards inthe areas of English/Literacy and Mathematics/Numeracy for grades 1 – 8; and thatreadiness summer programs for students going into Senior Kindergarten, based onrecommendations from the day school staff, be implemented.

2.1 (b) That ESL summer programs be available for Toronto District School Board students.

2.1 (c) That Special Education Summer School funded through Special Education continue tobe offered.

2.1 (d) That continued efforts be made to secure further funding for elementary summeracademic programs from the Ministry of Education and Training.

Enrichment Summer Programs Recommendations

2.2 (a) That the Toronto District School Board continue to provide enrichment summerprograms on a cost-recovery basis.



2.31 (a) That a standard fee for these programs be set at $1.75.


2.31 (c) That the TDSB phase-in at cost-recovery basis for implementation across the Boardfor September 2000.

Saturday Enrichment Programs Recommendations

2.311 (a) That the TDSB provide the Saturday Enrichment programs on a cost-recovery basis.

2.311 (b) That alternate sources of funding be accessed to provide opportunities to childrenwho may not be able to afford the cost of these programs.



Credit Programs Recommendations

3.1 (a) That credit programs be rationalized in respect of start and end dates, hours ofoperation, grade reporting timelines, administrative structure and salaries.

3.1 (b) That immediate priority and resource support be given to develop a fully integratedcomputerized system to ensure a seamless transition to an effective, amalgamatedcontinuing education operation.

3.1 (c) That a Safe Schools Policy referencing the unique contingencies of night, weekend andsummer settings be developed through consultation with stakeholders and implementedby January 2000.

3.1 (d) That credit programming continue to reflect and to extend the current variety of alternatestudy opportunities in the Toronto District School Board (summer study abroad, on-linecredits, mentorship, etc.).

General Interest Programs Recommendations

4.1 (a) That the duration of the programs be standardized to: Term 1 (9 weeks); Term 2 (9weeks); Term 3 (9 weeks), while keeping room for flexibility.

4.1 (b) That the following be applied to seniors:


2. The “GAINS CERTIFICATE” of “proof of equivalent or less income” is the bestavailable measure of financial hardship on which to base fee reduction.

3. A suggested fee minimum of $10 per course per term is recommended regardless ofcircumstance.


5. Any case of acute financial distress beyond the above should be referred to a TDSBmanager.

6. Only residents of the City of Toronto are considered eligible for a fee adjustment.


8. That site locations be reviewed to provide equity of access to seniors to GeneralInterest Programs across the Toronto District School Board.

9. That there be no limitations on the number of courses, which a senior may take.

4.1 (c) That as mitigation funding runs out, all General Interest courses be offered at full cost-recovery.




4.2 (a) That the Toronto District School Board continue to offer parenting centres and affirmtheir immense value and investment in the early intervention process for disadvantagedchildren.

4.2 (b) That alternate sources of funding be investigated and aggressively pursued that willfully support parenting centres.

4.2 (c) That criteria be developed for the formation of parenting centres across the TorontoDistrict School Board.

4.2 (d) That appropriate site locations be determined to provide equity of access to parentingcentres across the Toronto District School Board.


Parenting Courses Recommendation

4.2 (f) That fees for parenting courses be at the same level as General Interest courses i.e.$3.50 per hour.

Special Programs Recommendations

4.2 (g) That Roots of Empathy programs be maintained to a level that can be supported by theprivate foundation grants.


4.2 (i) That alternate sources of funding be investigated that will fully support Roots of Empathyand Family Literacy programs across the Toronto District School Board.

English as a Second Language Recommendations

5.1 (a) That entry and exit criteria based on Canadian Language Benchmarks be uniformly andconsistently applied across the Toronto District School Board.

5.1 (b) That program time be established at a minimum of two hours per week to a maximumof 25 hours per week.

5.1 (c) That opening and closing numbers for student attendance be established consistentwith funding levels.

5.1 (d) That a uniform school year calendar be established.

5.1 (e) That summer programs be independent and exclusive of the regular school yearprograms.

ESL for Non-residents of Canada Recommendations

5.2 (a) That this program be expanded across the Toronto District School Board to ensuregreater accessibility.



5.2 (b) That the hourly fee for the program be established at $9.00.



Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) Recommendation

5.3 (a) That an administrative relationship between the Non-credit unit in Adult and ContinuingEducation and the Externally Funded unit in the Finance Department be established inorder to minimize gaps and duplication with respect to the operational aspects of LINCand those aspects related to contract development and compliance.

Literacy and Basic Skills (LBS) Recommendation

5.4 (a) That an administrative relationship between the Non-credit unit in Adult and ContinuingEducation and the Externally Funded unit in the Finance Department be established inorder to minimize gaps and duplication with respect to the operational aspects of LBSand those aspects related to contract development and compliance.

Native Language Instruction for Adults Recommendations

5.5 (a) That the Native Language Instruction for Adults program be promoted and expanded toensure accessibility across the Toronto District School Board.

5.5 (b) That additional curriculum materials be developed to enhance program support.



3. Before and After School Programs - Former City of York (See page 334)The Budget Process Group considered a report from the officials dated June 2, 1999 providedas an update on the status of discussions with the City on the before and after school programsavailable in all of the 22 junior elementary schools in the former City of York.

Following a Board decision on April 28, 1999 that before and after school programs operating inthe schools of the former City of York Board of Education be discontinued in September of 1999unless suitable alternative funding arrangements could be put in place, Board staff have metwith City staff. These meetings established that the City is considering alternatives for theprovision of school aged care, but has no budget for this period in its 1999 calendar budget.The City is, however, reviewing its options and service provision for its year 2000 budget. Thetotal cost to the Board of program delivery is $1.3 million and is offset by $300,000 revenue.

Implications

Discontinuing the program at this time may have a number of significant consequences. Thecancellation of these programs would discontinue what may be a valuable pilot model.Moreover, the City may respond by pointing out that it was considering the funding of suchprograms and that the hasty action by the Board has had a detrimental impact on



disadvantaged children, parents and communities. A more patient approach would haveallowed for the possibility of a seamless transition to a continuation of the programs without costto the school board.

The Board continues to have significant mitigation funds for the year 1999-2000. This providesus with the opportunity to carry out detailed discussions with the City by funding these programsfor an additional year. This in turn would allow us to provide parents with enough notice of thestatus of these programs so that alternate arrangements could be made for September of 2000if necessary.

The Budget Process Group RECOMMENDS:(a) that the York before and after school care programs be funded for the year 1999-2000;

(b) that the city be advised that this funding will terminate at the end of the 1999-2000school board budget year; and

(c) that parents be advised that the new funding model means that these programs cannotbe funded after next year unless alternate funding is obtained.

4. School Budget Model (Amended, see page 334)The Budget Process Group considered a report of the officials dated June 1, 1999 on theSchool Budget Model. It was provided to present the school-based funding model proposed forimplementation in 1999-2000. Budget simulations showing school by school impacts were alsoprovided at the meeting.

Last spring, budget representatives from each of the former boards began work on developing anew common school budget model that would provide non-salary dollars to schools to purchaseschool supplies and support school-based activities.

A report was presented to Executive Council in May 1998 where it was determined that therewas insufficient time to enter into a consultation process with school administrators on thedevelopment of the model, in order for it to be in place for the 1998/99 school year. As a result,it was agreed that school budget models in place in each of the former locations would continueto be used for the 1998/99 school year.

The internal School Budget Committee was reestablished to continue their work on developingthe model and have held consultations and subsequent feedback meetings with schoolrepresentatives from across the district. In addition, the proposed model has been sent out toall schools for review, and comments were fed back to the Committee or school representativeson the Committee for consideration and changes were made where appropriate.

To date, the feedback on the proposed model has been very positive. Schools support theprinciples upon which the model was based, and support the formula approach for allocatingfunds to schools. There have been suggestions about the level of support for certain programs.Changes have been made where appropriate. The following section describes the componentsof the proposed school budget model and the basis for allocating funds.

Proposed School Budget Model

School Budget Responsibility

The proposed model would provide funds to schools to support the following purchases andactivities:



Purchases of all classroom supplies, textbooks, software, furniture and equipment (excludingclassroom computers), repairs, referee fees, field trips, supplies for commencements, charteredbuses, school office supplies, photocopier rentals, telephones, postage, printing costs, andschool initiated professional development costs.

Building a New Model

Given that there are currently 6 different school budget allocation models currently in place, itwas necessary to develop a common model from a set of underlying principles that can beagreed upon. The principles upon which the proposed model is built are as follows:

- Ensure that funds are distributed to schools across the TDSB on an equitable basis.

- Recognize that there are differences in the needs of students which is reflected indifferences in the types of programs being delivered by schools across the district.

- Ensure that schools have early knowledge of their budgets and flexibility in determining howtheir school funds will be spent. The school’s budget is simply a financial translation of theschool’s improvement plan. Knowing how much is available facilitates the school planningprocess.

Components of the Proposed Model (Amended)

The new model is comprised of 7 major categories:

1. Base School Allocation – to address general operating expenditures of schools. Anadditional $5,000 allocation is provided to small schools to recognize base operatingexpenditures.

2. (a) General Per Pupil Allocation – for supplies, F/E, field trips, etc.(b) Library Per Pupil Allocation – for library materials, including books, software, periodicals,

magazines, etc.3. School Office Allocation – for school office supplies, F/E, photocopier rentals and phones.4. Special Needs – application of an inner city index identifies schools that have students from

more socio-economically needy communities. Additional funds provided to these schools.5. Program Supplements – provided to schools offering higher cost programs for Special

Education, French Immersion, Technical Education, Visual Arts, Family Studies,Instrumental Music.

6. Professional Development Allocation – provided to schools to enable their staff to participatein PD activities in consultation with their School Superintendent.

7. School Council Allocation – allocation to enable schools to cover the costs of meetings andother events for the school council.

The school budgets will be based on the average daily enrolment of each school for the schoolyear. Using full-time equivalent data from the Ministry’s enrolment count dates of October 31and March 31, school budgets will reflect actual enrolments within the school year. The initialbudget allocation will be based on projected enrolments of schools, however, once actualenrolments are known, a budget adjustment will be made in April of the school year.

Schools will be able to carry forward any surpluses that may be generated for a future initiative,and will also carry forward any incurred deficit. However, if a deficit was incurred, the schoolprincipal will be required to report to the central budget department on the deficit and theschool’s plan to eliminate the deficit. This report is very important to ensure financial planning atthe school level as well as to provide documentation to new administrators that may be enteringthe school in the next year.



Summary of Impacts of the Proposed Model

The proposed model is a redistribution of the approximately $65 million currently allocated toschools for discretionary expenditures. This includes approximately $9 million or $30-$40 perpupil for school office supplies. The provincial formula currently allocates only $1.4 million or $5per pupil for school office supplies. This is an area of the provincial funding model that boardstaff are seeking improvements to before mitigation funds are exhausted.

The consultations with school representatives to date have been supportive of the proposedapproach. The proposed model was sent out to all schools in the TDSB in order to provide allschools with an opportunity to review the model and provide input on its development. Therehas been a considerable feedback from schools and changes have been made whereappropriate.

The most vocal support is from the elementary panel who views this approach as one thatattempts to equalize the differences in funding among schools and the panels. The total fundingto secondary schools will decrease by about 10% once centrally held funds are included.However, secondary school representatives on the panel have also expressed support for theapproach. To date, there have been no substantive concerns raised by secondary schoolprincipals on this funding model. The proposed model recommends that classroom computerexpenditures including associated networking costs and the costs of textbooks and classroomsupport materials related to the secondary school reform will be funded centrally. The centralfunding of these two initiatives are strongly supported by secondary schools.

Another meeting of school representatives will be scheduled before the end of the school year,where staff will provide the revised impacts on a school by school basis which incorporate therecommended changes that have been made to date.

Given that this is a new model, staff plan to continue the dialogue with school representativeson an ongoing basis in order to address any shortcoming that may have been overlooked in thedevelopment process. Staff also intend to hold school budget information sessions for schooladministrators in early October, 1999.


(a) that a new school budget model be implemented for September 1999; and

(b) that for schools experiencing a decreasing in their school funds other than for enrolmentpurposes, that they be phased into the new model over a two-year period.

5. Preliminary Year-End Budget Outlook

The Budget Process Group considered a report of the officials dated June 4, 1999 provided topresent the preliminary year-end budget outlook or the 1998-1999 fiscal year.

The 1998-1999 budget approved in June 1998 was prepared based on the best estimatesavailable at the time. The revised budget was approved at the February 1999 meeting of theBoard.

A comparison of the revised 1998-1999 budget with the preliminary projected expenditures forthe year is shown on page 393. These projections are based on actual expenditures as of



February 28, 1999. The projection indicates a preliminary surplus of approximately $10.0million. This preliminary surplus does not account for the possibility of a Special EducationReserve requirement that is not known at this time and any shortfall in Provincial funding forDebt Service costs.

Several of the variances are under review by each of the locations. We will be updating theprojection based on the actual expenditures to May 31, 1999, and monitoring key budgetcategories thereafter.

The surplus excludes the $30 million reserve that was identified in the revised 1998-1999budget report. This has been set aside, as approved, to provide for several potential issues,including:

a. The possibility that some level of Special Education reserve may be required in the eventthat the Board does not fully spend the enveloped grants;Our estimates for 1998-1999 andthe 1997 actual results that form the basis of the mitigation funds calculation have not beenapproved by the Ministry; and,

b. Final approval of the debt service costs is not in place. Ministry staff recommendations arebefore the Minister for approval which, if approved, would result in the recognition of the1998-1999 debt service costs.

The 3% one time payment to support staff is included in the budget outlook for 1998-1999. Theestimated cost is approximately $13.4 million.

Staff are in the process of projecting our Special Education expenditures and will ensure that allappropriate expenditures are recorded to minimize any amount that would have to be reservedat year end. This will provide greater certainty as to what reserve may be required for 1998-1999.

Comments on the Projected Results

The following comments are provided for expenditure categories that show a significantvariance from budget.

Classroom Teachers

The projected surplus for classroom teachers which includes the expenditure categories ofClassroom teachers, Library and Guidance, and preparation time is about $39 million.

The explanations are provided as follows:

1. The unused provision for administrative flex teachers in elementary.

2. Average teacher salary costs reductions in both panels are greater than anticipated.

3. A lower staffing level at the start of the school year as we adjusted to lower enrolment inboth panels, with secondary 1400 students lower than projected.

4. An increased holdback in secondary teachers in September, 1998 that was not utilized asstaff began phasing in the new Provincial class sizes based upon the Ministry enrolmentcount dates of October 31 (50%) and March 31 (50%) versus September 30 (100%).



5. Secondary budget for administrative flexibility and pool teachers was not required.

6. Cost of late hires in November 1998 to staff secondary schools at 6 of 8 was lower thanprojected.

Staff will be examining the average salary further in the next budget update to determine if thereduction is in fact higher.

Occasional Teachers Projected Deficit - $8.7 Million

When the budget was established in June 1998, it included a planned reduction in the cost ofsupply teachers of $4 million. As part of the negotiated secondary teacher contract, a further $5million savings was to be identified in secondary occasional teachers to help pay for the costs ofimplementing the 6/8 instructional schedule.

Neither of these planned savings were fully achieved. The cost of occasional teachers in theelementary panel is projected to exceed budget by $1.1 million, and by $7.6 million in thesecondary panel.

The difference is in part due to the increased teacher in-service required for a number of newinitiatives such as Grade 3 and Grade 6 Provincial Assessments, new ISA criteria requiringteacher evaluations, technology training for new scheduling systems and other TDSB curriculumand program initiatives.

School Operations Over Budget- $10.0 Million

The components of the variance are as follows:

− Salaries – over-budget $7.0 millionThe 3% one time payment paid represents about $4 million of the salary variance. Thebalance of $3 million is the result of increased use of Board Trades staff and an increasedstaff absence in excess of 10%.

− Non-salary – under-budget $1.4 millionThere is a preliminary over-budget in utilities of .5 million. The balance of about $2.0 millionrelates to the anticipated under-expenditures in repairs and maintenance.

− Recoveries from Leases and Community/Shared-Use – under-budget $4.2 millionThe initial estimate of revenues from various sources will not materialize due primarily todelays in reaching agreement with the City of Toronto.

Classroom Computers Over budget- $12.0 Million

The prime reason for the over expenditure is to address both the Y2K issues relating toclassroom computers and an annual replacement program. There is Board approval to acquire10,000 new computers which will have an estimated cost of about $22 million.



Program Initiatives Under Construction

Initiatives to be completed by the Instruction, Student Services and Academic AccountabilityDepartments will use the approximate surplus of $10 million. The focus of these initiatives isclassroom based expenditures.

The Budget Process Group RECOMMENDS that this report be received.



Adopted, as amended, June 23, 1999


TDSB 1998 - 1999 Budget Outlook APPENDIX B

EXPENSE CATEGORY 1998/99 Budget 2nd Quarter Actuals Percent Spent - YTD

Projected Expenditures

Projected Surplus/Deficit)

CLASSROOM :Classroom Teachers 868,550,274 488,479,807 56.2% 855,814,249 12,736,025

Supply Teachers 27,709,148 17,345,081 62.6% 36,499,866 (8,790,718)

Teacher Assistants 54,516,058 32,773,565 60.1% 56,582,707 (2,066,649)

Textbooks & Classroom Supplies 62,295,595 33,898,661 54.4% 64,444,312 (2,148,717)

Com puters - C lassroom 23,407,456 11,027,612 47.1% 35,371,348 (11,963,892)

Professionals & Para-Professionals 64,649,912 32,652,879 50.5% 62,958,840 1,691,072

Library & Guidance 54,809,707 33,333,500 60.8% 40,376,188 14,433,519

S taff Developm ent - Teachers 4,267,012 1,411,113 33.1% 4,105,099 161,913

SUB-TOTAL CLASSROOM 1,160,205,162 650,922,217 56.1% 1,156,152,609 4,052,553

NON CLASSROOM :Preparation T im e 167,783,711 89,580,758 53.4% 156,104,997 11,678,714

Principals & V ice Principals 90,146,652 52,345,194 58.1% 89,733,766 412,886

Departm ent Heads 7,386,406 4,735,154 64.1% 7,768,619 (382,213)

School Secretaries 67,419,271 29,804,730 44.2% 69,756,144 (2,336,873)

Teacher Consultants 30,442,900 15,807,540 51.9% 31,889,282 (1,446,382)

Trustees 305,000 148,292 48.6% 305,000 -

D irector & Supervisory O fficers 6,457,926 3,763,656 58.3% 6,694,219 (236,293)

Board Adm inistration 106,788,467 59,067,994 55.3% 106,165,023 623,444

School Operations 236,950,874 124,391,129 52.5% 246,802,765 (9,851,891)

Continuing Education 54,670,613 24,112,269 44.1% 55,506,707 (836,094)

Transportation 32,984,931 15,919,835 48.3% 33,279,504 (294,573)

SUB-TOTAL NON-CLASSROOM 801,336,751 419,676,551 52.4% 804,006,026 (2,669,275) School Renewal 28,123,806 3,429,262 12.2% 28,123,900 (94)

Debt Charges 50,203,729 16,223,801 32.3% 50,203,729 -

Interest on Cash Flow 5,000,000 3,000,000 60.0% 5,000,000 -

TOTAL 1998/99 EXPENDITURE BUDGET 2,044,869,448 1,093,251,831 53.5% 2,043,486,264 1,383,184

OM ERS- Transfer to Reserve for Severance 13,244,253 13,244,253

Reserve Funds (Net of P lanned Grant Recovery of $9M from previous yr)

30,295,000 - 0.0% 30,295,000 -

Grants Recovered - (8,500,000) 8,500,000 NET 1998/99 BUDGET 2,088,408,701 1,093,251,831 53.5% 2,078,525,517 9,883,184

Minutes of the Toronto District School Board June 23, 1999Report No. 7B, Budget Process Group


Additional Information Concerning Parenting Programs

(See page 378)

The overall budget for all aspects of parenting programs is $1,000,900.00. Out of this sum, theToronto District School Board funds 34 parenting centres, 7 parenting courses and literacyprograms for elementary schools. The Roots of Empathy program is offered to elementaryschools through the Parenting Programs office at no cost as it is totally funded by a privatefoundation.

Parenting and Family Literacy Centres

Parenting Centres were established in 1981 to reverse the tide of school failure in inner-citystudents. The programs are seen through Europe and the U.S.A. as the largest and the oldestschool-based family engagement programs which combine parenting supports and earlyliteracy/numeracy instruction. Currently 34 centres operate in inner-city schools serving 7,000families and their children aged infant to four years.

The centres operate on an overall budget of $876,035.00. This amount includes all salariesplus the $66,000.00 supply budget and the $5,000.00 furniture budget. A multilingual booklibrary and toy library is provided and a nutritious snack program. The administratorsupplements the budget through public speaking engagements and the solicitation of funds fromdonations and external grants. These additional funds would total about $40,000.00.

The parenting centres of the TDSB are unique from parenting or family resource programsoffered in other jurisdictions because of the academic link with the school system. The familyliteracy and numeracy work of the centres is pivotal in supporting optimal outcomes in inner citychildren. The Atkinson Foundation is currently funding a research project to establish theeffectiveness of this early intervention. The Centre for Excellence in Education is starting alongitudinal study to prove the significant impact of this school based initiative.

There are various programs offered to parents in Metro through a patchwork of Municipal,Provincial and Federal funding. They tend to be up for grabs every year as their funding isunstable. Family resource programs in community centre bases offer parent support andinformation on community resources as do parenting centres. The added value of our parentingcentres is in the Readiness to Learn program where children's early literacy and numeracy skillsensure a smooth and competent transition into kindergarten.

Parenting Courses

The administrator has written seven parenting courses ranging form Parenting Your Infant toParenting Your Teen. The budget for these courses is $124,865.00. Registration fees for thesecourses brings in revenue.

The school-age parenting courses are unique in that they are written from the perspective ofparenting a child in the Toronto school system. Parents are coached in how to assist their childas a learner and to take an active role in the child's school life. School principals request thesecourses which run for five sessions, one night a week.

Minutes of the Toronto District School Board June 23, 1999Report No. 7B, Budget Process Group


Literacy

In addition to the family literacy work of the parenting centres the elementary school systempulls heavily on the parent workers, their lead instructors and the administrator is assisting withthe involvement of families in their literacy work with children.

A budget of $34,000.00 allows for:

1. an evening family literacy event called the Teddy Bear Picnic,2. the training of parents to participate as volunteers in kindergartens,3. and for literacy presentations specifically requested by principals

The Teddy Bear Picnic serves thousands of families with children in primary classes. Parentingstaff read stories in various languages and reinforce the role of the home in the acquisition ofliteracy.

Parents trained by the lead instructors of the parenting centres have a significant impact onprogram in kindergarten classrooms. Using materials designed by the administrator to teachthe concepts necessary for success in kindergarten, parent work with individual studentsidentified by the teacher.

Schools principals request presentations on specific aspects of literacy/numeracy. Forexample, how to foster strategic thinking through families playing board games. Anotherpopular request is how to encourage kids to read when they don't want to. The family friendlyapproach of the parenting staff makes these sessions welcoming and non-threatening and as aresult in great demand as parents turn out in droves.

Roots of Empathy

This classroom-based course offered through the parenting office is completely funded by aprivate foundation. Parenting staff are paid on an hourly basis to run this program in eighteenclassrooms across the city. The program fosters the development of empathy in students whichin turn reduces levels of aggression. Teachers see immediate results in prosocial behaviour.Independent research on this program will be available in the Fall of 1999.

Minutes of the Toronto District School Board June 23, 1999Instruction, Program and Student Services Committee, Report No. 2


Report No. 2, Instruction, Program and Student Services Committee

June 16, 1999


The Instruction, Program and Student Services Committee met this day at 10:40 a.m andadjourned at 1:40 p.m. The following members were present: Trustees Christine Ferreira,Suzan Hall, Elizabeth Hill (Chair), Shelley Laskin, Ron McNaughton and Lilein Schaeffer.

Regrets were received from Trustee Stephnie Payne.

1. Delegations

The Committee heard two delegations in accordance with the Board’s committee procedure forhearing delegations.

Re Adult and Continuing Education

Tom Ciancone, CUPE 4400

Dan Sherman, student of the Opera Program (General Interest) at Central Technical School

2. Adult and Continuing Education (see also pages 327 to 333)

The Committee considered a report from the officials presenting recommendations for therationalization of services, fees and program delivery for Adult and Continuing Educationprograms (excluding International Languages and Integrated/Extended Programs and SeniorPrograms) and amended Recommendations (a), (b) and (c).

The Committee RECOMMENDS:

Policy Statement

(a) That the following changes be made to the policy statement presented in the report:

(i) That the first part of the second sentence of paragraph 1 read: “The TorontoDistrict School Board, through its Adult and Continuing Education Department, iscommitted to . . .;

(ii) That the term “program accessibility” in the first sentence of paragraph 3 bechanged to “equity of access to programs”;

(iii) That the words “fiscal accountability” be removed from the first sentence ofparagraph 3;

(iv) That the term “year round” in the last sentence of the policy statement bechanged to “throughout the year” [See next page for the Policy Statement asamended]



Academic and Special Education Summer School

(b) That the Toronto District School Board continue to deliver focused elementaryacademic summer programs for students with achievement levels below Level 3 onreport cards in the areas of English/literacy and mathematics/numeracy for Grades 1-8,and that readiness summer programs for students going into Senior Kindergarten,based on recommendations from the day school staff, be implemented.

[Note: The following was added: “… for grades 1-8, and that readiness summerprograms for students going into Senior Kindergarten, based on recommendationsfrom the day school staff, be implemented”]

(c) That ESL summer programs be available for Toronto District School Board students.

[Note: The following was removed: “… who are recent arrivals to Canada.”]

(d) That Special Education Summer School funded through Special Education continue tobe offered.

(e) That continued efforts be made to secure further funding for elementary summeracademic programs from the Ministry of Education and Training.

The following is the recommended Policy Statement on Adult and Continuing Education, asamended:

Learning is a lifelong experience. The Toronto District School Board, through its Adultand Continuing Education Department, is committed to developing and providing highquality educational programs and activities that enhance the personal, professional, andacademic development of lifelong learners of all ages. Such programs include literacyand basic skills, English as a Second Language, International Languages, parenting,elementary academic and enrichment, credit, job skills training and general interestcourses. Adult and Continuing Education enables learners to fulfil their educational andlifelong learning goals by providing alternative programs which are responsive to theunique needs and interests of the learners in our diverse city.

The department’s mandate is to develop continuing education activities consistent withthe Toronto District School Board’s mission to serve all of its constituents and assistthem to reach high levels of personal and academic growth.

Guiding principles for the department include equity of access to programs, recognitionof changing community needs, collaboration with students, teachers, parents and thecommunity, and the provision for alternative or special learning opportunities.

The Adult and Continuing Education Department co-ordinates program development,promotes innovation, supervises the marketing of programs, manages an extensivedatabase of learner information and ensures equity in safe and nurturing learningenvironments. As an efficient and effective learning organization within the TorontoDistrict School Board, the Adult and Continuing Education Department’s main focus isthe successful delivery of quality daytime, evening and weekend programs throughoutthe year in our communities.



3. General Interest Opera Program at Central Technical School

The Committee considered a concern resulting from the necessity to move a long-standingopera program from Central Technical School in order to accommodate regular day programs atthe school.

The Committee RECOMMENDS that an alternative location be found for the opera programpresently located at Central Technical School and that staff provide an update on this programin June 2000.


Elizabeth HillChair of the Committee


Minutes of the Toronto District School Board June 23, 1999Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 5


Report No. 5, Special Education Advisory CommitteeJune 7, 1999

A meeting of the Special Education Advisory Committee convened this day at 7:40 p.m. in theBoard Room, 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Chair, Sandra Dell, presiding.

Members Present:Trustee Brian Blakeley, Ward 11Sandra Dell, Easter Seal Society (Chair)Merle Fedirchuk, Brain Injury Association of TorontoLiz Fisher, CommunityDerryn Gill, Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus Association of OntarioTrustee Suzan Hall, Ward 19 (Vice-Chair)Anne McCauley, Autism Society of OntarioJanice Owen, CommunityDebbie Phillips, Down Syndrome Association of TorontoCandice Potter, Tourette Syndrome Foundation of OntarioTrustee Lilein Schaeffer, Ward 15Catherine Stewart, Toronto Association for Community LivingPatricia Sullivan, Learning Disabilities AssociationMichelle Worley, Association for Bright Children of Ontario

Alternates Present:Anne MacLellan, Autism Society of OntarioMara Meikle, Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus Association of OntarioFrieda Morden, Learning Disabilities AssociationRobert Perkins, Down Syndrome Association of TorontoCay Shedden, Toronto Association for Community Living

Regrets:Allison Ferrier, VOICE for Hearing Impaired ChildrenSusan Kelsall, Association for Bright Children of Ontario

Absent:Ketisha Thompson, Community

1. Presentations

For the information of the Board, SEAC heard the following presentations:

(a) MET Funding Model – Update

Moira Sinclair, Education Officer at the Ministry of Education and Training, Toronto and AreaDistrict Office, presented an overview of the Ministry of Education and Training (MET) FundingModel for the delivery of special education programs and services by school boards.

(b) TDSB Budget 1999-2000

Carla Kisko, Assistant Comptroller – Budget and Revenues, presented a comprehensiveoverview of the Board’s budget for 1999-2000, including funding levels for special education andkey budget and restructuring initiatives to-date, undertaken by the Board.



(c) School Closures – Special Education Programs

Gary Parkinson, Executive Officer – Facility Services, explained the school closure process thatthe Board is involved in at the present time, the rationale for school closings and the Board’sattempt to achieve efficiencies in its Operations Budget.

Details were provided regarding the work that is underway in phase one of the three-phaseschool closure action plan, as well as the work that is to be undertaken in phases two and three.SEAC was notified about the Information Session that the Board has scheduled for June 21,1999 at 6:30 p.m. to hear presentations from the Area Review Committees.

Members of SEAC raised a few concerns. The Facility Services Department will be workingclosely with the Superintendent of Special Education and SEAC to resolve the concerns. Also,SEAC indicated that it would like to play a role on the Implementation Committees that will beformed to facilitate the actual school closings. Staff will be following-up this request at theappropriate time.

(d) TDSB Transportation (Busing) Policy

Jeff May, Comptroller – Support Services and Guglielmo Zumpano, the new TransportationManager, presented a brief overview of the Board’s Transportation Policy, Number E.01 foreligible students. Some of the issues (e.g., distance) in key areas of the policy (e.g., EligibilityCriteria) which could have an impact on special education students were identified for SEAC. Inaddition, staff discussed some of the operational issues related to the method of transportation.

Members of SEAC identified the following deficiencies in the Draft Transportation ApplicationForm:

• it does not address the needs of children who walk with bracers or have severe mobilityproblems;

• it does not provide parents with an opportunity to indicate their children’s mobility problems;• there is no place for parents to indicate their financial need in order to obtain TTC tickets;

and• the term “electric” with reference to wheelchair requirements is incorrect.

For the information of the Board, staff undertook to review the Application Form. As well, SEACoffered to work through the Superintendent of Special Education and the Chair of SEAC to lookat the anomalies (e.g., safety issues for students who do not go through the IPRC process) inthe Transportation Policy on behalf of special education students.

(e) Release of Health Records/Confidential Records

For the information of the Board, the presentation on this subject matter will take place sometime in the fall. In the interim, SEAC received copies of the Draft Instructions for EnsuringInformed Consent for the Release of Confidential Information and the Guidelines for ExchangingConfidential Information between the Toronto District School Board and Outside School Boards,Institutions and Practitioners, from Sharon Bate, Executive Officer – Student and CommunityServices. It was indicated that the community will be invited to provide feedback on thedocuments.



(f) Autism Society of Ontario

Anne McCauley, the SEAC representative for the Autism Society of Ontario, discussed Autism.Highlights of the presentation included:

• The history of Autism, including the cause, occurrence, cure and diagnosis.• Alternative names (or disorders) associated with Autism, the characteristic(s) of each

disorder, the impairment(s) associated with each name/disorder, including the age of onset.• The current characteristics of Autism, including examples of impairment in social interaction,

communication and specific behavioural patterns.• The impact of the impairments and behavioural patterns on the education of the Autistic

child and the child’s needs in the classroom.• Implications for the future, including transition difficulties that Autistic children will face in the

school environment.

2. Letter from the Director of Education

For the information of the Board, the Chair of SEAC reported that she received a letter from theDirector of Education, dated May 12, 1999, in response to the communication from SEAC,dated April 26, 1999, expressing concerns about the discontinuation of some special educationsections at the secondary school level. The Director of Education advised as follows:

Our commitment to the needs of special education students at the secondarylevel is apparent in that we staff these programs in excess of 130 teachers abovethe funding formula requirements. The Toronto District School Board willcontinue to work with staff in Human Resources to take into account the needs ofspecial education students within the parameters as set out in the fundingformula.

3. Membership on SEAC

For the information of the Board, as a result of the vacancy on SEAC that was created by therepresentative for the Ontario Federation for Cerebral Palsy, the matter of membership onSEAC was raised. SEAC was informed that the Mental Health Association expressed aninterest in participating on the Committee.

In response to a question concerning the process that would be followed to advertise thevacancy, staff proposed that the Chair of SEAC could invite special education associations whoare interested in participating on the Committee to make presentations to SEAC and followingthis process SEAC could endorse one of the associations for membership on the Committeeand then forward its recommendation to the Board for approval.

4. Motion re Development of Protocol

The SEAC representative for the Learning Disabilities Association reported that a teacherinformed her that as of September 1999, they are going to be called special education resourceteachers. As a result of some concerns that were expressed, a motion was tabled concerningthe development of a protocol of placements, programs and services to meet the needs of everystudent, for use in all elementary and secondary schools by September 1, 1999.



In the discussion that followed, staff pointed out the inappropriateness of the timeline to put afull protocol in place. As well, staff indicated that a protocol would be available in the ResourceDocument that is currently being developed as a supplement to the 1999 Special EducationPlan and updates on the development of the document will be presented to SEAC on anongoing basis. Staff also undertook to present the concerns that were raised to the SpecialEducation Plan Steering Committee.

For the information of the Board, in view of the foregoing explanations, the SEAC representativefor the Learning Disabilities Association withdrew the motion.

5. Secondary “Mandatory Community Involvement” Committee

SEAC was informed that the Secondary “Mandatory Community Involvement” Committee hashad one meeting. A representative from the Ministry of Education and Training presented theMinistry’s Policy Program Memorandum on the issue of community involvement to the group.SEAC will be invited to participate in the development of a list that could be used to facilitateappropriate community involvement. Some members of the Committee will be meetingthroughout the summer in order to move forward with this matter, so that a mechanism could beput in place for September of 1999.

6. Correspondence received by the Chair

For the information of the Board, the Chair of SEAC reported that she received a copy of a letterfrom the Special Education Advisory Committee of the Upper Canada District School Board,dated May 6, 1999, to the Minister of Education and Training, regarding the government’sspecial education funding model. They will be issuing a legal challenge regarding the fundingformula.

7. Events and Activities of Local Associations

The Committee received the following reports from representatives of the local SEACAssociations highlighted below:

Brain Injury Association of Toronto

• Many special programs have been arranged to promote June as Brain Injury AwarenessMonth. There will be a presentation on June 23, 1999, from 7:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m. at YorkCentral Hospital in Richmond Hill, Ontario by Dr. Warren Goldstein, Neurologist, on “Facingthe Challenge … Understanding Mild to Moderate Brain Injury” (a flyer was distributed toSEAC). This event provides an opportunity for individuals to learn more about AcquiredBrain Injury. Individuals who will be attending the event can call 905-773-3038 to register.

• A joint proposal for funding from the Ontario Neurotrauma Foundation, the Ontario BrainInjury Association and Brock University, to develop a program to educate and assistteachers in the education system to work effectively and productively with students withAcquired Brain Injury has been accepted.

• Special Needs Opportunity Windows (SNOW) ran a successful introductory three-week (sixhours) course on acquired brain injury in March. The group is planning to have morecourses available. The Group’s Website address is: http://snow.utoronto.ca:1800. Thepassword is Guest.

• A brochure on Acquired Brain Injury, published by the Brain Injury Association of Toronto,was made available to members of SEAC.



Learning Disabilities Association

A Flyer and a Letter of Invitation regarding a Town Hall Meeting on “The Future of PublicEducation for Students with Learning Disabilities”, which will take place on Wednesday, June 9,1999, at 7:00 p.m. at the Hospital for Sick Children in the Elm Wing Auditorium, were madeavailable to members of SEAC.

Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus Association of Ontario

• The members of the Provincial Parent Association Advisory Committee (PAAC) on SEACswill be meeting on June 22, 1999 with educators from Sweden to discuss special education.

• The Minister’s Advisory Council on Special Education will be meeting on June 17, 1999.

Association for Bright Children (ABC) of Ontario

• A copy of the Summer Issue of the Association’s Newsmagazine was made available tomembers of SEAC.

• There will be a presentation on “The Future of Programming for Gifted Students in theToronto District School Board” to six ABC Area Chapters on June 10, 1999, at 7:30 p.m. inthe Library at Don Mills Collegiate Institute.

Toronto Association for Community Living

A copy of the Spring 1999 Issue of PROFILE, the News Magazine of the Toronto Association forCommunity Living was made available to members of SEAC.

Easter Seal Society

• The Annual General Meeting of the Easter Seal Society will take place on June 22, 1999 inOttawa. The theme will be “Taking It Across Our Community”.

• The Annual Provincial Easter Seal SEAC Training will be held in Toronto in November of1999. Further information will be provided at the SEAC meeting in September.


Sandra DellChair of Committee


Minutes of the Toronto District School Board June 23, 1999Business Administration and Human Resources Committee, Report No. 1


Report No. 1, Business Administration and Human Resources Committee

June 17, 1999


The Business Administration and Human Resources Committee met this day at 6:15 p.m. andadjourned at 9:00 p.m. The following members were present: Trustees Sheila Ward (Chair),Donna Cansfield, Jeff Kendall and Sheine Mankovsky.

Regrets were received from Trustees Gerri Gershon and Barbara Nash.

The Committee reports as follows:

1. Workfare

For the information of the Board The issue of workfare was referred to the Committee at theJanuary 27, 1999 Board meeting (see 1999 Minutes, page 18). Grant Bowers, Superintendent -Human Resources, gave an oral report outlining the issues that need to be addressed inconsidering possible participation in Workfare.

There are three types of programs which are part of Workfare (employment support,employment placement, community participation) and a number of factors to be consideredbefore the Board can determine the extent of its participation (if any) in this provincial initiative.There was considerable discussion about implications for individual schools and the amount ofBoard resources that could be needed, depending upon our level of participation. Currently,staff is surveying and assessing the use and activities of volunteers in our schools in relation toWorkfare. A draft policy will be presented to the committee later this summer or in earlyautumn.

2. Translation and Interpretation

For the information of the Board This item was referred to the Committee at the January 27,1999 Board meeting. Lloyd McKell, Central Coordinator of Community Services, presented astaff progress report on the draft of a translation and interpretation policy. There wasconsiderable discussion by the committee about the number of languages involved, how todetermine what languages should qualify for translation, documents that would or should betranslated, the use of interpreters and budgetary issues around each of these. A revised staffreport with a recommended draft policy is expected in late August for presentation to the Boardfor consideration in September.

Minutes of the Toronto District School Board June 23, 1999Business Administration and Human Resources Committee, Report No. 1


3. External Partnerships

For the information of the Board This issue, originally called 'Corporate Partnerships', wasreferred to the Committee. The Committee considered a staff report, presented by BrianLenglet, Superintendent - Business Services, providing a broad overview of the nature ofpartnerships that currently exist within the TDSB as well as some guiding principles and arecommended action plan for the future policy. The Committee suggested that a trustee seminarbe organized in August to consider information related to this issue, as well as the draft policy,before formal presentation to the Board.


Sheila WardChair of the Committee




Report No. 3, Instruction, Program and Student Services Committee

June 21, 1999


The Instruction, Program and Student Services Committee met this day at 9:15 a.m andadjourned at 12:15 p.m. The following members were present: Trustees Christine Ferreira(Chair pro tem.), Suzan Hall, Shelley Laskin, and Lilein Schaeffer.

Regrets were received from Trustees Elizabeth Hill, Ron McNaughton and Stephnie Payne.

1. Chair Pro Tem.

In the absence of the Chair, Trustee Ferreira acted as Chair pro tem.

2. Delegation

The Committee heard one delegation in accordance with the Board’s committee procedure forhearing delegations.

Re. Adult and Continuing Education

Tom Ciancone, CUPE 4400

3. Adult and Continuing Education

The Committee had considered the first part of this report from the officials at a previousmeeting on June 16, 1999.

The Committee continued to consider this report on the rationalization of services, fees andprogram delivery for Adult and Continuing Education programs (excluding InternationalLanguages and Integrated/Extended Programs and Senior Programs).

The Committee RECOMMENDS that the proposed text and recommendations be amended asfollows (amendments underlined or indicated):

Enrichment Summer Programs - Text

That the third bullet under "Impact Analysis" be deleted and replaced with :

"Subsidies may be available to children based on financial hardship"

Enrichment Summer Programs - Recommendation

2.2 (b) That the Board endeavour to access alternative sources of funding to provide opportuni-ties to children not able to afford the cost of these programs.



After-School/Saturday Enrichment Programs - Text

That the first bullet under "Impact Analysis" be replaced with the following:

"Fees vary from $.75/hour (York), $1.75/hour (Toronto) to $2.50/hour (East York). Theseprograms were not offered in Scarborough, Etobicoke and North York."


2.3 Ι (a) That a standard fee for these programs be set at $1.75 per hour. (same as originalrecommendation of the officials, but different from Budget Process Group)

2.3 Ι (b) That the Board endeavour to access alternative sources of funding to provideopportunities to children not able to afford the cost of these programs.

2.3 Ι (c) That the TDSB phase-in at cost-recovery basis for implementation across the Boardfor September 2000.

Saturday Enrichment Programs Recommendations

2.3 ΙΙ (a) That the TDSB provide the Saturday enrichment programs on a cost recovery basis.

2.3 ΙΙ (b) That alternate sources of funding be accessed to provide opportunities to childrenwho may not be able to afford the cost of these programs.

Credit Program Recommendations

Delete 3.1 (e) [That services and facilities be reviewed to provide equity of access to allcommunities.]

General Interest Program Recommendations

4.1 (a) That the duration of the programs be standardized to: Term 1 (9 weeks); Term 2 (9weeks); Term 3 (9 weeks), while keeping room for flexibility. (as amended by BudgetProcess Group)

4.1 (c) That as mitigation funding runs out, General Interest courses be offered at full costrecovery. (The word "all" in front of "General Interest Courses" deleted.)



4. Adult and Continuing Education - International Languages

The Committee considered briefly item number 1 within Report No. 7B of the Budget ProcessGroup regarding International Languages Programs.

The Committee RECOMMENDS that recommendation (i) of the Budget Process Groupregarding Adult and Continuing Education - International Languages be deleted.



[Note: Recommendation (i) reads as follows: "That, as mitigation funding runs out, theInternational Languages programs be operated within the budget provided for such programs byprovincial funding grants."]

5. Adult and Continuing Education - Seniors Daytime Programs

The Committee considered a communication from the Seniors Advisory Committee dated June4, 1999 with regard to the staff report on the Seniors Daytime Programs.

The Committee RECOMMENDS that recommendations (c) and (d) within the above captionedreport be deleted and replaced by incorporating the following proposals of the Seniors AdvisoryCommittee:

i) The "GAINS CERTIFICATE" or "proof of equivalent or less income" is the best availablemeasure of financial hardship on which to base fee reduction.

ii) A suggested fee minimum of $10 per course per term is recommended regardless ofcircumstance.


iv) Any case of acute financial distress beyond the above should be referred to a TDSBmanager.

v) Only residents of the City of Toronto are considered eligible for a fee adjustment.

6. Homework Foundation Statement

For Information of the Board The Committee considered a first draft version of the HomeworkFoundation Statement provided by staff for original feedback. This work is still in progress andwill be presented to the Board in the fall of 1999.


Christine FerreiraChair Pro Tem

Received June 23, 1999 – See Report No. 7B of the Budget Process Group



Seniors And General Interest ProgramsPolicy For Financial Hardship

[Note: The recommendations are incorporated into the sections on “Adult and ContinuingEducation: Seniors Daytime Programs (see page 325) and General Interest Programs (seepage 331) within Report No. 7B of the Budget Process Group, June 4, 1999]

The information below is an excerpt from a letter sent on June 4, 1999 by Jack Henshaw onbehalf of the Seniors Advisory Committee to the Superintendent of Continuing Education -TDSB - regarding the suggested policy for financial hardship.

"The Seniors Advisory Committee has discussed at length the issue of affordability of "Seniors"and "General Interest Programs". We would recommend the following:

a) The "GAINS CERTIFICATE" or "proof of equivalent or less income" is the best availablemeasure of financial hardship on which to base fee reduction.

b) A suggested fee minimum of $10 per course per term is recommended regardless ofcircumstance.

c) Confidentiality should be maintained in these transactions.

d) Any case of acute financial distress beyond the above should be referred to a TDSBmanager.

e) Only residents of Metro Toronto are considered eligible for a fee adjustment.

The Guaranteed Annual Income is a provincial supplement to Old Age Security and theGuaranteed Income Supplement (both of which are paid by the federal government).

Currently, a single senior 65 years or over whose monthly income from all sources is less than$982.95 is topped up to that amount. The amount for a married couple is $1,625.00 from allsources.

Managers of Seniors' Apartments, Retirement and Nursing Homes where rental rates are basedon income are normally able to verify the existence of “GAINS CERTIFICATES”.

After prolonged discussions, our committee concluded that the term "disability" is open to wideinterpretation. Workmen's Compensation, Insurance Companies, Doctors and otherGovernment Bodies all certify degree and type of disabilities. Further, disability is not anindicator of financial hardship. For these reasons, we suggest the use of the "Gains Certificate".

We also recommend a minimum fee of $10.00 per course per term as noted. Free admission toclasses was not deemed good policy since this practice leads to misuse of the system.

We trust you will find the above helpful."




June 23, 1999To the Chair and Members ofthe Toronto District School Board:

A meeting of the Committee of the Whole (Private Session) convened at 5:10 p.m. in the BoardRoom at 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Trustee Shelly Laskin, Vice-Chair of theBoard, presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Brian Blakeley, Diane Cleary, Judi Codd,Christine Ferreira, Gerri Gershon, Suzan Hall, Elizabeth Hill, Jeff Kendall, Shelley Laskin,Sheine Mankovsky, David Moll, Elizebeth Moyer, Barbara Nash, Gail Nyberg, Stephnie Payne,Lilein Schaeffer, Doug Stephens, Mike Thomas and Sheila Ward.

Regrets were received from Trustees Irene Atkinson, Donna Cansfield and Ron McNaughton.

1. Declarations of Possible Conflicts of Interest

Trustee Blakeley declared possible conflicts of interest with regard to the items on support staffnegotiations and termination of support staff. He stated that the nature of his interest is that heis an employee of the union, which represents support staff. Trustee Blakeley did not take partin the discussions or vote on these matters.

Trustee Atkinson declared possible conflicts of interests with regard to the items on SecondaryOccasional Teachers: Memorandum of Settlement and Declaration of Secondary SurplusTeachers. She stated that the nature of her interest is that her daughter is a member ofOSSTF, District 12. Trustee Atkinson did not take part in the discussions or vote on thesematters.

2. Staff Changes

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS:

(a) That the staff changes as presented in the report of the officials and the “Other StaffChanges” presented in the additional document (which are on file in the Director’s Office),be approved, as amended.

(b) That a brief resume on the candidates who are being appointed to vacancies within theBoard be provided with future Staff Changes reports.

(c) That the report on “Staff Changes for Information,” be received.

3. Termination of Employment – Support Staff

The Committee of the Whole considered a report from the officials recommending the dismissalof employment for cause of a secondary school Caretaker.

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that the service of a secondary school Caretakerwith the Board be terminated effective June 23, 1999, for reasons set out in the private minutesof the Committee of the Whole.



4. Termination of Employment – Teaching Staff

The Committee of the Whole considered a report from the officials recommending the dismissalof employment for cause of a secondary school teacher.

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that the teaching contract of a teacher at WestHill Collegiate Institute be terminated effective June 30, 1999, for reasons set out in the privateminutes of the Committee of the Whole.

5. Declaration of Secondary Surplus Teachers

The Committee of the Whole considered a report from the officials, dated June 23, 1999,identifying and declaring a surplus of needs to the Board with respect to secondary schoolteachers.

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that the list of secondary school teachersidentified as surplus to the needs of the Board (which is on file in the Director’s Office), beapproved and their contracts be terminated effective August 31, 1999.

6. Memorandum of Settlement: Secondary Occasional Teachers

The Committee of the Whole considered a report from staff regarding the Memorandum ofSettlement that had been signed by the Board’s Teaching Negotiating Team for SecondaryOccasional Teachers negotiations and the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federationnegotiators.

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that:

(a) the Toronto District School Board approve and ratify the terms of the settlement set out inthe Memorandum of Settlement dated May 28, 1999, between the School Board and theOntario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (representing Secondary OccasionalTeachers employed by the Toronto District School Board); and

(b) upon ratification, the signing officers of the School Board be authorized to execute aformal agreement incorporating the terms of the settlement.

7. Memorandum of Settlement:Maintenance and Construction Skilled Trades Council

The Committee of the Whole considered a report from staff regarding the Memorandum ofSettlement that had been signed by the Board’s Negotiating Team for Maintenance andConstruction skilled tradespersons’ negotiations and the Maintenance and Construction SkilledTrades Council negotiators.


(a) the Toronto District School Board approve and ratify the terms of the settlement set out inthe Memorandum of Settlement dated June 16, 1999, between the School Board and theMaintenance and Construction Skilled Trades Council; and



(b) upon ratification, the signing officers of the School Board be authorized to execute aformal agreement incorporating the terms of the settlement.

8. Report No. 1 of the Support Staff Negotiations Steering Committee, June 14, 1999

The Committee of the Whole considered a report from the officials that was submitted to theSupport Staff Negotiations Steering Committee, recommending the implementation of therecommendations contained in the Preliminary Report of the Senior AdministrationCompensation Review.


(a) the salary range structure for Senior Administration positions be in place to cover the timeperiod of January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1999;

(b) the vacation entitlements for Senior Administration positions be approved;

(c) existing procedures for the granting of lieu time be eliminated within the new HumanResources procedures of the Toronto district School Board;

(d) the Phase II of the Toronto District School Board Senior Compensation Review be initiatedfor presentation to the Board in the late fall of 1999.

14. Extension of Director’s Contract

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that the decision of the Board to extend thecontract of Marguerite Jackson, Director of Education and Secretary-Treasurer, to August 31,2003, be reported in the public minutes of the Board.


Shelley LaskinVice-Chair of the Board


Minutes of the Toronto District School Board July 7, 1999


Special Meeting

July 7, 1999

A Special Electronic Meeting of the Toronto District School Board convened at 4:08 p.m. on July7, 1999, in Room 249 at 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, in accordance with the InterimPolicy governing electronic meetings and the procedures for holding such meetings, withShelley Laskin, Vice-Chair of the Board, presiding as the designate of the Chair of the Board.

The following members were present in Room 249: Trustees Judi Codd, Christine Ferreira,Gerri Gershon, Shelley Laskin and Doug Stephens.

The following members participated electronically: Trustees Diane Cleary, Suzan Hall, ElizabethHill, Jeff Kendall, Sheine Mankovsky, David Moll, Elizebeth Moyer, Gail Nyberg, StephniePayne, Lilein Schaeffer, Mike Thomas and Sheila Ward.

Regrets were received from Trustees Irene Atkinson, Donna Cansfield, Brian Blakeley, RonMcNaughton and Barbara Nash.

Norman Ahmet, Executive Officer - Human Resources, was present in the meeting room andwas the Director’s designate. Marguerite Jackson, Director of Education and Secretary-Treasurer, participated in the meeting electronically.


The meeting was called to consider staff changes.


On motion by Trustee Nyberg, seconded by Trustee Ferreira, the Board resolved intoCommittee of the Whole (Private Session) at 4:08 p.m. with Shelley Laskin, Vice-Chair of theBoard, presiding, to consider the matters referred to in Item 164 (above).

166. Reconvene

The Special Electronic Meeting of the Board reconvened at 4:53 p.m. to consider Report No. 13,Committee of the Whole (Private Session).

167. Report No. 13 of the Committee of the Whole (Private Session), July 7, 1999

Trustee Moll, seconded by Trustee Payne, moved: That Report No. 13 of the Committee ofthe Whole (Private Session), July 7, 1999, be adopted (see page 416).

The motion was carried on a roll call vote.



168. Adjournment

At 4:55 p.m., Trustee Ferreira, seconded by Trustee Gershon, moved: That the SpecialElectronic Board Meeting stand adjourned.

The motion was carried on a roll call vote.





Minutes of the Toronto District School Board July 7, 1999Report No. 13, Committee of the Whole (Private Session)



July 7, 1999

A Special Electronic Meeting of the Committee of the Whole (Private Session) convened at4:08 p.m. on July 7, 1999, in Room 249 at 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, in accordancewith the Interim Policy governing electronic meetings and the procedures for holding suchmeetings, with Trustee Shelley Laskin, Vice-Chair of the Board, presiding as the designate ofthe Chair of the Board.

The following members were present in Room 249: Trustees Judi Codd, Christine Ferreira,Gerri Gershon, Shelley Laskin and Doug Stephens.

The following members participated electronically: Trustees Diane Cleary, Suzan Hall, ElizabethHill, Jeff Kendall, Sheine Mankovsky, David Moll, Elizebeth Moyer, Gail Nyberg, StephniePayne, Lilein Schaeffer, Mike Thomas and Sheila Ward.

Norman Ahmet, Executive Officer - Human Resources, was present in the meeting room andwas the Director’s designate. Marguerite Jackson, Director of Education and Secretary-Treasurer, participated in the meeting electronically.

Regrets were received from Trustees Irene Atkinson, Donna Cansfield, Brian Blakeley, RonMcNaughton and Barbara Nash.

1. Staff Changes

(a) The Committee considered a report of the officials dated July 7, 1999, recommendingthe secondments of Acting Consultants to the Instruction Department.

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that the appointments to the positions of ActingConsultants to the Instruction Department for the 1999-2000 school year (one year term), aspresented, (which are on file in the Director’s Office), be approved..(b) The Committee considered two reports of the officials dated July 7, 1999, recommending

appointments to the Business Services Department.

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that the appointments to the various positions inthe Business Services Department, as presented (which are on file in the Director’s Office), beapproved.


Shelley LaskinVice-Chair of the Board

Adopted July 7, 1999



Blank Page

minutes (yy-mm-dd) 99-06-2&9&16&23 · gerri gershon, suzan hall, elizabeth hill, jeff...

Documents