toronto district school board...akshara kothari, who placed 8th in canada and lucas uy, who placed...

429

MINUTES

Toronto District School BoardSeptember 23, 1998

A meeting of the Toronto District School Board convened at 7:05 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, Ron McNaughton, David Moll, ElizebethMoyer, Barbara D. Nash, Gail Nyberg, Stephnie Payne, Lilein Schaeffer, Doug Stephens, MikeThomas, and Sheila Ward.

202. Approval of Agenda

Trustee Hall, seconded by Trustee Blakeley, moved: THAT the agenda be reordered byconsidering Item 10 “Notice of Motion re Nelson Mandela Day” prior to Item 6“Communications”, and that the agenda be approved as amended.

The motion was carried.

203. Temporary Chair

Trustee Hall, Vice-Chair, presided from time to time during the meeting.

204. Declarations of Possible Conflicts of Interest

Trustee Atkinson declared a possible conflict of interest with regard to the elementarymemorandum of settlement and the update on negotiations considered in private session.Trustee Atkinson stated that the general nature of her interest is that her daughter is a memberof OSSTF. Trustee Atkinson did not take part in the discussion or vote when these matterswere considered in Committee of the Whole, in Private, and by the Board.

Trustee Blakeley declared a possible conflict of interest with regard to the following matters:

1) The establishment of executive offices staffing complement and process considered inprivate session;

2) Notices of Motion regarding:

a) recognized employee groups speaking to the Boardb) a joint union-staff re-deployment committeec) a joint union-staff consultative committee on adult and continuing education

Minutes of the Toronto District School Board September 23, 1998

430

Trustee Blakeley stated that the general nature of his interest is that he is an employee of theunion which represents support staff. He did not take part in the discussion or vote on thesematters when they were considered by the Board.

Later in the meeting, Trustee Blakeley declared a possible conflict of interest with regard to amotion by Trustee Atkinson, seconded by Trustee Ferreira, concerning the School BoardRestructuring Program (see page 434). He did not take part in the discussion or vote on thismatter.

Trustee Kendall declared a possible conflict of interest with regard to the matter of theelementary memorandum of settlement considered in private session. He stated that thegeneral nature of his interest is that his father is a school principal. Trustee Kendall did not takepart in the discussion or vote when this matter was considered in Committee of the Whole, inprivate and by the Board.

205. Confirmation of Minutes

Trustee Cansfield, seconded by Trustee Stephens, moved: That the minutes of the meetingof the Toronto District School Board held on Wednesday, August 26, 1998, be confirmed.


206. Delegations

The Board heard presentations from the following:

1. Brian Detlor - Montrose Public School, Lynn Martins - Metro Association of FamilyResources, Robert Yap – Iroquois School Advisory Committee and Vicki Anderson –Playhouse Child Care Centre on the Pupil Accommodation Review Policy

2. John Weatherup – President, CUPE 4400 on the proposed union-staff redeploymentcommittee

3. Tom Ciancone – Vice-President, CUPE 4400, Alice de Sousa - parent, Alexandra Henriques- ratepayer and Isabell Thomas-Mikia - parent on the proposed jointunion/federation/staff/student consultative committee on adult and continuing education.

207. Notice of Motion – Nelson Mandela Day – Trustees Nyberg and Laskin

Trustee Laskin, seconded by Trustee Nyberg, moved that the following motion be adopted:

Whereas Nelson Mandela, President of South Africa, is visiting the City ofToronto on September 25, 1998, and

Whereas Nelson Mandela is recognized as a role model for children andadults throughout the world, and


431

Whereas over 15,000 Toronto District School Board students will beattending the “Mandela and the Children” event at the Skydome,

Therefore Be It Resolved that September 25, 1998 be declared NelsonMandela Day in the Toronto District School Board.


208. Communication from the Minister of Education and Training – Funding toFacilitate Parental Involvement

Trustee McNaughton, seconded by Trustee Nash, moved: That the communication, August12, 1998, from the Minister of Education and Training, advising that support for schoolcouncils may be provided by the schools and school boards from within theadministrative support portion of their budget, be received.


209. Communication from the Minister of Education and Training – ClassroomLearning Materials Investment Initiative

Trustee Cansfield, seconded by Trustee Hall, moved: That the communication, August 12,1998, from the Minister of Education and Training, advising that the delivery of newtextbooks purchased through the Ministry’s Classroom Learning Materials InvestmentInitiative will take place on or before September 4, 1998, be received.


210. Communication from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration – Meeting withthe Board

Trustee Cleary, seconded by Trustee Mankovsky, moved: That the communication, July 13,1998, from the office of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, advising that theMinister’s schedule precludes a meeting with the Chair of the Board at this time, bereceived.


The Chair undertook to follow-up with a communication to the Minister of Citizenship andImmigration requesting a meeting at a more appropriate time.

211. Communication from Mayor Lastman – Courtesy on Toronto Transit CommissionVehicles

Trustee Atkinson, seconded by Trustee Moyer, moved: That the communication, August 27,1998, from Mayor Lastman requesting that the Board remind its students to extendcourtesy to the elderly, pregnant women and physically-challenged riders on T.T.C.vehicles, be received and referred to all school principals.


432


212. Good News: TDSB Staff and Students

Trustee Hall, seconded by Trustee Cleary, moved that: That congratulations of the Board beextended to:

Anna Truong and Muoi Ly, Westview Centennial S.S., who won first prize for FeatureWriting in the Toronto Star High School Newspaper Awards that were held last spring.Anna also won a third place award for illustration.

Akshara Kothari, who placed 8th in Canada and Lucas Uy, who placed 10th in Canada, inthe 1998 Canadian Pythogoras Mathematics Contest. Both students are in grade 6 atSeneca Hill P.S.

Ray Bowers, Co-ordinator of Science and Technology, TDSB, 5050 Yonge Street, whohas been named the 1998 Canadian Outstanding Biology Teacher by the NationalAssociation of Biology Teachers who recognize teachers in each state of the UnitedStates, Canada and Puerto Rico.

Vernon Farrell, Principal of Brookview M.S., (retired June 1998) on receiving a CivicAward from the Mayor and Council of Markham for his contributions to the communityand education.


213. TDSB/MCSTC/CIBC Pre-Apprenticeship Program

The Board had for information a staff report, September 18, 1998, titled “TDSB/MCSTC/CIBCPre-Apprenticeship Program”.

Jimmy Hazel, President, Maintenance and Construction Skilled Trades Council (MCSTC), andBruce Burgess, Supervisor of Co-operative Education Programs, presented the report.

The concept for the pre-apprenticeship program began as a joint venture between the TDSB’sCooperative Education Department and the carpenters and joiners trade union, now known asthe Maintenance and Construction Skilled Trades Council (MCSTC). They conceived of aprogram that supports youth employment and training in Canada by providing students withhands-on experience in skilled trades.

Both teachers and the skilled trade union are keenly aware that there is a shortage of suitable,qualified people in many skilled trades across the country, with this shortage only becomingmore pronounced as the current workforce ages and retires.

Far too few high school students are considering the skilled trades for career employment. Ofthose that do, many make this decision later in life, losing valuable time. In fact, the averageage of first-year apprentices in Canada is 27 years of age. Clearly there is a need to offerstudents better information and learning about apprenticeships before they complete their


433

secondary schooling. In order for this to happen, it is essential for them to access useful andvaluable practical experiences related to the trades during their secondary education.Complete with a curriculum and clear educational outcomes, the pre-apprenticeship programwas piloted in several Toronto schools during the last academic year. The education outcomesare very clear. Through the program, students:

• acquired knowledge of a wide range of opportunities available about the trade area anddeveloped contacts in their areas of interest;

• recognized and practiced the skills needed in the trades area and assessed theircapabilities;

• applied classroom and theoretical learning in a practical way in the work place;• experienced the work and organizational dynamics that are part of a work environment; and• developed an educational and career plan related to their area of trade interest.

The pilot program proved highly successful, and the Co-operative Education Department andthe MCSTC decided to approach the CIBC for financial support. The CIBC has agreed toprovide seed money. An official announcement is scheduled for September 28, 1998 atDanforth Technical Institute. Representatives of the Board, along with representatives of theMaintenance Construction and Maintenance Skilled Trades Council and the CIBC will be onhand for the announcement.

The Director of Education lauded the representatives of the MCSTC, the Board’s Co-operativeEducation Department and the CIBC for their initiative and leadership in this venture.

Trustee Blakeley congratulated the representatives of the MCSTC and staff from theCooperative Education Department for the leadership role they assumed to bring this worthwhileinitiative to fruition.

Trustee Moyer, seconded by Trustee Stephens, moved: That the staff report, September 18,1998 “TDSB/MCSTC/CIBC Pre-Apprenticeship Program” be received.


214. Continuing Education Fees

The Board had for consideration a staff report, September 23, 1998, titled “ContinuingEducation Fees” addressing the application of continuing education fees for registrants ondisability pensions.

The report indicated that fees for the current continuing education general interest courseprograms have been set at $3.50 per instructional hour for all adults who are residents of theToronto District School Board. For a number of applicants on fixed and disability incomes thecost of up to $105.00 per course has proven unaffordable and they have expressed theirconcerns through the Instruction Office, the Continuing Education Offices and through Trustees.

In consolidating the approach to the delivery and funding of Continuing Education programsacross the TDSB, sensitivity will be required during the transition period. It is recognized that,given the financial pressures that will be faced in the ensuing budget years, Continuing


434

Education programs will have to move toward cost recovery as soon as possible. The ExecutiveOfficer of Instruction will be working with staff over the upcoming months to bring to Boardappropriate recommendations regarding Continuing Education fees.

In the interim, it will be important for Continuing Education programs to be available to membersof the community who are on fixed disability pensions and for whom general interest courseshave become unaffordable.

Trustee Atkinson, seconded by Trustee Laskin, moved that: The following recommendationin the report be approved:

“That Continuing Education Supervisors be given the authority toreduce General Interest Course fees for applicants who are on fixeddisability pensions.”


215. Report No. 12, Standing Committee, September 9, 1998

Trustee Gershon, seconded by Trustee Kendall, moved: That Report No. 12, StandingCommittee, September 9, 1998, be adopted. Page 441.

With respect to Item 6 “School Board Restructuring Program”:

a) Trustee Atkinson, seconded by Trustee Ferreira, moved: That the Director ofEducation report on a process to obtain input from unions on counselling and re-training.


With regard to the above matter, Trustee Blakeley declared a possible conflict ofinterest and stated that the nature of his interest is that he is an employee of theunion which represents support staff. He did not take part in the discussion orvote on this matter.

With respect to Item 7 “Written Notices of Motion”:

Trustee Payne withdrew the written notice of motion regarding staff support to theHuman Rights, Discrimination and Harassment Task Group.

With respect to Item 8 “New Business”, section (b), “Students Transferring from Separate toPublic System”:

The Board had for information a staff report, 22 September 1998. The reportreiterated the following recommendation of the Standing Committee from itsmeeting on September 9, 1998:


435

“That, in situations where students transfer from the separatesystem to the public system in the City of Toronto at theelementary level, the parent(s) be required to transfer theireducation tax dollars are directed to the public system, asintended by the provincial government, and that the Director ofEducation monitor this practice to ensure conformity.”

The report also advised that staff from the Public Education Assessment ReviewDepartment (P.E.A.R.) had been offered the Early Leaving Plan (ELP), and that theBoard had approved the Plan for seventeen out of eighteen staff members on August25, 1998.

The report provided the following analysis:

• The Regional Assessment Office notified all Boards of Education that the propertytax change notice was no longer required.

• P.E.A.R. and area board staff notified schools that the form “Application for Directionof School Support” was no longer required.

• The Regional Assessment Office will continue to accept these forms but may notprocess any applications, especially incomplete forms.

• The Provincial funding model sets a Board level expenditure and grants are added tothe local education levy to match the established procedures,

• A TDSB resident elementary student is partially defined as having a parent orguardian who is not a separate school supporter or a French language district schoolboard supporter and resides in the school section.

• The only elementary non-resident pupil entitled to attend a TDSB school is a residentpupil of another English language public board who meets specific distance criteriafrom their locally designated school.

• It is the responsibility of the parent or guardian to submit evidence that the studenthas a right to attend an elementary school

The report further advised that the 1998/1999 General Legislative Grant regulationdefines a resident pupil of the TDSB as a pupil enrolled in an operating school of theTDSB. The Board may, therefore, accept elementary students of separate schoolsupporters into our schools but these students become resident students of the TDSB.Fees from the Separate School Board or from the parents are not allowed under thegoverning regulations.

In the absence of the P.E.A.R. Department and the lack of willingness on the part of theRegional Assessment Office to process changes to property tax designations, the TDSBlacks resources to process the necessary documentation. As an alternative, staff couldelectronically match student data to the assessment rolls to identify the number ofstudents attending our schools from a residence that designates the education portion ofthe property taxes to the separate school system. The list of separate schoolsupporters, if significant, could be subjected to follow up by staff.

The staff report was received, on motion of Trustee Moll, seconded by Trustee Cansfield.


436

The motion to adopt Report No. 12, Standing Committee, September 9, 1998, as amended, wascarried.

216. Report No. 13, Standing Committee, September 16, 1998

Trustee Kendall, seconded by Trustee Gershon, moved: That Report No. 13, StandingCommittee, September 16, 1998, be adopted. Page 458.

With respect to Item 6 “Pupil Accommodation Review Policy – Area Review CommitteeProcedures”, Trustee Atkinson, seconded by Trustee Ferreira, moved in amendment: That one(1) parent representative from each day care centre serving school age childrenattending that school and run by a parent-run Board of Directors be added to the votingmembers of the Area Review Committee.

The amendment was carried. (amendment subsequently defeated – see below)

As a result of further discussions, Trustee Atkinson, seconded by TrusteeFerreira, moved: That the amendment to Item 6 “Pupil AccommodationReview Policy – Area Review Committee Procedures”, be reconsidered.

The motion to reconsider was carried.

Trustee Atkinson, seconded by Trustee Ferreira, moved again: That one (1) parentrepresentative from each day care centre serving school age children attending thatschool and run by a parent-run Board of Directors be added to the voting members of theArea Review Committee.

The amendment was defeated.

Trustee Thomas, seconded by Trustee Atkinson, moved: That a parent of a school age childin a day care centre, one per Area Review Committee, be added to the voting members.

The Chair ruled the above motion to be out of order.

Therefore, the Board approved Item 7 “Pupil Accommodation Review Policy – Area ReviewCommittee Procedures” as recommended by the Standing Committee.

The motion to adopt Report No. 13 of the Standing Committee, September 16, 1998 wascarried.

217. Report No. 6, Chair’s Committee, September 14, 1998

Trustee Hall, seconded by Trustee Kendall, moved: That Report No. 6, Chair’s Committee,September 14, 1998, be adopted. (Page 477)


437

Trustee Stephens, seconded by Trustee Cansfield, moved in amendment: That Item 1, EndingTime for Board and Standing Committee Meetings be amended by substituting thephrase : “by 12:00 midnight”, with the phrase “by 11:00 p.m.” so that the openingsentence read as follows: “That, should a Board meeting not complete its business by11:00 p.m., the member speaking will be permitted to conclude their remarks and theBoard will then decide, without debate, how to proceed in order with the followingsteps:”

The amendment was carried.

Following discussion, Trustee Blakeley, seconded by Trustee Hall, moved that debate be endedon the main motion.

The motion to end debate was carried.

The motion to adopt Report No. 6, Chair’s Committee, September 14, 1998, as amended, wascarried. In order to facilitate consideration of Board business, it was agreed that the Chair’sCommittee will review the current procedures governing delegations.

218. Report No. 5, Special Education Advisory Committee, September 14, 1998

Trustee Hall, seconded by Trustee Schaeffer, moved: That Report No. 5, Special EducationAdvisory Committee, September 14, 1998, be received. (Page 481)


219. Report No. 2, Editorial Board for the Trustees’ Newsletters, September 17, 1998

Trustee Laskin, seconded by Trustee Schaeffer, moved: That Report No. 2, Editorial Boardfor the Trustees’ Newsletters, September 17, 1998, be adopted. (Page 484)


220. Written Notices of Motion

a) Trustee Kendall gave notice of the following motion:

Be it resolved that the Board endorse the Parent Safety Program;and

That the Board work in cooperation with other partners of theParent Safety Program to expand the program into other Torontoneighbourhoods to enhance safety in and around its schools; and

That staff report back with recommendations on what level of staff,resource, training or other support would be appropriate for theBoard to supply to the Parent Safety Program.


438

b) Trustee Ward gave notice of the following motion:

That, where inquiries are received from the Ministry of Educationby staff below the level of Superintendent, and where suchinquiries deal with statistical data, the operation of any school orschool program, or the performance of a staff member, suchrequests be referred to the appropriate Superintendent.

221. Consideration of Notices of Motion

a) Notice of motion by Trustee Mankovsky - Recognized Employee Organizations to Speak tothe Board

Trustee Mankovsky withdrew her motion that recognized employee organizations be giventhe right to speak to the Board without prior notice and engage in dialogue with trustees andstaff on agenda items on which they may wish to present their perspective.

b) Notice of motion by Trustees Atkinson, Ferreira and Hill - Establishment of a joint union/staffRedeployment Committee

Trustee Atkinson, seconded by Trustee Ferreira, moved: That a joint union/staff“Redeployment Committee” be established to assist the TDSB in the pressing task ofrestructuring. This Committee will review relevant matters, including examining theneeds of the system as defined by management.

Trustee Hall, seconded by Trustee Cansfield, moved: That the above motion be referredto the Director of Education for a report on an appropriate process.

The motion to refer was defeated.

The motion to establish a joint union/staff Redeployment Committee was carried.

Trustee Kendall, seconded by Trustee McNaughton, moved: That the Director ofEducation report at the next regular meeting of the Standing Committee on how toproceed on this matter.


c) Notice of motion by Trustees Atkinson, Ferreira and Hill - Establishment of a jointunion/federation/staff/student Consultative Committee on Adult and Continuing Education

Trustee Atkinson, seconded by Trustee Hill, moved: That a jointunion/federation/staff/student Consultative Committee on Adult and ContinuingEducation be established. This Committee can address a number of pressing issueswhich have intensified with the introduction of recent restructuring changes,including coordination, planning, program delivery and staffing needs.



439

Trustee Kendall, seconded by Trustee Mankovsky, moved: That the matter ofestablishing a joint union/federation/staff/student Consultative Committee on Adultand Continuing Education be reconsidered.

The motion to reconsider was defeated.

222. Reports from Board Representatives on Other Organizations

TDSB Charitable Foundation Working Group

The Board had for information a report, September 23, 1998, from Trustees Cansfield, Moll andMankovsky as an update on the status of the work of the TDSB Charitable Foundation WorkingGroup.

The first significant activities of the foundation were to administer municipal and provincialgrants for student nutrition programs and to garner additional financial support for same.

There are 164 nutrition programs in 130 TDSB schools. More than 32,000 students benefit fromthese programs each day. In total, $987,537.00 of municipal funds have been granted to theseprograms. It is also estimated that $605,864.00 of provincial funding will be granted to theseprograms.

In addition to municipal and provincial grants and the operating surplus generated by TDSBfood service operations, $1,000,000.00 is required to ensure students participating haveconsistent access to nutritious, high quality programs.

It is anticipated that all legalities for the new “Toronto Foundation for Student Success” will becompleted by December 1998. The recruitment process for the Honorary Board of Advisorsand the Foundation Directors is underway and will be complete by December 1998.

The Foundation for the Advancement of Community Education is acting as the interimfoundation on behalf of the TDSB in order to ensure a smooth transition to the new foundation.

Trustee Moll, seconded by Trustee Cansfield, moved: That the progress report on the TDSBCharitable Foundation be received.


223. Motion to Re-convene to Committee of the Whole (Private Session)

Trustee Moll, seconded by Trustee Cansfield, moved: That the Board re-convene toCommittee of the Whole (Private Session) to continue consideration of private matters.



440

224. Report No. 15, Committee of the Whole (Private Session), September 23, 1998

Trustee Hall, seconded by Trustee Kendall, moved: That Report No. 15, Committee of theWhole (Private Session) September 23, 1998, be adopted. Page 485.


225. Adjournment

For lack of quorum, the meeting was adjourned at 1:55 a.m.

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


441

REPORT NO. 12, STANDING COMMITTEE (Public Session)

September 9, 1998

To the Chair and Members ofthe Toronto District School Board:

The Standing Committee of the Toronto District School Board convened at 7:10 p.m. onSeptember 9, 1998, in the Board Room at 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Co-ChairGerri Gershon 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, RonMcNaughton, Barbara Nash, Gail Nyberg, Stephnie Payne, Lilein Schaeffer, Doug Stephens,Mike Thomas and Sheila Ward.

1. Declarations of possible Conflicts of Interest

Trustee Atkinson declared a possible conflict of interest with regard to the matter of negotiationsconsidered in private session. Trustee Atkinson indicated that the general nature of her interestis that her daughter is a member of OSSTF. Trustee Atkinson did not take part in thediscussion or vote when this matter was considered by the Standing Committee in private.

Trustee Blakeley declared a possible conflict of interest with regard to the matter of parts of areport concerning a Capital Assets Management Plan considered in private session. TrusteeBlakeley indicated that the general nature of his interest is that he is an employee of the unionthat represents support staff. Trustee Blakeley did not take part in the discussion or vote whenthis matter was considered by the Standing Committee in private.

2. Purchasing & Levels of Authority Policy

The Standing Committee had before it for consideration a staff report recommending options fora Purchasing Policy and Levels of Authority, as outlined below:

The purpose of this report is to provide information about the purchasing policies & levels ofauthority of the former school boards and recommend options for a Purchasing Policy andLevels of Authority for the Toronto District School Board. In addition, this report recommendsthat the name of the Purchasing & Warehousing Co-operative be changed to Purchasing &Distribution Services to better reflect its structure within the Toronto District School Board.

On June 24, 1998, the Board referred to staff a proposal that all contracts with a value of$500,000 or more be approved by the Board before being awarded to any supplier. The Boardrequested that this be considered in the discussions regarding a new policy for levels ofauthority concerning capital projects and purchasing contacts. The Board requested that theDirector present a report to the September 1998 School Board recommending a new policy forlevels of authority regarding capital projects and purchasing contracts.


442

In preparing this report, the purchasing policies and levels of authority of the former MetroToronto Area Boards and the Purchasing & Warehousing Co-operative were reviewed. Inaddition, the policies of the Toronto Catholic School Board, the surrounding Greater TorontoArea school districts and the City of Toronto were examined. Appendices attached to the reportpresented a summary of the findings.

While the contents of the policy regulations were similar, dollar thresholds and approval levelsvary significantly. Some organizations require Board approval for every contract over $5,000while others do not require any approval for the award of contracts as long as funds areavailable in the approved budget. The majority of the Greater Toronto Area district schoolboards fall in the latter category.

Products & Services

In 1997, the Purchasing & Warehousing Co-operative established approximately 130 system-wide contracts for products and services. During the same period the Co-operative issuedapproximately 10,000 purchase orders valued at approximately $45 million. In 1998, the Co-operative issued approximately 182 system-wide contracts. The number of purchase ordersand their total value is expected to more than double in 1998 as all former boards areimplemented.

In order to maximize efficiency, a review of all purchases made by the Purchasing &Warehousing Co-operative during 1997 and 1998 was also undertaken to determine the numberof contracts that would require School Board approval under different threshold scenarios; thisinformation was summarized in an appendix to the report.

Capital Projects

The 1997 and 1998 expenditures processed through the Co-operative include only some of theexpenditures made by the former Area Boards’ Plant purchasing staff for capital improvementsand/or maintenance related products and services.

The former Area Boards funded capital projects under $300,000 through the individual AreaBoard’s permanent improvement and maintenance allocations provided for in the formulabudget. Large projects exceeding $300,000 were eligible for inclusion in the Capital Program.

Staff of the former Area School Boards handled the tendering for Capital Program projects.Plant Services staff handled the tendering of permanent improvement and maintenance projectsfunded by the former Area Boards, and, for the most part, with little or no involvement from theCo-operative staff. This was reflected in the mandate of the Co-operative, which did not includethe acquisition of services related to construction and major maintenance contracts.

The approval process for capital projects closely resembled that used for the acquisition ofproducts and or services and similar levels of authority applied.

Approvals During July & AugustMost former Area Boards adopted an approval policy which allowed the Director of Education, inconsultation with the Chair of the Board, to approve contracts that would normally be approved


443

by the Board and report all such approved contracts to the Board in the following September forinformation.

Proposed Purchasing Policy and Levels of Authority

The proposed purchasing policies and levels of authority attempt to balance efficiency whilemaintaining full accountability. The Purchasing Procedures and Practices that are proposed foradoption by the Toronto District School Board and are intended for the acquisition of productsand services including those related to capital projects, copy the existing procedures currently inplace for the Co-operative. These procedures were previously approved by the Co-operativeBoard of Directors.

The following tables outline a summary of the proposed purchasing procedures and levels ofauthority.

Procedure Proposed Threshold CommentsVerbal/Facsimile Quotes <$10,000Written Quotes $10,001 – $100,000Formal Tenders >$100,000 Formal Tenders and Requests for

Proposals shall be advertised onElectronic Bulletin Boards inaccordance with the Inter-Provincialtrade Agreements

The Director and/or designate may waive normal procedures in emergency situations.

Level of Approval Proposed Threshold CommentsManager, Purchasing &Distribution Services

Up to $100,000 In consultation with the originatingBoard official(s)

Executive Officers ortheir Designate

>$100,000 and up to$500,000

Board $500,000 and over

All contracts with a value of $500,000 or more would, therefore, require Board approval.It is proposed that the same procedures and levels of authority apply for capital projectsand purchasing contracts.

Purchasing & Warehousing Co-operative – Proposed Name Change

The Purchasing & Warehousing Co-operative was established in 1996 to provide thepurchasing and distribution function on behalf of seven of the eight former public school boardsand, at the time, the name accurately reflected the co-operative nature of the organization.

The recent amalgamation that created the Toronto District School Board has resulted in the Co-operative becoming a department of the Business Services area of the Board. It is appropriatethat the name of the Co-operative be changed to reflect its departmental position within the


444

amalgamated Board. It is proposed that the name Purchasing & Distribution Services beadopted.

Consultation

The proposed Policy, Purchasing Procedure Threshold, Level of Approval and AdministrativeProcedures have paralleled existing practices and encompassed the Board motion of June 24,1998. Given the minimum level of change, staff is not recommending a consultation process forthis Policy.

The Standing Committee RECOMMENDS:

(a) That the Purchasing Policy shown below be approved:

(b) That following Approval Levels be approved; and,

Level of Approval Proposed Threshold CommentsManager, Purchasing &Distribution Services

Up to $100,000 In consultation with theoriginating Board official(s)

Executive Officers or theirDesignate

>$100,000 and up to$500,000

Board Over $500,000

(c) That the name of the Purchasing & Warehousing Co-operative be changed to“Purchasing & Distribution Services”.

Purchasing Policy

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

The Purchasing and 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 cash andpurchase card purchases.

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

3. Pupil Accommodation Review Policy

The Standing Committee considered a report presented by the Manager of the PupilAccommodation Review Policy Task Group, recommending a Pupil Accommodation ReviewPolicy for adoption by the Toronto District School Board.

The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) approved priority areas for policy development inMarch of this year and identified a Property Utilization, School Boundaries and School ClosurePolicy as priority.


445

The Pupil Accommodation Review Policy Task Group was established and met from April 20,1998 to August 28, 1998 to develop the draft policy. The membership of the Task Group wasas follows:

Dawn Adams Chief PlannerPaul Addie (Chair) Senior Superintendent, Planning & OperationsAnne Balaban School Advisory CouncilTrustee Brian Blakeley Trustee, Ward 11Trustee Judi Codd Trustee, Ward 21Sherryl Daoust Manager of Planning, Planning DepartmentBob Garner School Superintendent, North-East Community

Education CentreChris Gavaris Principal - Frank Oke S.S.Prescott Harrison Controller of Capital Program and PlanningMaureen Kaukinen Superintendent of Schools and TechnologyLynda Laker Principal - Wexford P.S.Sarah Rogers Student - Northern Secondary SchoolMario Silva School Advisory CouncilBob Taylor-Vaisey School Advisory Council

On June 16, 1998, the Ministry of Education and Training, in its Release of 1998-99 StudentFunding Regulation document, required School Boards to submit a Pupil AccommodationReview Policy and Facilities Utilization Plan by September 30, 1998. This requirementcollapsed the Task Group’s timelines for community consultation (to begin September 11, 1998)and Board presentation (September 23, 1998).

The Pupil Accommodation Review Policy is a policy that outlines a process of data analysis andcommunity consultation in the difficult task of identifying schools for closure and redefiningschool boundaries. It guarantees that students, parents, staff and community members willhave a say in school closure, construction and boundary changes.

The role of the Board is highlighted in the flow chart (see page 453). Planning Review Areaswill be identified by Facilities and Capital Program staff and approved by Board. Study Planswill be received by the Board for each Review Area. The Proposed Study Plan for the 1998-99school year for Pupil Accommodation Reviews., is shown on page 454.

Each Area Review Committee will have full access to data on school enrolments, projections,rated capacities, operational and renewal costs, shared-use agreements and specializedprogram facilities for each school. Facilities and Capital Program staff members will act as aresource to each Area Review Committee and the appropriate School Superintendent will chairand facilitate the process. Area Review Committees will make recommendations to theExecutive Officer of Facilities and Capital Program and will receive copies of the Report toBoard at least two weeks prior to Board consideration.

No school is reviewed in isolation of its neighbourhood schools. The Pupil AccommodationReview Policy ensures parental and community participation in decision making about schoolsin their neighbourhood and their community.


446

Copies of the proposed Pupil Accommodation Review Policy and 1998-99 Study Plan will beforwarded to the following groups:

♦ Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC)♦ Principals♦ School Advisory Council Chairs (or Chairs of Parent/Teacher Associations)♦ Child Cares in TDSB schools♦ City Planning Department Staff♦ City Councillors♦ School Lessees♦ Staff Groups and Local Community Groups as decided by the local trustee and the Director

of Education

These groups will be informed that the Pupil Accommodation Review Policy will be before theBoard for consideration on September 23, 1998.

The Policy will be placed on the Toronto District School Board website on September 11, 1998.

It was agreed that the Area Review Committee Procedures would be brought forward to theSeptember 16, 1998 meeting of the Standing Committee for further discussion.

The Standing Committee RECOMMENDS that the Pupil Accommodation Review Policy (seepage 451) be approved.

4. Draft Report of the Task Group on Parent, Student and Community Involvement

The Standing Committee considered a report from the Task Group on Parent, Student andCommunity Involvement, which presented the draft policy and procedures for parent, studentand community involvement for the Toronto District School Board for the information of trustees,prior to the report being circulated to the community.

The Parent, Student and Community Involvement Task Group is one of twelve task groupsdeveloping new policies and procedures for the consideration of the Board.

The mandate of the Parent, Student and Community Involvement Task Group was to developpolicies and procedures that will best serve the needs of the students, parents, staff andcommunity of the Toronto District School Board for the present and into the future.

The task group has been meeting since April 21, 1998, and developed a work plan that includedthe examination of the final report of the LEIC sub-committee and the external feedback fromschool councils, ward meetings, individuals and parent organizations.

The task group, in preparing the policy and procedures, has made a strong effort to ensure thatall parents, students and community representatives will have an opportunity to communicatewith the Board and with their trustee. We, as a task group, are committed to forging strong linksfor all parents, students and communities.


447

Consultation is planned throughout September and October, 1998, in two ways. Schoolcouncils and other interested parent and community organizations may respond in writing. Aswell, there will be public forums held on October 6, 15 at four secondary schools across theToronto District School Board where members of the task group will hear feedback about thedraft policy. (October 6 - Richview C. I. and Stephen Leacock C. I.*, October 15 - BathurstHeights S. S. and Ursula Franklin Academy).

*At the request of a trustee, the Task Group Manager undertook to determine if a more centrallocation for area residents, such as 140 Borough Drive, could be arranged for the consultationmeeting originally planned for Stephen Leacock C.I.

Trustee Atkinson, a member of the Task Group, extended her appreciation to SuperintendentDarlene Leaver, Task Group Manager, for her outstanding leadership; to Lloyd McKell,Community Services Officer, for his work in the writing of the draft report; and to all themembers of the Task Group for their contributions.


(a) That the Board receive the draft report of the Task Group on Parent, Student andCommunity Involvement.

(b) That the Board approve the next phase of consultation as outlined in this report.

5. Report No. 1 of the Editorial Board for the Trustees' Newsletter, Page 456

The Standing Committee had before it for consideration Report No. 1 of the Editorial Board forthe Trustees' Newsletter, dated September 8, 1998.


(i) that section 1, Chair, pro tem, be received for information;

(ii) that recommendation (a) of section 2, Editorial Board Membership, be received, (TrusteeWard indicated that she wishes to continue her membership in the Editorial Board);

(iii) that recommendation (b) of section 2 be approved and that Trustees Atkinson and Kendallbe appointed to complete the membership; and

(iv) that section 3, Timelines for Fall 1998 Trustees' Newsletter, be approved.

6. School Board Restructuring Program (Amended, see Page 434)

The Standing Committee considered a staff report concerning the school board restructuringprogram, specifically containing information regarding the funding announced by the Minister ofEducation in response to the Toronto District School Board's application that was made underthe provincial School Board Restructuring Program.


448

In February, 1998, the Minister of Education announced a $215 million School BoardRestructuring Program that was to be established to assist school boards in their restructuringarising from amalgamation and/or adjusting to the new funding model.

The Board submitted two applications under this Program. The first dealt with identifiedrestructuring projects, and requested about $54 million in funding. The second application dealtwith labour adjustment costs (severance) associated with reductions to the Board’s staffingcomplement arising from amalgamation and adjusting to the new funding model, whichamounted to about $86.3 million.

The Ministry has approved the following funding for the Toronto District School Board:

Restructuring Projects $21,897,333

Labour Adjustment Costs 73,631,621

Total $95,528,954

A copy of the Minister’s memorandum was attached to the staff report.

Restructuring Projects

The attached schedule (see page 439) provides a comparison of the original projects andfunding applied for versus the amount approved by the Ministry.

Board staff will be meeting with Ministry staff to obtain an understanding of their basis ofdetermining both project approval and the level of funding. The following are some preliminarycomments.

Flexibility in Use of Funding

We understand that each project’s funding is restricted to the respective project. We haveexpressed to Ministry staff that they should provide flexibility to school boards to re-allocatefunds to other approved projects should the need arise subject to Ministry approval.

Communications Technology

The Ministry will be announcing shortly specific guidelines regarding how school boards canproceed with Communications Technology projects in order to access the approved funding.The projects affected are:

Wide Area Network $5,000,000

TDSB Intranet Services $325,000


449

Facilities Management System

The Ministry has deferred its decision of this project until the Ministry’s “Facility Capacity” Studyis completed. There were funding requests across all school boards of about $40 million. TheMinistry will re-examine the funding in light of the Study’s results.

Severance

The Ministry made the decision that the Restructuring Program funds would apply to non-teaching staff. The Ministry will be announcing shortly a new grant to fund the retirementgratuity costs for teaching staff that are not provided for in the 1998 Short Period revenueguarantee nor in the new funding model. For this reason, the severance costs applied for by theBoard relating to teaching staff amounting to about $12.7 million was not recognized in theRestructuring Program.

The Ministry believes these costs will be covered under the “Retirement Gratuity Grant”. We willhave to await further details from the Ministry to determine if the costs are in fact funded.

Accessing the Funds

The actual cost of severance (up to two weeks per year of staff service) together with costs ofcounselling and training will be reimbursed on submission of claims. This applies torestructuring project costs as well. The first claim is to be submitted by October 15, 1998 forcosts incurred up to the end of August 31, 1998. Estimated costs to be incurred after August31, 1998 must also be submitted by October 15, 1998.

The Standing Committee RECOMMENDS that the report be received. (Amended, see page434)

7. Written Notices of Motion

The Standing Committee reports having received the following written notices of motion forconsideration at a future meeting:

♦ From Trustees Ferreira and Payne, regarding staff support to the Human Rights,Discrimination and Harassment Task Group (withdrawn, see Page 434)

♦ From Trustee Payne, regarding the consideration of Staffing Matters at Board meetings

8. New Business

(a) Staffing and Enrolment Figures

Staff have agreed to provide information on a comparison of 1997 and 1998 staffing andenrolment figures by school for a future meeting.


450

(b) Students Transferring from Separate to Public System (see also page 434)

The Standing Committee RECOMMENDS that, in situations where students transfer from theseparate system to the public system in the City of Toronto at the elementary level, theparent(s) be required to transfer their education tax dollars are directed to the public system, asintended by the provincial government, and that the Director of Education monitor this practiceto ensure conformity.

Respectfully submitted,

Gerri GershonCo-Chair of Standing Committee

Adopted, as amended, September 23, 1998.


451

Pupil Accommodation Review Policy (see page 444)

Toronto District School Board Policy G.1

PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW POLICY

1.0 OBJECTIVE

To provide a framework for pupil accommodation which includes property utilization,boundaries and school construction, opening and closure studies.

2.0 DEFINITIONS

2.1 Attendance Area is the area from which a school draws its students. AttendanceBoundary defines this area.

Alternative Program is an optional program with an attendance area that extendsbeyond the traditional neighbourhood based attendance area which may includethe entire District.

Consolidation is the combination of two or more schools or programs into onelocation with one administrative unit.

Facility Utilization Plan is a strategic plan that prescribes the most efficient use ofschool buildings and identifies excess capacity and study review areas.

Review Area of Study will involve a number of schools in a natural or existingcommunity, in which some school(s) are either considerably over or under theirmost effective capacity.

Review Process includes the steps to be taken in the community consultationprocess, and the timelines to be respected when conducting area reviews,attendance boundary, and school closure studies.

Study refers to the process to be followed to ensure adequate review prior tochanging school attendance boundaries, numbers and locations of schools inoperation within the jurisdiction of the Board, based on demographic data and onprogram, school and community needs and fiscal realities.

3.0 POLICY

3.1 The Toronto District School Board is committed to providing high qualityeducational programs and services in appropriate facilities located as close aspracticable to the residences of the students served therein. A fair and reasonableaccessibility of program, staff, resources and facilities shall be provided throughoutthe Board community taking into consideration resident student populations,special needs of local communities, and the demand for programs.


452

The Board shall maximize the use of its facilities by offering educational programs ina fiscally responsible manner. The Board shall endeavour to distribute its enrolmentfor each facility to its maximum effective capacity.

3.3 All schools shall be considered for study through a planning review process. Theprocess shall follow a facility utilization plan which evaluates school accommodationrequirements against a set of accepted criteria (e.g., student enrolment patterns andprojections, program rationalization, transportation issues, a facility's condition, costof operation per pupil, and community usage, etc.).

In this way, the Board shall provide for learning environments that are equitable,accessible, safe and educationally advantageous and will providerecommendations, as appropriate, for replacement or renovation, new capitalinvestment, or school closure.

3.4 The Board shall prescribe a process for community input and consultation, eitherwithin a broad community or within an area specific sector of the community,ensuring that adequate time for consultation is provided.

4.0 SPECIFIC DIRECTIVES

4.1 The Toronto District School Board shall approve a comprehensive FacilityUtilization Plan for the district. The Facility Utilization Plan shall outline a strategyfor the most efficient use of school buildings.

4.2 The Board, in response to population, program, or funding changes, shall identifypupil accommodation review areas of study. The study will address, if necessary,boundary changes, school construction (ie. new school, addition or renovation),school consolidation, opening, closure or establishment of new alternative programlocations.

4.3 For each review area of study, a detailed study plan will be received by the Board,which would include objectives, time frames, a communication plan, and acommunity consultation process and trustee and staff involvement.

4.4 The review process outlined in 4.3 will be conducted in those communities whichhave been identified as review areas of study and recommendations will bedeveloped.

4.5 Recommendations emanating from the review process will be available to thecommunity at least two weeks prior to consideration by the Standing Committee.There will be a further two weeks before the Board considers review processrecommendations approved by the Standing Committee.

4.6 The Director of Education will develop procedures as may be necessary to supportthis policy and these procedures will be presented to the Board for approval.


453

Adoption Date: September 1998 Review Date: September 2003

PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW POLICY

(PROPERTY UTILIZATION, SCHOOL BOUNDARIES AND SCHOOL CLOSURE)

BOARD ACTIONS

APPROVEFACILITY UTILIZATION PLAN

APPROVEIDENTIFIED REVIEW AREAS OF STUDY

RECEIVESTUDY PLANS

PARTICIPATE INREVIEW PROCESS

BOARD DECISION

MONITORIMPLEMENTATION

of boundary changes, construction, consolidation, closure orestablishment of new alternative program


454

Pupil Accommodation Review Policy

1998-99

Study Plan

Activity Time Allocated(estimated)

Completion Date Comments


September 9, 1998September 23, 1998

♦ Standing♦ Board♦ TDSB policy for

accommodation reviewsFacility UtilizationPlan

Sept. – Oct.2 months

October 28, 1998 ♦ Board♦ Identification of Review Areas

for study

Review Area Study Plans

November 18, 1998November 25, 1998

♦ Standing♦ Board

Area ReviewCommittee Process(ARC)

Dec. – Feb.3 months

February 26, 1999 ♦ establishment of Area ReviewCommittees

♦ all committee work to becompleted during this timeperiod including publicmeetings regarding ARCpreferred recommendation(s)

ARCRecommendationssubmitted toExecutive Officer

first weekof March

March 5,1999 ♦ Executive Officer hasopportunity to review ARCrecommendation(s)

Publication toCommunity ofrecommendation(s)going to Board

Two weeks prior toApril 1999Standing CommitteeMeeting

♦ Executive Officer to forwardstaff recommendation(s) toBoard as well as final ARCrecommendation(s)

♦ Community to have atminimum two weeks noticeprior to Board

Final Board Approval April 1999Board Meeting

♦ Board♦ Board will establish timelines

for implementation ofrecommendation(s)

Implementation andcommunication ofBoard decisions

to be determined ♦ Establishment ofimplementation committee


455

Toronto District School Board

Restructuring Project Cost Summary (see page 447)

AmountApplied For

GrantApproved

Transition Planning: Management of Transition Planning $ 2,060,000 $ 2,060,000 Policies and Procedures 835,000 835,000 Consultative Support 600,000 600,000 Comprehensive Energy and Water Reduction Program 150,000 -

Technology Integration Projects: Financial Information System 6,334,000 2,500,000 Student Information System 6,750,000 5,000,000 Human Resources/Payroll System 2,878,000 2,000,000 Wide Area Network 10,064,000 5,000,000 Corporate Database Management System 1,250,000 1,250,000 Information Technology Call Centre and Help Desk 1,150,000 750,000 Information Technology Services 5,000,000 1,300,000 Central Library Automation 1,030,000 - Data Warehouse 2,000,000 - Integrated Facilities Planning and Data Management System 750,000 - Facilities Permitting and Booking Administration System 500,000 - Telecommunications Integration – Electronic Mail & Messaging 1,110,000 - Office Automation Tools 1,300,000 - Toronto District School Board Intranet Services 325,000 325,000 Voice Messaging 326,000 - Field Service – Training and Refurbished Equipment Supply 1,000,000 -

Joint Ventures with Co-terminous Board: Transportation Planning Partnership 945,000 - Purchasing and Warehousing Co-operative 5,000,000 -

Asset and Records Management: Records Management 275,000 - Facilities Management System 2,500,000 -

TOTAL $54,132,000 $21,620,000


456

REPORT NO. 1, EDITORIAL BOARD FOR THE TRUSTEES' NEWSLETTER

September 8, 1998

To the Co-Chairs and Membersof the Standing Committee:

The Editorial Board for the Trustees' Newsletter met this day at 9:40 a.m. and adjourned at11:00 a.m. The following members were present: Trustees Laskin and Schaeffer; K. Cox, B.Lenglet, A.M. Males and B. Smith. Trustees Atkinson, Codd, Ferreira, Gershon, Kendall (Chair,pro tem.) and Nyberg were also present. Trustee Ward was absent.

The Editorial Board decided to report and recommend as follows:

1. Chair, pro tem

At its meeting held on May 22, 1998, the Editorial Board appointed Rod Thompson, ExecutiveOfficer - Instruction, as Chair. B. Lenglet has now replaced R. Thompson as a member of theEditorial Board. For the September 8, 1998 meeting, the Editorial Board appointed Trustee JeffKendall as Chair, pro tem.

2. Editorial Board Membership (Amended, see page 447)

Since the School Board established the Editorial Board on April 29, 1998, the Editorial Boardhas met three times, as follows: May 22, June 24 and September 8, 1998. Trustee Ward hasbeen unable to attend these meetings. By-law 13.4 is applicable in this situation.

13.4 A member of a special committee or subcommittee who absentsthemselves from three consecutive meetings of the committee without theapproval of the committee will cease to be a member of the committee.This information will be reported to the Board.

The Editorial Board for the Trustees' Newsletter RECOMMENDS:

(a) that, subject to confirmation that Trustee Ward is not able to continue as a member ofthe Editorial Board, a replacement be appointed at the September 23, 1998 Boardmeeting; and [RECEIVED BY BOARD]

(b) that the Board expand the trustee membership of the Editorial Board to five trustees, andappoint the additional trustees at the September 23, 1998 Board meeting. [APPROVED]

3. Timelines for Fall 1998 Trustees' Newsletter

At the May 27, 1998 Board meeting, the Board approved the following resolution:

That the first edition of the Trustees' Newsletter, prepared as part of the Board'scommunications plan, be produced and distributed in the early Fall.


457

The inside two pages of the Fall 1998 Trustees' Newsletter will be generic content. This copywill be focused on the present and future impact of the budget and implementation of thefunding formula. The generic copy will include an information statement concerning therelationship between teacher negotiations and the funding formula, and comment on secondarynegotiations as known at the time the newsletter goes to press.

The outside two pages will be individualized to the extent desired by the trustee. It order toproceed with production and distribution, it is necessary for trustees to agree to a final date forthe submission of their own copy. Trustees not submitting individual copy will have genericcopy on the outside two pages, with the format indicating that the newsletter is from theindividual trustee.

The Editorial Board for the Trustees' Newsletter RECOMMENDS that September 23, 1998, bethe deadline for submission of individual trustee content for the Fall 1998 Trustees' Newsletter.


JEFF KENDALLChair, pro tem.

Approved, as amended, September 23, 1998.


458

REPORT NO. 13, STANDING COMMITTEE(Public Session)

September 16, 1998

To the Chair and Members ofThe Toronto District School Board:

The Standing Committee of the Toronto District School Board convened at 7:00 p.m. onSeptember 16, 1998, in the Board Room at 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Co-ChairJeff Kendall 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, Ron McNaughton, BarbaraNash, Gail Nyberg, Stephnie Payne, Lilein Schaeffer, Doug Stephens, Mike Thomas and SheilaWard.

Regrets were received from Trustee Moyer.

1. Delegations: Trustee Payne’s Motion on the Ethno-cultural Affirmative ActionPolicy

The Standing Committee heard delegations speaking in support of Trustee Payne’sMotion on the ethno-cultural affirmative action policy, as follows:

1. Janice Webster, Urban Alliance on Race Relations2. Robert Koil, Vice President, Tamil Seniors, Etobicoke North3. Sam Singh, President, Concern Citizens, Etobicoke North4. Neil Armstrong, Coordinator, CHRY Radio5. Dr. Carole Yawney, Sociology Professor, York University6. Michael Dow7. Jacqueline Latter, O.E.A.8. Shelley Carroll, T.E.A., Metro Parent Network and West End Citizens9. Sheila Cary-Meagher, East End Parent Network10. Clem Marshall, Black Secretariat and Educator11. Murphy Brown, Co-Chair, Ontario Parents of Black Children12. Bev Salmon, Co-Chair, Black Educators Working Group13. Kwabena Yafeu, Teacher – TDSB

2. Consideration of Motion - Trustee Payne re Ethno-cultural Affirmative ActionPolicy, Including Persons with Disabilities and Aboriginal Peoples

Notice having been given previously at its meeting on June 17, 1998, the Standing Committeeconsidered a motion submitted by Trustee Payne concerning the development of an ethno-cultural affirmative action policy.


459

The Standing Committee RECOMMENDS that:

Whereas the City of Toronto is now the most diverse City in the world, and

Whereas by the year 2000 over 54% of the population of the City and ourstudents will be of non-European backgrounds, and

Whereas one of the most economic advantages to the City of Toronto will be itsethno-cultural diversity, and

Whereas the ethno-cultural makeup of the staff of the Toronto District SchoolBoard does not reflect this rich diversity, and

Whereas the ethno-cultural makeup of the positions of leadership of the staff ofthe Toronto District School Board does not reflect this rich diversity, and

Whereas the Toronto District School Board recognizes the importance of ethno-cultural role models in the education of our students

Therefore Be It Resolved that staff present to the Toronto District School Board aplan for an ethno-cultural affirmative action policy; and

Be It Further Resolved that the plan for this policy address persons withdisabilities and Aboriginal peoples; and

Be It Further resolved that this plan be presented to the Board before December1, 1998.

3. Investment in Classroom Learning Materials

The Standing Committee had for information a report on the provision of classroom learningmaterials to the schools of the Toronto District School Board as funded by the Ministry ofEducation and Training under the Investment in Classroom Learning Materials program.

The report noted that in its May 5 Ontario Budget, the Ministry of Education and Trainingannounced the Investment in Classroom Learning Materials program which provided a total of$100 million for the purchase of learning materials for schools across the Province to supportthe new Ontario curriculum in Language, Mathematics and Science and Technology. The firstphase of the program provided funding for the purchase of textbooks and learning materials in1998-99 for elementary students.

For the Toronto District School Board, the allocation of funds from this program was$13,303,975.45. Through the collaborative efforts of members of the former AcademicCurriculum Committee, school teaching and administrative staff and support staff from acrossthe school board, an order totalling $8,783,016.20 was placed under very compressedtimelines. This included an order of 365,003 books from 17 publishers. The balance ofresources available to Toronto District School Board schools will be ordered during the


460

upcoming term and will support the purchase of Kindergarten learning materials, sciencematerials and software.

Initial indications are that distribution has been completed in some schools and is incomplete forothers. A report regarding the up-to-date status of distribution was presented at the StandingCommittee meeting.

The Standing Committee RECOMMENDS that the report regarding the distribution of resourcesgenerated through the investment in Classroom Learning Materials program, be received.

4. Science and Technology Implementation

The Standing Committee had before it a report providing a summary of plans to implement TheOntario Curriculum, Grades 1-8: Science and Technology, 1998 in the Toronto District SchoolBoard.

The report advised that on March 30, 1998, the Ministry of Education and Training introducedthe Science and Technology component of The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 1-8. All schools arecurrently in the process of implementing language and mathematics components of thecurriculum, along with the Provincial Report Card. This release will complement the full range ofGrades 1 to 8 curricula being implemented by the approximately 10,000 teachers across theToronto District School Board.

In early 1999, the new Ontario Secondary School Curriculum, Grades 9-12 will be introduced sothat implementation begins for Grade 9 in September, 1999. During the current school yearimplementation of the curriculum for Grades 1-8, students in Grades 7 and 8 will requireparticular attention.

In April 1998, the Academic Curriculum Committee requested a Science and TechnologyImplementation Team of curriculum support staff from across the Toronto District School Boardto develop plans for implementing The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 1-8: Science andTechnology. This group is working together to develop a common approach to implementationacross the Toronto District School Board. They are identifying gaps between current practiceand new curriculum and analyzing the needs of schools and teachers to deal with newapproaches and expectations in the curriculum. They also recognize excellent practice used inmany of our schools and existing resources already developed in the predecessor boards of theToronto District School Board that can be aligned with the new curriculum.

Based on the work from the Science and Technology Implementation Team, the AcademicCurriculum Committee developed a three-year (June 1998 to June 2001) implementation planwith the following objectives:

1. develop a coherent view of how an integrated science and technology program is to bedelivered across the Toronto District School Board;

2. develop a coordinated set of resources to support implementation of The OntarioCurriculum, Grades 1-8: Science and Technology for all schools in the Toronto DistrictSchool Board;


461

3. prepare all teachers to use these resources to deliver the new curriculum beginning inSeptember, 1998 and to be completed by June 2001;

4. develop policies, methodologies and standards for science and technology that provide aframework for high quality programs in all classrooms; and,

5. maintain and develop facilities and equipment needed to provide suitable learningenvironments for science and technology.

To reach these objectives, teachers will require support from consultative and resource staffworking out of the Instruction Office. In addition, resources from the Ministry of Education andTraining, including grants for learning resource materials, training sessions for Board trainers,and facilities renewal grants, will be used to the fullest extent possible.

The implementation plan is divided into four phases:

1. June - August, 1998 (Preparation Phase)

During this time the Science and Technology Implementation team is focusing on teambuilding and developing an approach to planning and working together. As part of theirpreparation, the team attended the three-day Science and Technology ImplementationPlanning Workshop presented by the Ministry of Education and Training. As well, they aredeveloping prototype materials and professional development resources for teachers.Included in the materials will be assessment and reporting resources and guidelines to beintegrated with instruction and to assist teachers with use of the new Provincial ReportCard. Parent Guides showing science and technology expectations for each grade arebeing produced for release in the Fall. During this phase, the first priority is gradeappropriate support for teachers in areas where gap analysis indicates the greatest need,in particular Grades 7 and 8.

In May and June, as a first step towards classroom implementation, members of the teamdelivered orientation workshops to teachers and principals. Main features of the newcurriculum will be introduced and information provided for them to develop implementationplans for next year. In addition, teachers have registered for two series of grade specificworkshops to be held at locations across the Toronto District School Board. These includeJune after-school sessions and August summer sessions. These will be continued in theFall along with workshops on new topics.

2. September 1998 - June 1999 (Development and Initial Implementation Phase)

During this first full year of implementation, schools will develop their implementation plansfor science and technology programs, based on their current practice, to comply withrequirements of the new curriculum and begin to use new resources provided by theschool or available centrally. Teachers will begin to implement the plan in theirclassrooms and align their program with the new curriculum using new resources as theybecome available.


462

To support school and classroom efforts, the Board Implementation Team will develop anddeliver the following:

• acquisition of the first group of Toronto District School Board resource materials(classroom resource packs, assessment and evaluation exemplars, teacher guides,etc.) needed by teachers to complement school resources already available;

• staff development programs for teachers and administrators geared to new resources

and school implementation plans; • development of Board-wide policies, methodologies and standards for safe and

effective classroom practice to be followed by schools in implementing plans; and, • formation of partnerships with the community to enhance resources and programs in

science and technology.

3. September 1999 - June 2000 (Full Year Implementation)

During this year, teachers will be prepared to implement science and technology as anintegral part of their program for the full year. Where appropriate, they will plan programsin teams to ensure consistency and continuity from Grades 1 through 8 and full integrationbetween science and technology. Teachers will continue to build access to the commonToronto District School Board resource base for themselves and their students. By June,they will have developed their program to address all science and technology expectationsrequired for the grades they teach.

To support school and classroom efforts, the Board Implementation Team will focus on thefollowing:

• acquisition or development of the second group of Toronto District School Boardresource materials for Grades 1-8 (classroom resource packs, assessment andevaluation exemplars, teacher guides, etc.) needed by teachers to complement schoolresources already available;

• compiling a comprehensive common information base including all of the materials

developed and identified and connected to the curriculum for science and technology;

• ongoing staff development programs for teachers and administrators geared to newresources and school implementation plans;

• expanding partnerships with the community to enhance resources and programs in

science and technology; and, • supporting school-based integration of science and technology with other areas of the

program: outdoor and environmental education, information technology, mathematicsand languages, etc.


463

4. September 2000 - June 2001 (Consolidation Year)

During this year, schools will review and refine their implementation plans for scienceand technology integrated with other areas of the curriculum and prepare for the nextcycle of continuous improvement. Teachers will consolidate their learning from theprevious years with new resources and strategies as part of their ongoing professionaldevelopment.

To support school and classroom efforts, the Board Implementation Team will continue itswork on the following:

• the final group of Toronto District School Board resource materials for Grade 9-12(assessment and evaluation exemplars, teacher guides, etc.) needed by teachers tocomplement school resources already available;

• a comprehensive common information base including all of the materials developed

and identified and connected to the curriculum for science and technology; • continuation of the staff development program for teachers and administrators geared

to new resources and school implementation plans; • continued expansion of partnerships with the community to enhance resources and

programs in science and technology; • continued support for school-based integration of science and technology with other

areas of the program: outdoor and environmental education, information technology,mathematics and languages; and,

• Board-wide implementation of comparative data for student achievement in Grade 9

Science and Technology.

The Standing Committee RECOMMENDS that this plan be approved as the basis forimplementing The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 1-8: Science and Technology, 1998, in theToronto District School Board over the period from June 1998 to June 2001.

5. Report of the Task Group On Access to Programs and OptionalAttendance

The Standing Committee considered a report which presented a draft policy for Access toPrograms and Optional Attendance prior to community consultation.

The report advised that the Access to Programs and Optional Attendance Task Group has beenmeeting since May 11, 1998, to develop a draft policy for the consideration of the Board. TheTask Group was comprised of a varied membership. This ensured that the interests of a varietyof stakeholders were considered in the formation of the draft policy. The membership of theTask Group is included. (see page 466)


464

The Task Group, in preparing the draft policy, has endeavoured to make it concise,comprehensive, and easy to understand. As well, it was the Task Group’s objective to ensurethe policy wherever possible would assist learners in the Toronto District School Board accessschools and programs that best meet their needs, interests and aptitudes.

It will be necessary to develop administrative procedures related to the implementation andapplication of this policy once approved by the Board. These procedures will take into accountthe overriding principles of the Capital Assets Management Plan. Details related to times forapplication will also be clarified through the procedures.

The Chair’s Committee will be reviewing the matter of public response to this report.

The Standing Committee RECOMMENDS that the Draft Policy for Access to Programs andOptional Attendance, (see page 467), be received.

6. Pupil Accommodation Review Policy – Area Review Committee ProceduresPurpose

The Standing Committee had before it a report proposing Area Review Committee - Proceduresfor approval by the Toronto District School Board (see page 470).

On September 9, 1998, the Standing Committee gave approval to the Pupil AccommodationReview Policy. One of the directives approved was as follows:

4.6 The Director of Education will develop procedures as may be necessaryto support this policy and these procedures will be presented to the Boardfor approval.

The Standing Committee reports that Trustee Gershon here assumed the Chair.

Following lengthy discussion, further amendments were made to the proposed Area ReviewCommittee Procedures.

The Standing Committee RECOMMENDS that:

(a) the Area Review Committee Procedures, (see Page 470), be approved by the Board,and

(b) the Area Review Committee Procedures be forwarded to the same groups who receivedthe Pupil Accommodation Review Policy.

8. Notice of Motion

The Standing Committee received the following notice of motion for consideration at its nextmeeting, October 14, 1998:

Trustees Nyberg and Laskin: with respect to the Nelson MandelaChildren’s event on September 25, 1998.


465

9. New Business

(a) The Standing Committee reports having discussed the following additional matters:

Waiver fees for people living on disability pensions and for students with a disability,who are interested in attending Continuing Education Courses. Staff will addressthis matter at the Board meeting. (see Page 433)

• Opening libraries in schools that offer adult day school programs due to thepossibility of library closures. Staff anticipate this matter will be resolved shortly.

(b) The Standing Committee reports receiving a copy of the following information, whichwas distributed:

• Memo to all Trustees from Rod Thompson, dated September 15, 1998, concerningthe Ministry of Education and Training Sessions for the Ontario Curriculum – CoreFrench, Arts, Health and Physical Education.

• “Announcing . . . Classroom Connections” published by a non-profit organizationcommitted to supporting publicly funded education.

10. Adjournment

The Standing Committee (Public Session) adjourned at 10:20 p.m. and convened in PrivateSession.


Jeff KendallCo-Chair of Standing Committee

Adopted, September 23, 1998.


466


Access to Programs and Optional Attendance Task Group Membership (see page 464)

Manager James A. Williamson

Trustees Judi CoddSuzan HallDoug Stephens

Staff Maureen KaukinenAlison PearceBill Thachuk

Principals/Vice-Principals Marion BrumwellJoan WandJudy Kennedy

School Advisory Councils Cheryl IrvingRuth JorgensenDoug Warner

Federations/Unions/Associations Kevin PartingtonJudy MarshallJohn Weatherup

Student Jenny Waller

Community/Parent Organizations Christine BradshawJulian Heller

Recording Secretary Marie Parise


467

Draft Policy


Access to Programs and Optional Attendance (see page 464)

*As defined in the Education Act

Optional Attendance - Regular Schools and Programs:

Students who are residents of the City of Toronto and eligible to attend an elementary, middle,senior, junior high or secondary school are eligible to apply for enrolment in a school within theToronto District School Board, outside their regular attendance area subject to the guidelinesoutlined below:

1. If sufficient space and a suitable program are available at the requested school.

2. Parents or guardians and students who are 18 years of age or older may apply to onlyone school for optional attendance.

3. Students will be admitted in the order in which applications are received subject to thefollowing admission priorities:

Priority 1:Students who have siblings already in the requested school and expected to be in theschool for the next school year.

Priority 2:Students attending licensed child care in the requested school.

Priority 3:Students attending licensed child care in the catchment area of the requested school.

The Toronto District School Board values parental andstudent choice within the educational system. Studentsshould have the right to access programs and schools thatbest meet their needs, interests and aptitudes. Each studentwho is otherwise eligible to attend school will have the rightto attend a designated school based on their or theirparents’/guardians’* residential address. In addition,students will be provided with opportunities to accessschools and programs outside the designated attendancearea in which they reside.


468

Priority 4:Students receiving child care in the catchment area of the requested school.

Priority 5:Other students resident in the Toronto District School Board.

Priority 6:Students from outside the Toronto District School Board.

4. Should sufficient space not be available, students’ names will be placed on a waiting listin the order in which applications are received.

5. Students who receive approval to attend a school under the Optional Attendance Policyare expected to continue to attend that school until graduation from that school.

6. No transportation will be provided.

Optional Attendance - Specialized Programs:

Where schools or sections of schools are dedicated to specialized programs such as the arts,science and technology, the International Baccalaureate, etc., access to such schools and/orprograms will be open to any student resident in the Toronto District School Board subject to theguidelines outlined below:

1. Students will be selected for admission to such schools and programs subject to thestudent meeting the required admission criteria of such schools and programs.

2. Students who meet the required criteria will be admitted in the order in whichapplications are received.

3. If more students meet the criteria than there are spaces available, students will beplaced on a waiting list in the order in which applications are received.


Access to Alternative Schools or Programs:

All students resident in the Toronto District School Board are eligible to attend any alternativeschool and/or program subject to the guidelines outlined:

1. The student and parent meet the required admission criteria for the school or program.

2. Students who meet the required criteria will be admitted in the order in whichapplications are received.

3. If more students meet the criteria than there are spaces available, students will beplaced on a waiting list in the order in which applications are received.


469


French Immersion Programs:

All students in the Toronto District School Board will have the right to attend a FrenchImmersion program and will have a designated school which they have the right to attend toaccess the program. Right of access is subject to the guidelines outlined below:

1. Access can be made only at the designated grade level for entry to early, middle, or lateimmersion programs.

2. Admission is subject to sufficient space being available.

3. Admission will be in the order in which the applications are received.

4. Should sufficient space not be available in a student’s designated school, they will beoffered a place in the next school offering a French Immersion program that is closest totheir residence and where space is available.

5. Once admitted to a school, the student will have the right to complete the FrenchImmersion program in the schools designated to deliver French Immersion programs forthat area.

6. Transportation will be provided according to the policy of the Toronto District SchoolBoard.


470

Facilities and Capital ProgramT o r o n t o D i s t r i c t S c h o o l B o a r d

Area Review CommitteeProcedures

S e p t e m b e r 1 9 9 8


471


1998-99

Study Plan

Activity Time Allocated(estimated)

Completion Date Comments


September 9, 1998September 23, 1998

♦ Standing♦ Board♦ TDSB policy for

accommodation reviewsFacility Utilization Plan Sept. – Oct.

2 monthsOctober 28, 1998 ♦ Board

♦ Identification of ReviewAreas for study

Review Area Study Plans

November 18, 1998November 25, 1998

♦ Standing♦ Board

Area Review CommitteeProcess (ARC)

Dec. – Feb.3 months

February 26, 1999 ♦ establishment of AreaReview Committees

♦ all committee work to becompleted during this timeperiod including publicmeetings regarding ARCpreferredrecommendation(s)

ARC Recommendationssubmitted to Executive

Officer

First weekof March

March 5,1999 ♦ Executive Officer hasopportunity to review ARCrecommendation(s)

Publication to Community ofrecommendation(s) going to

Board

Two weeks prior toApril 1999

Standing CommitteeMeeting

♦ Executive Officer toforward staffrecommendation(s) toBoard as well as finalARC recommendation(s)

♦ Community to have atminimum two weeksnotice prior to Board

Final Board Approval April 1999Board Meeting

♦ Board♦ Board will establish

timelines forimplementation ofrecommendation(s)

Implementation andcommunication of Board

decisions

To be determined ♦ establishment ofimplementation committee


472

AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE

Role of an Area Review Committee

An Area Review Committee (ARC) is a designated group of elected andappointed individuals whose mandate is to follow an approved set of proceduresin order to make recommendation(s) of an alternative accommodation option(s)to the Executive Officer in a predetermined review area supported bysubstantiated data and valid reasons.

Composition

VOTING MEMBERS

♦ one (1) parent representative from each school*♦ the principal from each school♦ one (1) student from each secondary school*♦ a minimum of two (2) community members-at-large (not to exceed 10% of committee

membership)

*if a dual track school is involved, a parent representative and student for each trackwould be allowed as a member

NON-VOTING MEMBERS

♦ applicable Trustee(s)♦ applicable School Superintendent(s)♦ designated Facility and Capital Program staff

Public Notice

Staff and parents in the school(s) identified for a review area will be informed in writing that anArea Review Committee has been established for the purpose of considering alternativeaccommodation option(s) in the designated review area.

Recognized community organizations will be informed of the meetings of theArea Review Committee and may address the Area Review Committee where appropriate.Members of Provincial Parliament and the City Councilor(s) for the Ward(s) in which a school orschools have been identified for study will be informed of the Area Review Committee’s meetingdates and invited to attend where appropriate.


473

Procedures for an Area Review Committee

1. The ARC shall have its first meeting after Board approval of the Study Plan andestablishment of the Area Review Committee.

2. The first meeting of the ARC will be called by a designated School Superintendent. Thedesignated School Superintendent will act as Chair of the committee while it is inexistence.

3. The ARC will operate within the timelines of the Study Plan.

4. Prior to the first meeting of the ARC, each participating school will elect the parentrepresentatives at a public meeting co-chaired by the school principal and school councilchair.

5. Prior to the first meeting of the ARC, each Student Council in the secondary schoolsidentified will select the student representative(s).

6. Prior to the first meeting of the ARC, the Chair will circulate a public notice to the staff,parents and community in the schools identified for a review area as outlined above.

7. The ARC will select the community members-at-large.

8. Each ARC shall have the support of a planning staff resource person appointed by theFacilities and Capital Program Department.

9. The Facilities and Capital Program Department will provide a recording secretary for theArea Review Committee.

10. At the first meeting of the Area Review Committee, each participant will receive aninformation package. It will include information such as:

♦ pupil accommodation recommendation(s) from staff

♦ actual and projected enrolments

♦ capacity of each school

♦ special programs within each school

♦ portables on site and their usage

♦ current attendance boundaries

♦ each facility’s condition assessment


474

♦ the cost per pupil of operating the facility

♦ shared-use agreements in effect (tenants)

♦ other relevant data as appropriate

Terms of Reference of the Area Review Committee

The Area Review Committee will be asked to:

1. Review the background information package provided by staff.

2. Explore alternative accommodation solutions.

3. Develop preferred alternative accommodation recommendation(s).

4. Hold a public meeting(s) to receive community input on recommendation(s).

5. Submit final recommendation(s) to the Executive Officer, through a written report, of thepreferred alternative accommodation option(s).

Executive Officer Review

The Executive Officer will review the recommendation(s) of the Area Review Committee andprepare a report for Executive Council.

The Executive Officer will advise the Area Review Committee of the recommendation(s) that willbe submitted to Board at minimum of two weeks prior to the Standing Committee meeting of theBoard at which they are first presented.

Board Approval

The Area Review Committee and any member of the public will have an opportunity to make aformal presentation to the Board.

Once a final recommendation(s) has received Board approval, the applicable Superintendent(s)of School(s) will establish an implementation committee.

The Board will define the timelines for the implementation of the recommendation(s).


475

155 College Street

Toronto, ON M5T 1P6

Tel.: (416) 397-3000

Fax: (416) 393-9969

Template for Public Notice to the Community

At the Board meeting on November 25, 1998, the Board approved the followingrecommendations:

“

“

Please be advised that an Area Review Committee (ARC) has been established for your community thatwill review alternative accommodation models involving the following schools:

♦ XXX P.S.♦ XXX P.S.♦ XXX P.S.♦ XXX P.S.

Your Principal and local School Council will be selecting a parent representative to participate.Your Principal and the selected representative will work along with your local Trustee in thenewly established Area Review Committee.

Please contact your local School Council or school Principal if you would like to participate or submitcomments regarding the proposed review. Community members who wish to be considered forcommittee membership as a member-at- large should contact their Principal or School Council Chair toindicate their interest.

Once the Area Review Committee has developed alternative accommodation models a public meetingwill be held to receive community input.


476

155 College Street

Toronto, ON M5T 1P6

Tel.: (416) 397-3000

Fax: (416) 393-9969

AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE

CONSULTATION COMMENT SHEET

COMMENTS: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Name: _____________________________________________________________Address: ___________________________________________________________Any School Age Child(ren)? ____________________________________________Which School(s)?: ___________________________________________________Which Grade(s)?: ____________________________________________________

Thank you for your participation. Please give this form to your principal or mail or fax directly to:

Facilities and Capital ProgramPlanning Department

Toronto District School Board45 York Mills Road

Toronto, OntarioM2P 1B6

Phone Number: 397-2528/ Fax Number 397-2640


477

Report No. 6, Chair's Committee

Monday, September 14, 1998

To the Chair and Members of theToronto District School Board:

A meeting of the Chair's Committee was held this day in the Chair's Office, 155 College Street,Toronto, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:55 p.m.. The following Committee members were present:Trustees Nyberg (Chair), Gershon, Hall and Kendall. The following members were alsopresent: Trustees Codd, Ferreira, Laskin, Mankovsky, Nash and Schaeffer.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

1. Ending Time for Board and Standing Committee Meetings (Amended, see page436)

The Committee considered the notice of motion from Trustee Stephens requesting that anending time be established for Board and Standing Committee meetings.

It is RECOMMENDED:

(a) That the following be the procedure for establishing an ending time for Board meetings:

That, should a Board meeting not complete its business by 11:00 p.m., the memberspeaking will be permitted to conclude their remarks and the Board will then decide,without debate, how to proceed in order with the following steps:

1. Consider a motion to end debate and proceed to a vote on the matter before it,such motion to be carried by a majority of all members of the Board.

2. A motion to adjourn the Board and to refer all unfinished business to a SpecialBoard meeting to be convened the following Wednesday evening, 7:00 p.m., orat a time to be decided by the Chair in consultation with the Director.

Should step 2 be carried, the meeting ends.

3. A motion to extend the Board meeting for up to one hour, such motion to becarried by a majority of all members of the Board.

If the Board gets to step 3 and it fails to receive the required votes to be carried, themeeting will end as if step 2 had been carried.

Should there be unfinished business after the Board has extended the meeting for onehour, the Board will again consider the above steps, without debate.

Minutes of the Toronto District School Board______September 23, 1998

478

Note (1): If the Board is meeting in Committee of the Whole at theending time for meetings, the Committee of the Whole willconsider step 1 as outlined above, and then rise and reportto the Board. Once the recommendations of theCommittee of the Whole have been voted on by the Board,the Board will proceed to steps 2 and 3.

Note (2): A motion to adjourn a meeting is always is order, providedsome business has been completed since such a motionwas last considered.

Note (3): A motion to rise and report is always in order in theCommittee of the Whole.

(b) That the following be the procedure for establishing an ending time for aStanding Committee meeting:

The rules for ending a Standing Committee meeting will be the same as ending a Boardmeeting, with the necessary adjustments. Should a Standing Committee adjourn withoutcompleting the business before it, all unfinished business will be referred to the nextregular Board meeting without recommendation. The unfinished business sent to Boardwithout recommendation will be considered as part of the Standing Committee report, atthe end of that report.

Notice to Revise Bylaws

The Chair's Committee GIVES NOTICE to the Board that the following revision (byaddition) to the Board's Bylaws, Rules for Board Meetings, section 8, will be presentedfor approval at the next Board meeting:

8.25 The Board may establish a procedure to provide an ending timefor meetings. This procedure will prevail over rules foradjournment set out in these Bylaws.

2. Procedures for the Organization and Operation of Non-Legislated AdvisoryCommittees

The Chair's Committee considered a report of the Director of Education concerning aprocedure for the organization and operation of non-legislated advisory committees.

At its meeting held on June 24, 1998, the Board adopted the following resolution:

That the Board approve the establishment of an Equity in EducationAdvisory Committee.

That the Equity in Education Advisory Committee be established andgiven a mandate as soon as possible after the Board has adopted aprocedure for the organization and operation of non-legislated advisorycommittees.


479

That the Director, in consultation with the Chair's Committee (including allinterested trustees), undertake to develop a procedure for theorganization and operation of non-legislated advisory committees.

That the Director report to the Board with a recommended procedure forthe organization and operation of non-legislated advisory committees nolater than September 30, 1998.

That the Director designate appropriate staff to work with interestedtrustees to develop a mandate for the Equity in Education AdvisoryCommittee, and that members of the LEIC Equity Sub-Committee andrepresentatives of equity-seeking organizations and parents be invited toparticipate in this process.

The important work of establishing the mandate and membership of the Equity inEducation Advisory Committee can begin once the Board has put in place proceduresfor the organization and operation of non-legislated advisory committees.

It is RECOMMENDED that the following be approved as procedures for the organizationand operation of non-legislated advisory committees:

(a) Non-legislated advisory committees will publish a meeting schedule as soon as itis known, with no fewer than four meetings per year.

(b) The Chair of the non-legislated advisory committee, with staff, will be responsiblefor the agenda for meetings. The Board (or the Standing Committee) and theDirector can refer matters to non-legislated advisory committees. Individualcommittee members of a non-legislated advisory committee can request that amatter be considered by that committee. Groups such as school councils,parent and community organizations, student associations and councils, andinterested individuals can write to the Chair and staff of a non-legislated advisorycommittee requesting that a matter be considered.

(c) Non-legislated advisory committees will operate their meetings as the committeedecides. It is suggested that these committees operate informally and byconsensus whenever possible. If a majority of the committee wishes to operateformally, the Board's Bylaws, as applicable, will be the rules of procedure. Non-legislated advisory committees may establish sub-groups on an ad hoc basis toreview specific matters and report back to the committee.

(d) The Director and staff will update the Board (or the Standing Committee) at leasttwice a year on the activities of each non-legislated advisory committee. TheBoard may request staff for additional reports or updates, or request a report orupdate on a specific matter under consideration by a non-legislated advisorycommittee.


480

3. Consultations Arising from the Reports of the Policies and ProceduresTask Groups

The Committee considered a staff update on the current status of the policies andprocedures task groups, particularly as regards the consultations planned by these taskgroups.

It is RECOMMENDED:

(a) That the Board proceed with the consultation dates scheduled for the Parent andCommunity Involvement Task Group report of October 6 and October 15, 1998;and

(b) That staff be requested to review the possibility of 'bundling' togetherconsultations for different task group reports; and

(c) That consideration be given to reviewing alternate forms of receiving parent andcommunity responses to task group reports, particularly as previously discussedby the Policies and Procedures Project Team.

4. Education Improvement Commission Consultation Concerning SchoolCouncils

For the information of the School Board, Trustees Gershon, Hall and Laskin willparticipate in the EIC's school council consultation tour meetings held in Toronto.


GAIL NYBERGChair of Committee

Adopted, as amended, September 23, 1998.


481

REPORT NO. 5, SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

14 September 1998

The Special Education Advisory Committee met this day in the Board Room, 155College Street, commencing at 7:32 p.m. and concluding at 10:00 p.m.

Members Present:Trustee Brian Blakeley, Ward 11Sandra Dell, Easter Seal Society (Chair)Merle Fedirchuk, Brain Injury Association of TorontoAllison Ferrier, VOICE for Hearing Impaired ChildrenLiz Fisher, CommunityDerryn Gill, Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus Association of OntarioTrustee Suzan Hall, Ward 19 (Vice-Chair)Terry Lustig, VIEWS for Visually ImpairedAnne McCauley, Autism Society of OntarioJanice Owen, CommunityDebbie Philips, Down Syndrome Association of Metro TorontoCandice Potter, Tourette Syndrome Association of Metropolitan TorontoTrustee Lilein Schaeffer, Ward 15Catherine Stewart, Metro Toronto Association for Community LivingPat Sullivan, Learning Disabilities AssociationKetisha Thompson, CommunityMichelle Worley, Association for Bright Children

Regrets:Bruce Creighton, Ontario Federation for Cerebral Palsy

Alternates Present:Susan Kelsall, Association for Bright ChildrenMara Meikle, Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus Association of OntarioRobert Perkins, Down Syndrome Association of Metropolitan TorontoCay Shedden, Metro Toronto Association for Community LivingHyla Scherer, Brain Injury Association of Toronto

This report does not contain recommendations. It is for the information of the Board.

1. Presentations:

a) Update on Community Care Access Centres – School Health SupportServices

Staff advised that the delivery of school health support services is in a period oftransition. The six community care access centres in Toronto for Child andFamily programs are in the process of coordinating the continuity andimprovement of the delivery of school health support services. Staff providedclarification and responded to questions by the Committee.


482

b) Pupil Accommodation Review Policy

The Committee received for information the following documents: a letter, 11 September 1998, titled “Pupil Accommodation Review Policy”,

inviting the community to submit input prior to the consideration of the Policyby the Toronto District School Board at its meeting on 23 September 1998;

a staff report, 1 September 1998, “Area Review Committee Procedures, September 1998” which will be

considered by the TDSB at its meeting on 23 September 1998.

In highlighting the principal aspects of the Pupil Accommodation Review Policy,staff indicated that the policy outlines a process of data analysis and parental andcommunity consultation/participation.

Staff invited S.E.A.C. members to provide their input prior to the submission ofthe Policy and its Procedures to the Board at its meeting on 23 September 1998.

c) School Profiles 1998

The Committee received for information a memorandum outlining thedevelopment of school profiles together with a sample profile on a fictitiousschool. A section on special education programs is included in the sampleprofile. The Committee revised the section dealing with special education tomore effectively reflect the programs and services being offered and the meansby which to access these programs and services.

d) Highlights on Bill 181 – Identification and Placement of Exceptional Pupilsand Individual Education Plan

The Committee received for information: a staff document highlighting the changes resulting from Bill 181

“Identification and Placement of Exceptional Pupils” effective September 1,1998. The highlights include the changes, and the resulting implications forprincipals, parents and students. The document (on file) will be circulated toall schools; and

A draft “Individual Education Plan” to be finalized for circulation to schools bythe end of September 1998.

The Committee advises that its members are in support of the draft IndividualEducation Plan as revised by input provided to staff.

Appreciation was expressed to all special education staff who have contributed tothe development of the Individual Education Plan.

e) Impact of the Provincial Funding Model – September 1998

Trustee Hall provided a brief update on the document “Impact of the ProvincialFunding Model – September 1998” as it specifically relates to provincial cuts tothe TDSB special education programs and services.


483

f) Update on Intensive Support Amount (ISA) Claims

Staff updated the Committee on the Intensive Support Amount (ISA) Claims andresponded to questions. Further information will be provided as soon asconfirmation of levels of payment is received from the Ministry of Education andTraining.

2. Events and Activities – Local Associations

a) The Easter Seal Society:• hosted the Parent/Delegate Annual Provincial Conference on September 11

– 13, 1998. The guest speaker was Lindsey Moir recently appointed by theMinistry of Education and Training to conduct ISA validations throughout theProvince;

• took part in the consultation process for the Ontario Disabilities Act andprovided input; and

• submitted a letter, August 17, 1998, to Elizabeth Witmer, Minister of Health,expressing concerns regarding school health support services (on file).

b) The Brain Injury Association of Toronto has moved to new offices at 1 St. ClairAvenue East, Suite 500, Toronto, Ontario M4T 2V7 – tel: (416) 513-1903 andfax: (416) 964-2493.

c) A workshop on social, emotional and behavioural issues will be hosted by VOICEfor Hearing Impaired Children on September 17, 1998, 7:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.,5050 Yonge Street. Dr. Maria Vokai will be the guest speaker.

3. Training Session for S.E.A.C. Members

A Training Session for S.E.A.C. members and alternates will be held on Monday,28 September, 1998, 7:30 p.m., in the Board Room at 45 York Mills Road. Thetheme is “S.E.A.C. as a Partner”. The presenter is Lynn Ziraldo, Chair of theMinister’s Advisory Council on Special Education.

The Committee agreed that an invitation be extended to members of the ProvincialAssociation Advisory Committee.

4. Expression of Appreciation

The Committee wishes to convey its thanks and appreciation to those specialeducation staff members who have retired and who have served both the TDSB andits predecessor boards. Amongst these individuals are Madge Logan, Colin Dungey,Carol Christie, Stan Draffin, Ken McGhee, Larry Street, Anna Pataky and LeonThompson all of whom have demonstrated their professionalism, dedication andcommitment towards providing quality service to pupils with exceptional needs.


Sandra DellReceived, September 23, 1998. Chair


484

REPORT NO. 2 - EDITORIAL BOARD FOR THE TRUSTEES' NEWSLETTER

September 17, 1998


The Editorial Board for the Trustees' Newsletter met this day at 11:40 a.m. andadjourned at 1:15 p.m. The following members were present: Trustees Laskin andSchaeffer; K. Cox, B. Lenglet, A.M. Males and B. Smith. Trustees Atkinson, Ferreira,Gershon and Hill were also present. Trustee Ward sent her regrets.

The Editorial Board decided to report and recommend as follows:

1. Chair, pro tem.

For the September 17, 1998 meeting, the Editorial Board appointed Trustee ShelleyLaskin as Chair, pro tem.

2. Trustees' Newsletter Generic Content

The Editorial Board agreed on the generic content of the inside two pages of the Fall1998 Trustees' Newsletter. As decided previously, the outside two pages will beindividualized to the extent desired by each trustee. The Communications Project Teamhas assembled additional material which can be used by individual trustees for the frontand back pages of their newsletter.

The Editorial Board for the Trustees' Newsletter RECOMMENDS that the Board approvethe proposed generic content of the inside two pages of the Fall 1998 Trustees'Newsletter.

3. Trustees' Newsletter - Other Matters

For the information of the Board - Staff was requested to prepare a report for the Boardon the Trustees' Newsletter as part of the Communications Strategy. The EditorialBoard expressed its appreciation for the fact that the two-page funding section of theTrustees' Newsletter will be translated into different languages and made available totrustees who wish to use it.

4. Appreciation to Staff

For the information of the Board - Trustees who sat on the Editorial Board expressedtheir appreciation to staff members who participated in the work of their Board for theirprofessionalism and their patience.


SHELLEY LASKINChair

Adopted, September 23, 1998


485

Report No. 15, Committee of the Whole(Private Session)

September 23, 1998


A meeting of the Committee of the Whole (Private Session) convened at 6:10 p.m. in theBoard Room at 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario with Trustee Suzan Hall, Vice-Chairof the Board, presiding.

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

1. Declarations of Possible Conflicts of Interest

Trustee Atkinson declared a conflict of interest with regard to the matters of elementarymemorandum of settlement and update on negotiations, and indicated that the generalnature of her interest is that her daughter is a member of OSSTF. She did not take partin the discussion or vote on these matters.

Trustee Blakeley declared a conflict of interest with regard to the matter of establishingexecutive offices staffing complement. His conflict of interest is due to the fact that he isan employee of the union which represents support staff. He did not take part in thediscussion or vote on this matter.

Trustee Kendall declared a conflict of interest with regard to the matters elementarymemorandum of settlement and update on negotiations, due to the fact that his father isa school principal. He did not take part in the discussion or vote on this matter.

2. Staff Changes

The Committee of the Whole recommends approval of the Staff Changes on file in theDirector's Office.

3. Elementary Memorandum of Settlement

The Committee of the Whole recommends that the Toronto District School Board ratifythe Memorandum of Settlement between the Toronto District School Board and theElementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario.

4. Report No. 12, Standing Committee

The Committee of the Whole recommends that Report No. 12, Standing Committee(Private Session), September 9, 1998, be adopted. (Page 488)


486

5. Report No. 13, Standing Committee

The Committee of the Whole recommends that Report No. 13, Standing Committee(Private Session), September 16, 1998, be adopted. (Page 521).

6. Report No. 6, Chair's Committee

The Committee of the Whole recommends that Report No. 6, Chair's Committee(Private Session), September 14, 1998, be referred to the next Standing Committeemeeting.

7. Report and Presentation of Funding Model

For the information of the Board, a presentation was given by the Manager –Communications and Public Affairs, on the Government’s funding model and its impacton the delivery of education in the Toronto area.

8. Establishing Executive Offices Staffing Complement and Process

The Committee of the Whole Board RECOMMENDS that:

(a) the proposed model for the Senior Administrative Services Unit,with the job titles, job descriptions and salary levels, be approved;

(b) the position of Administrative Assistant for each SchoolSuperintendent, with its job description and salary level, beapproved;

(c) the Early Leaving Plan be offered to the non-union identifiedemployees who are directly affected by the new administrativestructure for Senior Administrative Services and administrativesupport for School Superintendents. Final decisions on thenumber who will be approved for the plan are totally contingentupon Board needs and will not exceed the numbers that will beredundant in the restructuring;

(d) staff seek the permission of the CUPE Union Executive to offerthe Early Leaving Plan to the 27 affected union employees;

(e) the job posting, placement and interview processes, as described,begin immediately, with the organization of the SeniorAdministrative Services Unit in place by November 30, 1998;

(f) the job posting and interview process for the positions ofAdministrative Assistant to School Superintendents commenceafter the organization of the Senior Administrative Services Unithas been completed.


487

9. Secondary Negotiations

The Committee of the Whole recommends that an oral report of staff on secondarynegotiations be received.

The Committee of the Whole further recommends that, with regard to the matter ofsecondary teacher negotiations only, the Chair and Director be given the authority totake the necessary measures to implement actions that are in congruence with thegeneral direction of decisions of the Board, such actions to be subject to confirmation ata Special Board meeting to be called as expeditiously as possible.


Suzan HallChair of Committee


488

REPORT NO. 12, STANDING COMMITTEE (Private Session)

September 9, 1998

To the Chair and Members ofthe Committee of the Whole(Private Session):

The Standing Committee of the Toronto District School Board convened at 6:00 p.m. onSeptember 9, 1998, in the Board Room at 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Co-Chair Jeff Kendall presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Brian Blakeley, DonnaCansfield, Diane Cleary, Judi Codd, Christine Ferreira, Gerri Gershon, Suzan Hall,Elizabeth Hill, Jeff Kendall, Shelley Laskin, Sheine Mankovsky, David Moll, ElizebethMoyer, Ron McNaughton, Barbara Nash, Gail Nyberg, Stephnie Payne, Lilein Schaeffer,Doug Stephens, Mike Thomas and Sheila Ward.

3. Declarations of possible Conflicts of Interest

Trustee Atkinson declared a possible conflict of interest with regard to the matter ofnegotiations considered in private session. Trustee Atkinson indicated that the generalnature of her interest is that her daughter is a member of OSSTF. Trustee Atkinsonretired from the meeting during consideration of this item.

Trustee Blakely declared a possible conflict of interest with regard to the matter of partsof a report concerning a Capital Assets Management Plan considered in private session.Trustee Blakely indicated that the general nature of his interest is that he is an employeeof the union that represents support staff. Trustee Blakely retired from the meetingduring the consideration of this item.

4. Capital Assets Management Plan (see Page 491)

The Standing Committee considered a staff report presenting a Capital AssetsManagement Plan for approval and forwarding to the Ministry of Education and Trainingby September 30, 1998.

The Ministry of Education and Training issued Regulation 497/97 in the fall of 1997 andsubsequently revised it through a Ministry Memorandum on June 16, 1998. Amongmany requirements contained in the legislation is the requirement that boards “develop astrategic plan which would identify areas in which the rationalization of programming wasbeing contemplated and processes that the Board would follow to identify specificschools which would be consolidated following the 1998-99 academic year which ensureappropriate consultation with parents and the community. The strategic plan is also toinclude processes which ensure that appropriate alternative arrangements for pupils inthese schools are made.”

In January 1998, a Project Team was struck to develop a Capital Assets ManagementStrategy. The Project Team has completed its work. Attached is a Capital AssetsManagement Plan which results from the work of the Project Team. It also is the


489

strategic plan for the 1998-99 school year to address the issues of school and programconsolidation. The Plan has also been prepared in response to the Ministry of Educationand Training’s requirements.

The Standing Committee RECOMMENDS that the attached Capital Assets ManagementPlan (see page 474) be approved and shared, as appropriate, with the Ministry ofEducation and Training.

5. Negotiations Update

The Standing Committee reports having received an oral update from staff concerningnegotiations matters.

6. Supervisory Officer Appointment, Acting

The Standing Committee RECOMMENDS that Rollit Goldring be appointed to theposition of Acting Superintendent (to replace Evelyn Wilson, who is temporarily onleave), to a date not later than January 8, 1999.


Jeff Kendall,Chair of Committee

Adopted, September 23, 1998


490

Blank page


491

A CAPITAL ASSETSMANAGEMENT PLAN

September 23, 1998


492

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: Purpose................................................................................ 493SECTION 2: Historical Background........................................................ 494

2.1 Capital Program - Toronto District School Board............................................ 494

SECTION 3: PROVINCIAL FUNDING MODEL......................................... 495

3.1 Provincial Assumptions/Beliefs........................................................................... 495

3.2 A Funding Model with Three Components ....................................................... 4963.2.1 New Pupil Places .......................................................................................... 4963.2.2 Operations and Maintenance......................................................................... 4973.2.3 Facility Renewal ........................................................................................... 497

SECTION 4: ANALYSIS............................................................................ 498

4.1 TDSB Total Square Footage ............................................................................... 498

4.2 Reductions Required To Balance Requirements With Provincial Funding ... 498

4.3 TDSB Capital Needs ............................................................................................ 4994.3.1 New Pupil Places .......................................................................................... 4994.3.2 Replacements ................................................................................................ 499

4.4 TDSB Operating Needs ....................................................................................... 5004.4.1 School Operations ......................................................................................... 5004.4.2 Facilities Renewal ......................................................................................... 500

4.5 Summary: Unmet Needs...................................................................................... 501SECTION 5: impact .................................................................................. 502SECTION 6: BELIEF STATEMENTS - TDSB FACILITIES ...................... 503SECTION 7: GOALS ................................................................................. 505SECTION 8: OBJECTIVES ....................................................................... 506

8.1 Toronto District School Board Objectives ......................................................... 5068.1.1 Space Utilization ........................................................................................... 5068.1.2 Program Rationalization................................................................................ 5068.1.3 Plant Operations Cost Reductions

(Custodial, Maintenance and Utility Costs)................................................. 5078.1.4 Property Development .................................................................................. 5078.1.5 Rental and Leasing of Surplus Space............................................................ 5088.1.6 Permitting Community Use of School Space................................................ 5088.1.7 Child Care ..................................................................................................... 5088.1.8 Plant And General Administrative Space...................................................... 5088.1.9 Acquisition of School Sites:.......................................................................... 509

8.2 Municipal Objectives (New City of Toronto)..................................................... 509

SECTION 9: NEXT STEPS......................................................................... 510APPENDICES............................................................................................. 513


towards asustainable

school system

Section 1: Purpose

The purpose of this Plan is to provide the Toronto District School Board with:

(a) a capital assets management plan which would allow theToronto District School Board (TDSB) to continue to meet theprogram needs of its students within the funding parametersset by the Province. Specifically, plans will be outlined for:

(i) a response to the Ministry Of Education And Training’s(MET) funding model as it pertains to the capital assets(facilities and sites) of the Board;

(ii) managing the Board’s capital assets within theresources available;

(iii) dealing with the restrictions on the sale or lease ofSchool Board properties as contained in Regulation497/97 and its amendments;

(b) a response to the revised Ministry of Education and Training’stimeline of September 30,1998 regarding a pupilaccommodation review policy and program rationalization, andby December 31,1998 regarding capacity reduction, pursuantto the MET Memorandum dated June 16, 1998 revisingRegulation 497/97;

(c) information for trustees to assist them in capital assetsmanagement policy development; and,

(d) objectives which would allow the TDSB to continue to meetprogram needs within the parameters set by the Province.


Section 2: Historical Background

2.1 Capital Program - Toronto District School Board

Prior to the implementation of the new provincial taxation and educationfunding model, the former federation of public boards in Metropolitan Torontoutilized the combined financial resources of the entire area as derived fromlocal property taxes to administer a strong Capital Program. From theinception of The Metropolitan Toronto School Board in 1954, a Metro-wideCapital Program was one component of the initial mandate of the SchoolBoard.

During the last 40+ years, the federation of public boards in MetropolitanToronto held responsibility for an inventory of over 650 facilities accountingfor over 47 million square feet, and approximately 6,000 acres of land.

Based on the history of the existence of the various boards in MetropolitanToronto prior to the federation of boards, a significant number (approximately50%) of the buildings are over 50 years old and less than 15% are under 20years old. In fact, 70% of the buildings are over 35 years old (see AppendixA).

As a result of the aging inventory of buildings, the School Board had beenspending approximately $70 million per year in order to deal with thenecessary renovation and replacement program and for some new pupilplaces. This spending did not include certain permanent improvementprojects, such as program alterations, roof repairs, regular maintenance tofacilities, etc.

One of the cornerstones of the former MTSB Capital Program was localpriority setting, based on the needs and priorities of capital projects submittedby the former Area Boards. As a result, the former Area Boards were directlyaccountable to their communities for maintaining school environmentsconducive to students needs and learning. The local property taxes wereavailable to raise the funds as required.

With the shift in responsibility for funding school facilities to the Province, thenew Toronto District School Board’s ability to respond directly to itscommunities for facility maintenance, renewal and new pupil placesconstruction has become almost totally dependent on the Province’s newfunding model.

an aginginventory

(Appendix A)

the shiftingsands oftaxation


Section 3: PROVINCIAL FUNDING MODEL

Provincial Assumptions/Beliefs

We believe that the provincial funding model was based on a number ofassumptions/beliefs that evolved from the issues identified in Section 2. Theyare as follows:

(a) All school boards across the Province should be offering thesame level of programs and services, and the Ministry has notrecognized and funded the unique needs in the City of Torontoat the current level of service being provided.

(b) The TDSB Ceiling Cost Formula square footage standards areconsidered to be too rich and, therefore, the Ministry will notfund the capital program to this standard across the Province.

(c) Any building that is operated at less than 100% capacity isunder-utilized.

(d) Under-utilized facilities should be transferred/shared withcoterminous boards rather than new facilities being built.

(e) Any retained surplus capacity or inventory should be used as arevenue source to fund capital needs.

(f) School boards should not have permanent capacity in theirinventory beyond their current and short-term projectedenrolment needs.

(g) To reduce the burden on provincial capital funding, newfacilities will only be funded when existing facilities are fullyutilized on a district-wide basis.

(h) There are operating and maintenance inefficiencies in thecurrent system.

(i) Outsourcing is a service delivery archetype that school boardsshould seriously consider as a model for cost reduction.

(j) The funding for dedicated program-related spaces such asmusic, French, industrial arts and family studies programs andcommunity use of facilities should be reduced.

(k) The acquisition of sites will not be funded by the government.

(l) New site size standards are required and have beenestablished in the Education Development Charges (EDC)legislation.

TDSB’sunderstandings

of theProvincial

assumptions


(m) EDCs must be used to finance school sites only and theconstruction of new pupil places should be borne by provincialgrants.

(n) Public and private partnerships should be considered to

(o) Transportation is a viable operating strategy to maximizeexisting school utilization and as an alternative to new schoolconstruction.

(p) The size of the operating budget deficit, as it pertains tofacilities, will require as part of cost-reduction, theconsolidation/closure of under-utilized local neighbourhoodschools.

(q) Prescriptive funding strategies are an essential provincial toolto ensure that boards respond to Ministry expectations.

(r) Reduced funding in capital areas will not negatively impact onstudent outcomes.

A staff analysis of the impact of these assumptions can be found inAppendix B.

3.2 A Funding Model with Three Components

As a result of the changes in education funding made by the currentgovernment, property tax dollars are no longer available to the TDSB toaddress its capital needs as City of Toronto property tax dollars are nowbeing pooled to fund education across the Province. The new provincialfunding model for school accommodation forms part of the overall fundingmodel and has three components. They are as follows:

3.2.1 New Pupil Places

The grant for new pupil places will be determined on the basis of ADE(Average Daily Enrolment) vs. facility "capacity", where enrolmentexceeds total jurisdiction-wide capacity at 100% assumed utilization.No grants will be provided where enrolment is below capacity. Thefunding model for new pupil places is closely linked to EducationDevelopment Charges Regulation 20/98 and Disposition of SchoolSites Regulation 497/97, and both of these need to be viewed inrelation to one another.

This funding model for new pupil places has been driven by thedevelopment industry in response to EDCs which have been anongoing issue between the government and the private sector formany years. Only new school sites will be eligible for EDC funding,with new construction funded by the Province through the new funding

Tunder

oPr

assu

TDunders

of the Passum

(co

Appe

EDC’s ddevel

ind

SB’standings theincialptions

B’sandingovincialtions’t.)

dix B

iven bymenttry

Dsfovm

Strpn

n

ropus


model. Only boards whose enrolment exceeds Ministry capacity willbe eligible to establish an EDC.

3.2.2 Operations and Maintenance

The grant for plant operations and maintenance will be greatlyinfluenced by the manner in which capacity is calculated and howmuch gross floor area (square footage) will be recognized for fundingpurposes. For the new funding model to be applied effectively, it iscritical to determine the capacity of all existing schools. The MET ishaving difficulty establishing its data base of facilities and is severalmonths late informing boards of the capacity to be used for grantpurposes. The lateness of this information is putting considerablestrain on the planning processes of the boards. Implementation of thefunding model needs to be reviewed by the Province given thelateness of the information. A minority report to the draft report ExpertPanel on Pupil Accommodation identifies the timing concern. Althoughchanges were made to the Expert Panel report since the time of theminority report, many of the TDSB concerns were not addressed.

Supported by the efforts of the Expert Panel on the PupilAccommodation Grant Review deliberations, it was determined thatan area of 100 sq.ft. per pupil elementary and 130 sq.ft. per pupilsecondary was a reasonable average for new school construction,recognizing that the actual sq.ft. for boards across the province variedconsiderably, with only the GTA "growth" boards being close to thisnumber. Separate boards are typically below the average, and publicboards are typically above the average due to the age and mix offacilities, including auditoria and swimming pools that are typically notattached to separate schools.

Using the provincial average of $5.20 per sq.ft. for operations andmaintenance, the operating grants will be calculated as:

Grant = ADE x 100 sq.ft./130 sq.ft. per pupil x $5.20/sq.ft.

3.2.3. Facility Renewal

This grant is proposed at 64¢ per sq. ft. for buildings under 20 yearsof age and 96¢ per sq. ft. for buildings over 20 years of age. This willgenerate approximately $28 million in renewal funding for the TDSBfor expenditures currently funded through a combination ofmaintenance, permanent improvement and capital program fundingsources.

MET’capa

latarr

capitacalcu

s ratedcitiese iniving

l grantlations


Section 4: ANALYSIS

Staff have completed projections on facilities revenue and expenditures usingthe available data from the Ministry of Education and Training. A majorcomponent, school capacities, has not - at the time of the writing of this report- been released by MET. It is staff’s position that the MET’s 100% utilizationposition is unrealistic as it leaves no flexibility for increased enrolment duringa school year, accommodating students within a rotary timetable, etc. Staffhave used a 90% capacity figure to provide such flexibility and to providespace for enrolment growth over the next decade. As total system enrolmentincreases, however, the accommodation flexibility decreases until theenrolment starts to decline (projected 2008/9). Using estimated capacities,33 million sq.ft. of the Board’s 44 million sq.ft. of school space will be fundedand 11 million sq.ft. will be unfunded.

4.1 TDSB Total Square Footage

The following TDSB facility space square footage was reported to the MET(including portables):

School Space:Operating Schools 43,400,000Portables 600,000Outdoor Education Centres 160,000Sub-total 44,160,000

Other:Plant Admin. Facilities 442,000General Admin. 1,000,000Leased Facilities 1,400,000Sub-total 2,842,000

Total 47,002,000

4.2 Reductions Required To Balance Requirements With ProvincialFunding

Total Square Footage To Operate And Maintain 44,160,000Less: Target Space Requirement

Funded Space 33,000,000Unfunded 10% flex space 3,300,000

Sub-total 36,300,000Unfunded Utilized School Space 7,860,000

operat100% c

unrea

curraccomm

inven

puaccomm

requir

ing atapacitylistic

entodationtory

pilodationement


4.3 TDSB Capital Needs

Toronto District School Board’s capital funding shortfall can be directly relatedto the removal of the property tax base from the jurisdiction of the TDSB, andthe new Ministry of Education capital funding model which does notadequately reflect the capital needs of the Board.

The TDSB will require annual financial resources to reflect its need to providenew pupil places, replace existing pupil places, and acquire school sites toaugment the absence of grants for a capital program.


School Boards must have enrolment levels in excess of their schoolcapacity in order to be eligible for grants for new pupil places. Schoolboards have until December 31, 1998 to divest themselves of theirsurplus school capacity to reduce the system capacity.

Notwithstanding consolidation and closures, the Toronto DistrictSchool Board, in all likelihood, will not have an enrolment level thatexceeds its school capacity and therefore, the Board will not beeligible for grants for new pupil places to address school districtgrowth. This results in the Board being responsible for funding theprovision of new pupil places. If the Board grows at a rate of onepercent per year, TDSB would have to provide an additional 2,600pupil places per year at an average cost of approximately $13,500 perpupil place (net of GST). Not all of the 2,600 new pupil places willrequire new accommodation.

New Pupil Places Costs (unfunded): $13,500 x 600 = $8,100,000

4.3.2 Replacements

A major issue facing the board is the replacement of aging facilities. Ifcapital funds could be identified to replace five schools per year ($30million), it would create a 120 year replacement cycle for an inventoryof 600 schools and a 100 year cycle for an inventory of 500 schools.Both these cycles are well beyond recommended facility life cycles.Repair costs escalate after 35 years with most major building systemsneeding replacement beyond that point. Fifty years is a cost-effectivecycle of replacement and this would require 10 schools per yearincluded in the capital program for a 500 facility system ($60-85million) and 12 schools per year for a 600 facility system ($72-96million).

If the Toronto District School Board has to replace 2% of its pupilplaces each year, it would have to provide an additional 5,200 pupilplaces per year at an average cost of approximately $13,500 per pupilplace (net of GST).

Replacement Costs (unfunded): $13,500 X 5,200 = $70,200,000

unmetneeds

unmetneeds

unmetneeds

unmetneeds

Unmet Needs

unmetneeds


4.4 TDSB Operating Needs

The TDSB will require annual financial resources to both operate its facilitiesas well as to reflect its need to repair and maintain an aging plant.

4.4.1 School Operations

If TDSB can reduce its expenditure and operate at $5.20 per sq. ft. forthe estimated 33 million square feet recognized for grant purposes,there will still be approximately 11 million square feet (7.86 millionplus 3.3 million flex) not recognized for grant purposes. Afterconsolidation and closures, there will still be a significant number ofsquare feet (approximately 3.3 million square feet) that will requireTDSB funding in that it is unrealistic to operate at 100% of capacity. Inaddition, there is a need to retain pupil places to reflect the on-goinggrowth in Toronto. This leaves 7.86 million square feet for revenuegeneration.

1998/99 Budget Requirement (June/98 Board Report)$275,792,000Less: Provincial Funding $162,440,000Funding Shortfall $113,352,000

4.4.2 Facilities Renewal

The analysis for school operation applies equally to facilities renewal.After consolidation and closures, there will still be approximately 3.3million square feet not recognized for grant purposes, and thereby,ineligible for the allowance of 64¢ / 96¢ per square foot.

In addition, the facilities renewal allocation of 64¢ / 96¢ per squarefoot is not adequate to reflect the unique capital facilities renewalissues in Toronto. The age and condition of Toronto District schoolfacilities will require additional funding. It is anticipated that a futureProvincial Auditor’s report will substantiate the need for additionalfunds.

1998/99 Budget Requirement (June/98 Board Report)$32,600,000Less: Provincial Funding $27,500,000Funding Shortfall $ 5,100,000

unmet needs

unmet needs


4.5 Summary: Unmet Needs

Requirement Funding Shortfall$ $ $

Capital Needs:· New Pupil Places 8,100,000 0 8,100,000· Replacement Costs 70,200,000 0 70,200,000School Operations 275,792,000 162,440,000 113,352,000Facilities Renewal 32,600,000 27,500,000 5,100,000

Total $386,692,000 $189,940,000 $196,752,000

* Note: The Facilities Renewal shortfall only speaks to the 1998/99 budgetyear. It does not address the recommended 50 year replacementcycle costs (approximately $70 million per year) which we believewill be identified as an issue in a report by the Auditor-Generallater this Fall.

unmet needs

*


Section 5: IMPACT

It is clear that the Board will need to develop a plan to deal with significantly reducedfunding for facility operation and maintenance, renewal and replacement. It will alsohave to provide for the creation of new pupil places in its capital program toaccommodate enrolment growth. The size of the shortfall leads to the conclusionthat the existing levels and modes of delivery of service are no longer sustainable.The Board will need to consider the most cost-efficient ways of operating, maintainingand renewing all, or a portion of its facilities. The magnitude of the reduced provincialfunding leaves the Board with little option but to:

(a) reduce operating costs from $6.58 to $5.20/sq.ft.;

(b) consolidate school boundaries and programs andoptimize school utilization;

(c) adopt a consolidation model that would reduceoperating space by 11 million square feet (this maylead to the closure of more than 100 schools and thereduction of portable classrooms over a 3 yearperiod);

(d) generate revenue to support 3.3 million square feetrequired for program flexibility and future capacity ($5.20 x 3,300,000 = $17,160,000);

(e) maximize revenue on the unrecognized (unfunded)7.86 million square feet;

(f) maintain all leased facilities at a minimum of costrecovery; and,

(g) create alternate sources of revenue to maintain,renew and replace buildings.

challenges!


Section 6: BELIEF STATEMENTS - TDSB FACILITIES

In order to develop objectives to deal with the impact of under-funding, anumber of belief statements have been identified. The Board’s ability toadhere to the following belief statements will be influenced and, in somecases, limited by the funding made available from the Province.

(a) The focus of the Board's student accommodation objectivesand activities is the provision of appropriate sites and facilitiesto meet the educational needs of the students now and intothe future.

(b) Program requirements and student safety are key elements ofthe Board's capital program.

(c) The efficient use of existing student accommodation within theBoard’s program priority is the foundation for an effectivecapital program.

(d) There should be equitable access to specialized programsacross the City wherever possible.

(e) The Board values community schools.

(f) The Board values parental and student choice within theeducational system. Students should have the right to accessprograms and schools which best meet their needs, interestsand aptitudes where space is available.

(g) The Board believes in neighbourhood schools and thereforeresidence in the defined local catchment area should remainthe first priority for admittance to a school.

(h) Our facilities and sites are community assets and the Boardhas a responsibility to maximize the utilization of these assetsfor the benefit of TDSB students today and tomorrow.

(i) The Board has a financial responsibility to provide its servicesin a cost-efficient and cost-effective manner.

(j) The Board has a responsibility to distribute its capitalresources throughout its jurisdiction on the basis of need.

(k) The sale of a capital asset should be viewed as a last resortwhen considering revenue generation.

(l) Facility renovation (including accessibility and safetyrequirements) and replacement will remain a high priority inthe Board’s capital program for the foreseeable future.

foundationfor goals

foundationfor goals


(m) Regular maintenance, including preventive maintenance, ofour facilities is a cost effective strategy.

(n) The Board believes in accountable processes regarding itssites and facilities that provide for auditing, due process andpublic scrutiny.

(o) Consultation with parents, students and the community is anessential element in the school consolidation process.

(p) The Board, as a property owner, is a responsible member ofits neighbourhoods; it works to build a strong and co-operativerelationship with its communities.

(q) All monetary costs, including transportation, should beconsidered when proposing school closures and studentrelocation.

(r) The Board values and supports the utilization of its facilities toaccommodate child care programs where space is available(given the provincial funding, child care space can only beprovided on a cost-recovery basis).

(s) The Board has a responsibility to work with its partners toensure that sufficient spaces are in place for student learning.

Founfor(co

dation goalsn’t.)


Section 7: GOALS

Based on the preceding belief statements generated by the CAMS ProjectTeam, the following goals were identified by the Team to provide theframework for the setting of objectives to address the capital issues:

(a) to provide high quality pupil accommodation for viable programdelivery in the most efficient and effective manner within theresources available to the Board;

(b) to develop sustainable solutions to managing its capitalassets;

(c) to maximize the use of existing accommodation while keepingin mind our belief in the value of neighbourhood schools;

(d) to establish and maintain procedures for meaningfulconsultation with the general public and its public institutionsregarding school facilities and properties;

(e) to maintain property in the ownership of the Board if:

(i) future need for Board purposes isdemonstrable; and,

(ii) identification as surplus to the Board'sneeds is not clearly established;

(f) to seek innovative approaches to revenue generation throughthe maximization of its assets to benefit Toronto DistrictSchool Board students today and tomorrow; and,

(g) to support the intensification objectives of the City of Torontoand, in particular, as they might pertain to School Boardpotential surplus sites.

foundationfor

objectives


Section 8: OBJECTIVES

8.1 Toronto District School Board Objectives

8.1.1 Space Utilization

• to establish a maximum of 90% utilization as the targetcapacity for school buildings;

• to undertake a consolidation process to reduce the Board’soperating capacity as determined by objective above;

• to establish planning review areas (including bothgeographic and program elements) for the consolidationprocess;

• to set school closure targets for each review area tocumulatively bring the Board’s budget in line with provincialunder-funding;

• to establish a process for community input andconsultation in the school closure process and providesufficient time for consultation;

• to relocate and consolidate programs currently operating innon-Board owned space to available school space;

• to determine and advise schools of their maximumallowable instructional space for September, 1999; and,

• to review all school boundaries and redraw, wherefeasible, to maximize space utilization.

8.1.2 Program Rationalization

• to establish a two level system, elementary and secondary,for implementation over a phased-in period;

• to allocate student spaces for special programs on ageographical basis that provides accessibility;

• to review location, number and long-term projections formagnet-type programs (e.g., French Immersion, Arts, etc.)and develop and implement a location plan;

• to review secondary school program locations with regardto Secondary School Reform initiatives and develop andimplement a location plan;

schoolclosures

changingschool

programdelivery


• to review specialized technology programs (e.g., automechanics) and consolidate space requirements wherepracticable; and,

• to evaluate the outdoor education program and facilities.

8.1.3 Plant Operations Cost Reductions(Custodial, Maintenance and Utility Costs)

To continue to ensure health and safety factors:

• by operating and maintaining all facilities at a maximum of$5.20 per square foot; this may require:

• rationalizing levels of service, district-wide, including thetwinning of schools for caretaking purposes;

• continuing to find ways to reduce energy consumption;

• reviewing temporary replacement procedures tomaximize use of existing operations staff;

• aligning caretaking staffing practices with the permitpolicy;

• mothballing sections of schools to reduce custodial andoperating costs until enrolment justifies the use of thespace or until the space can be leased; and,

• consolidating hours of operation and availability offacilities and sites;

• by including in all new and renegotiated leasingagreements, that the tenant is to be responsible for allfacility costs and overhead (in keeping with Boardstandards); and,

• by investigating the establishment of alternate officearrangements (i.e., homes office, shared office space) forBoard staff to reduce administrative costs.

8.1.4 Property Development

• to pursue alternate uses of school properties that reflectprinciples of sound land use planning, that are sensitive topossible effects on adjacent uses, and that optimizefinancial benefit to support the Board’s educationalobjectives;

• to fully explore all financing options for capitalimprovement;

doingbusiness

differently

maximizingour assets


• to explore acquiring school sites utilizing a variety ofacquisition strategies, including options, lease, lease buy-back and site exchange; and,

• to develop property management strategies with privatesector assistance as required.

8.1.5 Rental and Leasing of Surplus Space

• to establish a standard minimum rental rate plus a locationpremium, where feasible;

• to set minimum leasing rates to include cost recovery andcapital renewal;

• to aggressively market for lease, all closed schools andadministrative facilities;

• to explore lease of available surplus space in operatingschools; and

• to reduce the number of portables as appropriate.

8.1.6 Permitting Community Use of School Space

• to negotiate an agreement with the City that reflects fullcost-recovery for services and facilities for both parties;and,

• to approve a fee schedule that reflects a minimum of fullsystem cost-recovery with varying rates by category andspace permitted.

8.1.7 Child Care

• to lease exclusive and shared use space in schools forchild care centres, where it is available, on a cost-recoverybasis as a minimum; and,

• to give child care programs a priority for availablelong-term space in schools.

8.1.8 Plant And General Administrative Space

• to review the Board’s long-term need for plant and generaladministrative space with a view to reducing space usageand to reduce the impact on the Board’s budget;

• to set, as a minimum target, rental of one-third of plant andgeneral administrative space, to offset the costs ofoperating and maintaining administrative space; and,

aggressivemarketing

userpay

child care isa priority

administrativespace reduction


• to meet with the City to explore co-operative venturesregarding the Board’s and the City’s administrative centres.

8.1.9 Acquisition of School Sites:

• to utilize, where feasible, site exchanges to acquire, whereneeded, sites in areas of growth; and,

• to meet with City councillors and staff to influence them toinclude statements in the City’s Official Plan that wouldrequire the development industry to satisfy the needs ofthe school boards in large in-fill project areas.

8.2 Municipal Objectives (New City of Toronto)

• to strengthen its working relationship with the City to allowflexibility in the use of Board properties;

• to negotiate full cost-recovery with the municipality on allshared-use space (including child care, swimming pools,etc.);

• to seek new opportunities for shared-use of Board andmunicipal properties, and facility services; and,

• to encourage the City to develop appropriate land-usepolicies to support the provision of adequate schoolfacilities in the development application process.

coping withno EDC

the City asa partner


Section 9: NEXT STEPS

The Fall term will be an extremely active one for the Board. Many reviewsand policy reports have been completed and recommendations will becoming to the Board throughout the Fall session. The chart below indicateswhat must be done in the coming months.

Activity Target Timeline• accommodation grants – recalculation (once

MET forwards its calculations on buildingcapacities)

September/98

• Pupil Accommodation Review Policy bySeptember 30/98 as required by Regulation497/97

September/98

• a plan for program rationalization and schoolconsolidation (requirement – revisedRegulation 497/97)

September/98

• interdisciplinary teams of staff need to beestablished for:

- program rationalization

- school consolidation data analysis

September/98September/98

• establishment of a Board committee to reviewproperty matters

September/98

• school consolidation areas and excesscapacity (Facilities Utilization Plan)

October/98

• leasing rates approved November/98• Optional Attendance, Community Use of

Schools, and Child Care in Schools PoliciesFall/98

• program rationalization ongoing

Responding to the Changing Requirements of the MET

The requirement for disposal of board surplus properties by September 1,1998 has been removed as a result of a June 16, 1998 memorandum to theboards. Boards now have the opportunity of reducing the capacity figuresused in the calculation of the Grants for New Pupil Places for 1999/2000 andsubsequent years if they:

(a) resolve, as a board, by December 31,1998 to close the schoolsafter the 1998/99 academic year; and,

(b) within thirty days of passing the resolution, offer the surplusschools at no charge to the coterminous boards or offer themto the Ontario Realty Corporation or notify the Minister to sellthem in accordance with agreements developed with theEducation Improvement Commission.


Boards also have the option of selling surplus schools at fair market valueand retaining the proceeds to repair and renovate existing schools orconstruct new schools according to the board’s own priorities. They will nothave to wait until December 31, 1998 to do so. However, the capacity figuresused for grant purposes will not be reduced if disposition occurs afterDecember 31, 1998. Nevertheless the properties must first be offered to thepublic bodies on the ‘pecking’ order specified in Regulation 497/97 (whichincludes the coterminous boards) at a reduced price (not to exceed the NewPupil Places grant).

AnalysisThe changing of the disposal date from September 1, 1998 to December 31,1998 for surplus properties does not impact on the TDSB for the followingreasons:

• The process to do so would be too rushed and without adequateconsultation time with our communities.

• The provincial under-funding of the Board makes it imperative that theBoard seek optimum revenue generation from its surplus properties toensure that the operating schools are in good condition with sufficientpupil places for a growing enrolment.

• Giving the schools away erodes the needed asset base for revenuegeneration.

• The offering of surplus schools to the coterminous boards at a lower pricewith no opportunity to generate new pupil place grants also erodes theasset base needed for revenue generation.

Board general administrative and plant administrative space will be underreview this academic year. Objectives regarding administrative facilities canbe found within this report (refer to Plant and General Administrative Space,Section 8.1.8).

The Board has been working on a pupil accommodation review policy and astrategic plan for program rationalization since the early winter and reportswill be forwarded to Board throughout the Fall of 1998.

The Board intends:

(a) to continue with its detailed analysis of studentaccommodation and the development of a consolidationprocess and not rush into the disposal of properties;

(b) to maintain its surplus properties for ongoing revenuegeneration and possible future use; and,

(c) to approve a Pupil Accommodation Review Policy and astrategic plan for program rationalization by September 30,1998.

no fire sale!


Blank page


APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Age of TDSB Facilities

APPENDIX B: Staff Analysis Of The Impact Of The ProvincialPositions On Pupil Accommodation


514

Blank page


515

Age of TDSB FacilitiesAppendix A

• Over 650 total buildings (including schools, plant, education centres)

• Over 47 Million Square Feet

• Over $4.5 Billion in Replacement Value

• 50% of buildings are over 50 years old

Age Grouping (yrs.)

6%

8%

15%

21%

50%

0 - 9 10 -- 19 20 -- 34 35 -- 50 51 +


516

Blank page


517

Appendix B

STAFF ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF THE PROVINCIAL POSITIONS ON PUPILACCOMMODATION

The Ministry has adopted a funding model for pupil accommodation which reflects thefollowing positions and Board staff comments are included to provide an analysis of itsimpact on the Toronto District School Board:

(a) All school boards across the province should be offering the same level ofprograms and services, and the Ministry is unwilling to recognize and fundunique needs in the City of Toronto at the current level of service beingprovided to their communities.

Staff Analysis:The Ministry has based its entire funding formula on averages, and such a methodologydoes not cater to specific needs or area-specific requirements.

(b) The TDSB Ceiling Cost Formula square footage standards are consideredto be too rich and, therefore, the Ministry will not fund the capital programto this standard across the Province.

Staff Analysis:Although there is some room for tightening student accommodation within all boards, theProvince’s definition of instructional space fails to recognize the required need forresource withdrawal areas to support the basic program as well as unique andcompensatory needs.

(c) Any building that is operated at less than 100% capacity is under-utilized.

Staff Analysis:The failure to recognize that at least 10% of a building’s capacity is required to meetchanging needs such as enrolment growth and enrolment shifts, and responses to splitgrades situations, will create poor learning conditions in many schools. In addition,student options at the secondary level require some flexibility in capacity.

(d) Under-utilized facilities should be transferred/shared with coterminousboards rather than new facilities being built.

Staff Analysis:The principle, taken at face value, would be difficult to argue against in today’s economicclimate. However, the Province’s definition of under-utilized facilities forces the Board tocreate poor learning conditions in its schools and fails to adequately compensate allratepayers, public and separate.

(e) Any retained surplus capacity or inventory should be used as a revenuesource to fund capital needs.

Staff Analysis:Staff agree with this position but see the need for alteration to the Capital Grant Plan,specifically Regulation 497/97, to allow the Board to lease surplus space for varyingperiods and to move such properties more quickly to the marketplace.

(f) School boards should not have permanent capacity in their inventorybeyond their current and short-term projected enrolment needs.

Staff Analysis:


518

This position fails to recognize that short term enrolment projection cannot take intoaccount the regeneration process that occurs in large established urban areas. In-fillhousing developments, rezoning of huge tracts of industrial and special uses lands neveranticipated five to ten years ago, are now in the development phase in Toronto and thisprocess will continue for the foreseeable future. The dynamic nature of Toronto’spopulation with its ever-changing demographics and complex settlement flow all makearea-specific projections difficult. Without an adequate inventory of schools and sites,extensive transporting of children with growing traffic congestion and overcrowding ofschools will be the result of a poor planning policy.

(g) To reduce the burden on provincial capital funding, new facilities will onlybe funded when existing facilities are fully utilized on a district-wide basis.

Staff Analysis:Staff agree with the concept of improving facility utilization. However, the Province’sdefinition of full utilization may force the Board to create temporary learning conditions inschools with school closures seemly inevitable. In addition, the use of district-wide criteriato determine utilization could potentially place a significant number of students on buseswith the added costs inadequately funded by the Province. Responsive educationalplanning practices create planning zones to better meet the needs of students.

(h) There are operating and maintenance inefficiencies in the current system.

Staff Analysis:Staff agree that there is always room for improvement .

(i) Outsourcing is a service delivery archetype that school boards shouldseriously consider as a model for cost reduction.

Staff Analysis:Staff believe that all service delivery models should be examined closely with the goal ofproviding the best and most cost-efficient service to our students and community. Inconsidering other service delivery models, there must be due regard to the human factorto ensure continuity of the level of service to the student.

(j) The funding for dedicated program-related spaces such as music, French,industrial arts and family studies programs and community use of facilitiesshould be reduced.

Staff Analysis:The narrowing of support to defined classroom-only programs fails to recognize the valueof such programs in the curriculum and the enriching cultural and life skills benefits to thestudent and the community. Reduced funding in these areas places many of theimportant elements of the curriculum in jeopardy in our schools and results in addedclassroom conversion costs.


Staff Analysis:The limiting of Board qualification for Education Development Charges to pay for newsites fails to recognize the in-fill pattern happening in Toronto and may force students inlarge in-fill developments to be transported to distant schools, which will negativelyimpact on sales and rentals in these areas and detract from the ‘healthy and sustainablecommunity’ goals of the municipality.

(l) New site size standards are required and have been established in the EDClegislation.

(m) Staff Analysis:


519

Staff agree that the site size standards established through the EDC legislation areappropriate.

(n) Education Development Charges (EDC) must be used to finance schoolsites only and the construction of new pupil places should be borne byprovincial grants.Staff Analysis:See comments under (xi).

(o) Public and private partnerships should be considered to reduce costs andgenerate revenue.

Staff Analysis:Staff agree that all avenues to meet student and community needs should be explored.

(p) Transportation is a viable operating strategy to maximize existing schoolutilization and as an alternative to new school construction.

Staff Analysis:Staff believe that transporting of students should be used when all other avenues ofstudent accommodation have been exhausted. Staff believe that when busing is requiredas an alternative to constructing new pupil places, the Province should fund the 100% ofthe costs through its cost savings.

(q) The size of the operating budget deficit, as it pertains to facilities, willrequire as part of cost-reduction, the consolidation/closure of under-utilized local neighbourhood schools.

Staff Analysis:See staff previous staff comments on defining under-utilization. The Ministry policy forcesthe Board to close schools which are providing viable programs. Staff believe thatalthough some closures may be inevitable, given the size of the provincial under-fundingto this Board, every effort should be made to ensure such closures leave the system witha sustainable system for the long term.

(r) Prescriptive funding strategies are an essential provincial tool to ensurethat boards respond to Ministry expectations.

Staff Analysis:Staff believe that local funding with the resulting accountability is far more responsive tomeeting the needs and expectations of our communities.

(s) Reduced funding in capital areas will not negatively impact on studentoutcomes.

Staff Analysis:Overcrowded facilities housing large numbers of students transported to the schools willbe the result of the current funding mechanisms and such conditions are not conducive togood learning


520

Blank page


521

REPORT NO. 13, STANDING COMMITTEE(Private Session)

September 16, 1998

To the Chair and Members ofThe Committee of the Whole(Private Session):

The Standing Committee (Private Session) of the Toronto District School Board met at7:00 p.m. on September 16, 1998, in the Board Room at 155 College Street, Toronto,Ontario, with Co-Chair Gerri Gershon presiding.

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


1. Declaration of Possible Conflict of Interest

Trustee Atkinson declared a possible conflict of interest with regard to the matter ofteacher negotiations as her daughter is a member of OSSTF. Trustee Atkinson retiredfrom the meeting during consideration of this item.

2. Teacher Negotiations Update

The Standing Committee received an oral staff report, giving an update on thesecondary school teachers negotiations.

Respectfully submitted

Gerri GershonCo-Chair of Committee


522

Blank Page


523

A CAPITAL ASSETSMANAGEMENT PLAN

September 23, 1998


524

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: Purpose................................................................................ 493SECTION 2: Historical Background........................................................ 494

2.1 Capital Program - Toronto District School Board............................................ 494

SECTION 3: PROVINCIAL FUNDING MODEL......................................... 495

3.1 Provincial Assumptions/Beliefs........................................................................... 495

3.2 A Funding Model with Three Components ....................................................... 4963.2.1 New Pupil Places .......................................................................................... 4963.2.2 Operations and Maintenance......................................................................... 4973.2.3 Facility Renewal ........................................................................................... 497

SECTION 4: ANALYSIS............................................................................ 498

4.1 TDSB Total Square Footage ............................................................................... 498

4.2 Reductions Required To Balance Requirements With Provincial Funding ... 498

4.3 TDSB Capital Needs ............................................................................................ 4994.3.1 New Pupil Places .......................................................................................... 4994.3.2 Replacements ................................................................................................ 499

4.4 TDSB Operating Needs ....................................................................................... 5004.4.1 School Operations ......................................................................................... 5004.4.2 Facilities Renewal ......................................................................................... 500

4.5 Summary: Unmet Needs...................................................................................... 501SECTION 5: impact .................................................................................. 502SECTION 6: BELIEF STATEMENTS - TDSB FACILITIES ...................... 503SECTION 7: GOALS ................................................................................. 505SECTION 8: OBJECTIVES ....................................................................... 506

8.1 Toronto District School Board Objectives ......................................................... 5068.1.1 Space Utilization ........................................................................................... 5068.1.2 Program Rationalization................................................................................ 5068.1.3 Plant Operations Cost Reductions

(Custodial, Maintenance and Utility Costs)................................................. 5078.1.4 Property Development .................................................................................. 5078.1.5 Rental and Leasing of Surplus Space............................................................ 5088.1.6 Permitting Community Use of School Space................................................ 5088.1.7 Child Care ..................................................................................................... 5088.1.8 Plant And General Administrative Space...................................................... 5088.1.9 Acquisition of School Sites:.......................................................................... 509

8.2 Municipal Objectives (New City of Toronto)..................................................... 509

SECTION 9: NEXT STEPS......................................................................... 510APPENDICES............................................................................................. 513


towards asustainable

school system

Section 1: Purpose

The purpose of this Plan is to provide the Toronto District School Board with:

(b) a capital assets management plan which would allow theToronto District School Board (TDSB) to continue to meet theprogram needs of its students within the funding parametersset by the Province. Specifically, plans will be outlined for:

(iii) a response to the Ministry Of Education And Training’s(MET) funding model as it pertains to the capital assets(facilities and sites) of the Board;

(iv) managing the Board’s capital assets within theresources available;

(v) dealing with the restrictions on the sale or lease ofSchool Board properties as contained in Regulation497/97 and its amendments;

(b) a response to the revised Ministry of Education and Training’stimeline of September 30,1998 regarding a pupilaccommodation review policy and program rationalization, andby December 31,1998 regarding capacity reduction, pursuantto the MET Memorandum dated June 16, 1998 revisingRegulation 497/97;

(c) information for trustees to assist them in capital assetsmanagement policy development; and,

(d) objectives which would allow the TDSB to continue to meetprogram needs within the parameters set by the Province.


Section 2: Historical Background

2.1 Capital Program - Toronto District School Board

Prior to the implementation of the new provincial taxation and educationfunding model, the former federation of public boards in Metropolitan Torontoutilized the combined financial resources of the entire area as derived fromlocal property taxes to administer a strong Capital Program. From theinception of The Metropolitan Toronto School Board in 1954, a Metro-wideCapital Program was one component of the initial mandate of the SchoolBoard.

During the last 40+ years, the federation of public boards in MetropolitanToronto held responsibility for an inventory of over 650 facilities accountingfor over 47 million square feet, and approximately 6,000 acres of land.

Based on the history of the existence of the various boards in MetropolitanToronto prior to the federation of boards, a significant number (approximately50%) of the buildings are over 50 years old and less than 15% are under 20years old. In fact, 70% of the buildings are over 35 years old (see AppendixA).

As a result of the aging inventory of buildings, the School Board had beenspending approximately $70 million per year in order to deal with thenecessary renovation and replacement program and for some new pupilplaces. This spending did not include certain permanent improvementprojects, such as program alterations, roof repairs, regular maintenance tofacilities, etc.

One of the cornerstones of the former MTSB Capital Program was localpriority setting, based on the needs and priorities of capital projects submittedby the former Area Boards. As a result, the former Area Boards were directlyaccountable to their communities for maintaining school environmentsconducive to students needs and learning. The local property taxes wereavailable to raise the funds as required.

With the shift in responsibility for funding school facilities to the Province, thenew Toronto District School Board’s ability to respond directly to itscommunities for facility maintenance, renewal and new pupil placesconstruction has become almost totally dependent on the Province’s newfunding model.

an aginginventory

(Appendix A)

the shiftingsands oftaxation


Section 3: PROVINCIAL FUNDING MODEL

Provincial Assumptions/Beliefs

We believe that the provincial funding model was based on a number ofassumptions/beliefs that evolved from the issues identified in Section 2. Theyare as follows:

(a) All school boards across the Province should be offering thesame level of programs and services, and the Ministry has notrecognized and funded the unique needs in the City of Torontoat the current level of service being provided.

(b) The TDSB Ceiling Cost Formula square footage standards areconsidered to be too rich and, therefore, the Ministry will notfund the capital program to this standard across the Province.

(c) Any building that is operated at less than 100% capacity isunder-utilized.

(d) Under-utilized facilities should be transferred/shared withcoterminous boards rather than new facilities being built.

(e) Any retained surplus capacity or inventory should be used as arevenue source to fund capital needs.

(f) School boards should not have permanent capacity in theirinventory beyond their current and short-term projectedenrolment needs.

(g) To reduce the burden on provincial capital funding, newfacilities will only be funded when existing facilities are fullyutilized on a district-wide basis.

(h) There are operating and maintenance inefficiencies in thecurrent system.

(i) Outsourcing is a service delivery archetype that school boardsshould seriously consider as a model for cost reduction.

(j) The funding for dedicated program-related spaces such asmusic, French, industrial arts and family studies programs andcommunity use of facilities should be reduced.


(l) New site size standards are required and have beenestablished in the Education Development Charges (EDC)legislation.

TDSB’sunderstandings

of theProvincial

assumptions


(m) EDCs must be used to finance school sites only and theconstruction of new pupil places should be borne by provincialgrants.

(o) Public and private partnerships should be considered to

(o) Transportation is a viable operating strategy to maximizeexisting school utilization and as an alternative to new schoolconstruction.

(p) The size of the operating budget deficit, as it pertains tofacilities, will require as part of cost-reduction, theconsolidation/closure of under-utilized local neighbourhoodschools.

(q) Prescriptive funding strategies are an essential provincial toolto ensure that boards respond to Ministry expectations.

(r) Reduced funding in capital areas will not negatively impact onstudent outcomes.

A staff analysis of the impact of these assumptions can be found inAppendix B.

3.2 A Funding Model with Three Components

As a result of the changes in education funding made by the currentgovernment, property tax dollars are no longer available to the TDSB toaddress its capital needs as City of Toronto property tax dollars are nowbeing pooled to fund education across the Province. The new provincialfunding model for school accommodation forms part of the overall fundingmodel and has three components. They are as follows:


The grant for new pupil places will be determined on the basis of ADE(Average Daily Enrolment) vs. facility "capacity", where enrolmentexceeds total jurisdiction-wide capacity at 100% assumed utilization.No grants will be provided where enrolment is below capacity. Thefunding model for new pupil places is closely linked to EducationDevelopment Charges Regulation 20/98 and Disposition of SchoolSites Regulation 497/97, and both of these need to be viewed inrelation to one another.

This funding model for new pupil places has been driven by thedevelopment industry in response to EDCs which have been anongoing issue between the government and the private sector formany years. Only new school sites will be eligible for EDC funding,with new construction funded by the Province through the new funding

Tunder

oPr

assu

TDunders

of the Passum

(co

Appe

EDC’s ddevel

ind

SB’standings theincialptions

B’sandingovincialtions’t.)

dix B

iven bymenttry

Dsfovm

Strpn

n

ropus


model. Only boards whose enrolment exceeds Ministry capacity willbe eligible to establish an EDC.

3.2.2 Operations and Maintenance

The grant for plant operations and maintenance will be greatlyinfluenced by the manner in which capacity is calculated and howmuch gross floor area (square footage) will be recognized for fundingpurposes. For the new funding model to be applied effectively, it iscritical to determine the capacity of all existing schools. The MET ishaving difficulty establishing its data base of facilities and is severalmonths late informing boards of the capacity to be used for grantpurposes. The lateness of this information is putting considerablestrain on the planning processes of the boards. Implementation of thefunding model needs to be reviewed by the Province given thelateness of the information. A minority report to the draft report ExpertPanel on Pupil Accommodation identifies the timing concern. Althoughchanges were made to the Expert Panel report since the time of theminority report, many of the TDSB concerns were not addressed.

Supported by the efforts of the Expert Panel on the PupilAccommodation Grant Review deliberations, it was determined thatan area of 100 sq.ft. per pupil elementary and 130 sq.ft. per pupilsecondary was a reasonable average for new school construction,recognizing that the actual sq.ft. for boards across the province variedconsiderably, with only the GTA "growth" boards being close to thisnumber. Separate boards are typically below the average, and publicboards are typically above the average due to the age and mix offacilities, including auditoria and swimming pools that are typically notattached to separate schools.

Using the provincial average of $5.20 per sq.ft. for operations andmaintenance, the operating grants will be calculated as:

Grant = ADE x 100 sq.ft./130 sq.ft. per pupil x $5.20/sq.ft.

3.2.3. Facility Renewal

This grant is proposed at 64¢ per sq. ft. for buildings under 20 yearsof age and 96¢ per sq. ft. for buildings over 20 years of age. This willgenerate approximately $28 million in renewal funding for the TDSBfor expenditures currently funded through a combination ofmaintenance, permanent improvement and capital program fundingsources.

MET’capa

latarr

capitacalcu

s ratedcitiese iniving

l grantlations


Section 4: ANALYSIS

Staff have completed projections on facilities revenue and expenditures usingthe available data from the Ministry of Education and Training. A majorcomponent, school capacities, has not - at the time of the writing of this report- been released by MET. It is staff’s position that the MET’s 100% utilizationposition is unrealistic as it leaves no flexibility for increased enrolment duringa school year, accommodating students within a rotary timetable, etc. Staffhave used a 90% capacity figure to provide such flexibility and to providespace for enrolment growth over the next decade. As total system enrolmentincreases, however, the accommodation flexibility decreases until theenrolment starts to decline (projected 2008/9). Using estimated capacities,33 million sq.ft. of the Board’s 44 million sq.ft. of school space will be fundedand 11 million sq.ft. will be unfunded.

4.1 TDSB Total Square Footage

The following TDSB facility space square footage was reported to the MET(including portables):

School Space:Operating Schools 43,400,000Portables 600,000Outdoor Education Centres 160,000Sub-total 44,160,000

Other:Plant Admin. Facilities 442,000General Admin. 1,000,000Leased Facilities 1,400,000Sub-total 2,842,000

Total 47,002,000

4.2 Reductions Required To Balance Requirements With ProvincialFunding

Total Square Footage To Operate And Maintain 44,160,000Less: Target Space Requirement

Funded Space 33,000,000Unfunded 10% flex space 3,300,000

Sub-total 36,300,000Unfunded Utilized School Space 7,860,000

operat100% c

unrea

curraccomm

inven

puaccomm

requir

ing atapacitylistic

entodationtory

pilodationement


4.3 TDSB Capital Needs

Toronto District School Board’s capital funding shortfall can be directly relatedto the removal of the property tax base from the jurisdiction of the TDSB, andthe new Ministry of Education capital funding model which does notadequately reflect the capital needs of the Board.

The TDSB will require annual financial resources to reflect its need to providenew pupil places, replace existing pupil places, and acquire school sites toaugment the absence of grants for a capital program.


School Boards must have enrolment levels in excess of their schoolcapacity in order to be eligible for grants for new pupil places. Schoolboards have until December 31, 1998 to divest themselves of theirsurplus school capacity to reduce the system capacity.

Notwithstanding consolidation and closures, the Toronto DistrictSchool Board, in all likelihood, will not have an enrolment level thatexceeds its school capacity and therefore, the Board will not beeligible for grants for new pupil places to address school districtgrowth. This results in the Board being responsible for funding theprovision of new pupil places. If the Board grows at a rate of onepercent per year, TDSB would have to provide an additional 2,600pupil places per year at an average cost of approximately $13,500 perpupil place (net of GST). Not all of the 2,600 new pupil places willrequire new accommodation.

New Pupil Places Costs (unfunded): $13,500 x 600 = $8,100,000

4.3.2 Replacements

A major issue facing the board is the replacement of aging facilities. Ifcapital funds could be identified to replace five schools per year ($30million), it would create a 120 year replacement cycle for an inventoryof 600 schools and a 100 year cycle for an inventory of 500 schools.Both these cycles are well beyond recommended facility life cycles.Repair costs escalate after 35 years with most major building systemsneeding replacement beyond that point. Fifty years is a cost-effectivecycle of replacement and this would require 10 schools per yearincluded in the capital program for a 500 facility system ($60-85million) and 12 schools per year for a 600 facility system ($72-96million).

If the Toronto District School Board has to replace 2% of its pupilplaces each year, it would have to provide an additional 5,200 pupilplaces per year at an average cost of approximately $13,500 per pupilplace (net of GST).

Replacement Costs (unfunded): $13,500 X 5,200 = $70,200,000

unmetneeds

unmetneeds

unmetneeds

unmetneeds

Unmet Needs

unmetneeds


4.4 TDSB Operating Needs

The TDSB will require annual financial resources to both operate its facilitiesas well as to reflect its need to repair and maintain an aging plant.

4.4.1 School Operations

If TDSB can reduce its expenditure and operate at $5.20 per sq. ft. forthe estimated 33 million square feet recognized for grant purposes,there will still be approximately 11 million square feet (7.86 millionplus 3.3 million flex) not recognized for grant purposes. Afterconsolidation and closures, there will still be a significant number ofsquare feet (approximately 3.3 million square feet) that will requireTDSB funding in that it is unrealistic to operate at 100% of capacity. Inaddition, there is a need to retain pupil places to reflect the on-goinggrowth in Toronto. This leaves 7.86 million square feet for revenuegeneration.

1998/99 Budget Requirement (June/98 Board Report)$275,792,000Less: Provincial Funding $162,440,000Funding Shortfall $113,352,000

4.4.2 Facilities Renewal

The analysis for school operation applies equally to facilities renewal.After consolidation and closures, there will still be approximately 3.3million square feet not recognized for grant purposes, and thereby,ineligible for the allowance of 64¢ / 96¢ per square foot.

In addition, the facilities renewal allocation of 64¢ / 96¢ per squarefoot is not adequate to reflect the unique capital facilities renewalissues in Toronto. The age and condition of Toronto District schoolfacilities will require additional funding. It is anticipated that a futureProvincial Auditor’s report will substantiate the need for additionalfunds.

1998/99 Budget Requirement (June/98 Board Report)$32,600,000Less: Provincial Funding $27,500,000Funding Shortfall $ 5,100,000

unmet needs

unmet needs


4.5 Summary: Unmet Needs

Requirement Funding Shortfall$ $ $

Capital Needs:· New Pupil Places 8,100,000 0 8,100,000· Replacement Costs 70,200,000 0 70,200,000School Operations 275,792,000 162,440,000 113,352,000Facilities Renewal 32,600,000 27,500,000 5,100,000

Total $386,692,000 $189,940,000 $196,752,000

* Note: The Facilities Renewal shortfall only speaks to the 1998/99 budgetyear. It does not address the recommended 50 year replacementcycle costs (approximately $70 million per year) which we believewill be identified as an issue in a report by the Auditor-Generallater this Fall.

unmet needs

*


Section 5: IMPACT

It is clear that the Board will need to develop a plan to deal with significantly reducedfunding for facility operation and maintenance, renewal and replacement. It will alsohave to provide for the creation of new pupil places in its capital program toaccommodate enrolment growth. The size of the shortfall leads to the conclusionthat the existing levels and modes of delivery of service are no longer sustainable.The Board will need to consider the most cost-efficient ways of operating, maintainingand renewing all, or a portion of its facilities. The magnitude of the reduced provincialfunding leaves the Board with little option but to:

(a) reduce operating costs from $6.58 to $5.20/sq.ft.;

(b) consolidate school boundaries and programs andoptimize school utilization;

(c) adopt a consolidation model that would reduceoperating space by 11 million square feet (this maylead to the closure of more than 100 schools and thereduction of portable classrooms over a 3 yearperiod);

(d) generate revenue to support 3.3 million square feetrequired for program flexibility and future capacity ($5.20 x 3,300,000 = $17,160,000);

(e) maximize revenue on the unrecognized (unfunded)7.86 million square feet;

(g) maintain all leased facilities at a minimum of costrecovery; and,

(g) create alternate sources of revenue to maintain,renew and replace buildings.

challenges!


Section 6: BELIEF STATEMENTS - TDSB FACILITIES

In order to develop objectives to deal with the impact of under-funding, anumber of belief statements have been identified. The Board’s ability toadhere to the following belief statements will be influenced and, in somecases, limited by the funding made available from the Province.

(a) The focus of the Board's student accommodation objectivesand activities is the provision of appropriate sites and facilitiesto meet the educational needs of the students now and intothe future.

(b) Program requirements and student safety are key elements ofthe Board's capital program.

(c) The efficient use of existing student accommodation within theBoard’s program priority is the foundation for an effectivecapital program.

(d) There should be equitable access to specialized programsacross the City wherever possible.

(e) The Board values community schools.

(f) The Board values parental and student choice within theeducational system. Students should have the right to accessprograms and schools which best meet their needs, interestsand aptitudes where space is available.

(g) The Board believes in neighbourhood schools and thereforeresidence in the defined local catchment area should remainthe first priority for admittance to a school.

(h) Our facilities and sites are community assets and the Boardhas a responsibility to maximize the utilization of these assetsfor the benefit of TDSB students today and tomorrow.

(i) The Board has a financial responsibility to provide its servicesin a cost-efficient and cost-effective manner.

(j) The Board has a responsibility to distribute its capitalresources throughout its jurisdiction on the basis of need.

(k) The sale of a capital asset should be viewed as a last resortwhen considering revenue generation.

(l) Facility renovation (including accessibility and safetyrequirements) and replacement will remain a high priority inthe Board’s capital program for the foreseeable future.

foundationfor goals

foundationfor goals


(m) Regular maintenance, including preventive maintenance, ofour facilities is a cost effective strategy.

(n) The Board believes in accountable processes regarding itssites and facilities that provide for auditing, due process andpublic scrutiny.

(o) Consultation with parents, students and the community is anessential element in the school consolidation process.

(p) The Board, as a property owner, is a responsible member ofits neighbourhoods; it works to build a strong and co-operativerelationship with its communities.

(q) All monetary costs, including transportation, should beconsidered when proposing school closures and studentrelocation.

(r) The Board values and supports the utilization of its facilities toaccommodate child care programs where space is available(given the provincial funding, child care space can only beprovided on a cost-recovery basis).

(s) The Board has a responsibility to work with its partners toensure that sufficient spaces are in place for student learning.

Founfor(co

dation goalsn’t.)


Section 7: GOALS

Based on the preceding belief statements generated by the CAMS ProjectTeam, the following goals were identified by the Team to provide theframework for the setting of objectives to address the capital issues:

(a) to provide high quality pupil accommodation for viable programdelivery in the most efficient and effective manner within theresources available to the Board;

(b) to develop sustainable solutions to managing its capitalassets;

(c) to maximize the use of existing accommodation while keepingin mind our belief in the value of neighbourhood schools;

(d) to establish and maintain procedures for meaningfulconsultation with the general public and its public institutionsregarding school facilities and properties;

(e) to maintain property in the ownership of the Board if:

(i) future need for Board purposes isdemonstrable; and,

(ii) identification as surplus to the Board'sneeds is not clearly established;

(f) to seek innovative approaches to revenue generation throughthe maximization of its assets to benefit Toronto DistrictSchool Board students today and tomorrow; and,

(g) to support the intensification objectives of the City of Torontoand, in particular, as they might pertain to School Boardpotential surplus sites.

foundationfor

objectives


Section 8: OBJECTIVES

8.2 Toronto District School Board Objectives

8.1.1 Space Utilization

• to establish a maximum of 90% utilization as the targetcapacity for school buildings;

• to undertake a consolidation process to reduce the Board’soperating capacity as determined by objective above;

• to establish planning review areas (including bothgeographic and program elements) for the consolidationprocess;

• to set school closure targets for each review area tocumulatively bring the Board’s budget in line with provincialunder-funding;

• to establish a process for community input andconsultation in the school closure process and providesufficient time for consultation;

• to relocate and consolidate programs currently operating innon-Board owned space to available school space;

• to determine and advise schools of their maximumallowable instructional space for September, 1999; and,

• to review all school boundaries and redraw, wherefeasible, to maximize space utilization.

8.1.2 Program Rationalization

• to establish a two level system, elementary and secondary,for implementation over a phased-in period;

• to allocate student spaces for special programs on ageographical basis that provides accessibility;

• to review location, number and long-term projections formagnet-type programs (e.g., French Immersion, Arts, etc.)and develop and implement a location plan;

• to review secondary school program locations with regardto Secondary School Reform initiatives and develop andimplement a location plan;

schoolclosures

changingschool

programdelivery


• to review specialized technology programs (e.g., automechanics) and consolidate space requirements wherepracticable; and,

• to evaluate the outdoor education program and facilities.

8.1.3 Plant Operations Cost Reductions(Custodial, Maintenance and Utility Costs)

To continue to ensure health and safety factors:

• by operating and maintaining all facilities at a maximum of$5.20 per square foot; this may require:

• rationalizing levels of service, district-wide, including thetwinning of schools for caretaking purposes;

• continuing to find ways to reduce energy consumption;

• reviewing temporary replacement procedures tomaximize use of existing operations staff;

• aligning caretaking staffing practices with the permitpolicy;

• mothballing sections of schools to reduce custodial andoperating costs until enrolment justifies the use of thespace or until the space can be leased; and,

• consolidating hours of operation and availability offacilities and sites;

• by including in all new and renegotiated leasingagreements, that the tenant is to be responsible for allfacility costs and overhead (in keeping with Boardstandards); and,

• by investigating the establishment of alternate officearrangements (i.e., homes office, shared office space) forBoard staff to reduce administrative costs.

8.1.5 Property Development

• to pursue alternate uses of school properties that reflectprinciples of sound land use planning, that are sensitive topossible effects on adjacent uses, and that optimizefinancial benefit to support the Board’s educationalobjectives;

• to fully explore all financing options for capitalimprovement;

doingbusiness

differently

maximizingour assets


• to explore acquiring school sites utilizing a variety ofacquisition strategies, including options, lease, lease buy-back and site exchange; and,

• to develop property management strategies with privatesector assistance as required.

8.1.5 Rental and Leasing of Surplus Space

• to establish a standard minimum rental rate plus a locationpremium, where feasible;

• to set minimum leasing rates to include cost recovery andcapital renewal;

• to aggressively market for lease, all closed schools andadministrative facilities;

• to explore lease of available surplus space in operatingschools; and

• to reduce the number of portables as appropriate.

8.1.6 Permitting Community Use of School Space

• to negotiate an agreement with the City that reflects fullcost-recovery for services and facilities for both parties;and,

• to approve a fee schedule that reflects a minimum of fullsystem cost-recovery with varying rates by category andspace permitted.

8.1.8 Child Care

• to lease exclusive and shared use space in schools forchild care centres, where it is available, on a cost-recoverybasis as a minimum; and,

• to give child care programs a priority for availablelong-term space in schools.

8.1.8 Plant And General Administrative Space

• to review the Board’s long-term need for plant and generaladministrative space with a view to reducing space usageand to reduce the impact on the Board’s budget;

• to set, as a minimum target, rental of one-third of plant andgeneral administrative space, to offset the costs ofoperating and maintaining administrative space; and,

aggressivemarketing

userpay

child care isa priority

administrativespace reduction


• to meet with the City to explore co-operative venturesregarding the Board’s and the City’s administrative centres.

8.1.9 Acquisition of School Sites:

• to utilize, where feasible, site exchanges to acquire, whereneeded, sites in areas of growth; and,

• to meet with City councillors and staff to influence them toinclude statements in the City’s Official Plan that wouldrequire the development industry to satisfy the needs ofthe school boards in large in-fill project areas.

8.2 Municipal Objectives (New City of Toronto)

• to strengthen its working relationship with the City to allowflexibility in the use of Board properties;

• to negotiate full cost-recovery with the municipality on allshared-use space (including child care, swimming pools,etc.);

• to seek new opportunities for shared-use of Board andmunicipal properties, and facility services; and,

• to encourage the City to develop appropriate land-usepolicies to support the provision of adequate schoolfacilities in the development application process.

coping withno EDC

the City asa partner


Section 9: NEXT STEPS

The Fall term will be an extremely active one for the Board. Many reviewsand policy reports have been completed and recommendations will becoming to the Board throughout the Fall session. The chart below indicateswhat must be done in the coming months.

Activity Target Timeline• accommodation grants – recalculation (once

MET forwards its calculations on buildingcapacities)

September/98

• Pupil Accommodation Review Policy bySeptember 30/98 as required by Regulation497/97

September/98

• a plan for program rationalization and schoolconsolidation (requirement – revisedRegulation 497/97)

September/98

• interdisciplinary teams of staff need to beestablished for:

- program rationalization

- school consolidation data analysis

September/98September/98

• establishment of a Board committee to reviewproperty matters

September/98

• school consolidation areas and excesscapacity (Facilities Utilization Plan)

October/98

• leasing rates approved November/98• Optional Attendance, Community Use of

Schools, and Child Care in Schools PoliciesFall/98

• program rationalization ongoing

Responding to the Changing Requirements of the MET

The requirement for disposal of board surplus properties by September 1,1998 has been removed as a result of a June 16, 1998 memorandum to theboards. Boards now have the opportunity of reducing the capacity figuresused in the calculation of the Grants for New Pupil Places for 1999/2000 andsubsequent years if they:

(a) resolve, as a board, by December 31,1998 to close the schoolsafter the 1998/99 academic year; and,

(b) within thirty days of passing the resolution, offer the surplusschools at no charge to the coterminous boards or offer themto the Ontario Realty Corporation or notify the Minister to sellthem in accordance with agreements developed with theEducation Improvement Commission.


Boards also have the option of selling surplus schools at fair market valueand retaining the proceeds to repair and renovate existing schools orconstruct new schools according to the board’s own priorities. They will nothave to wait until December 31, 1998 to do so. However, the capacity figuresused for grant purposes will not be reduced if disposition occurs afterDecember 31, 1998. Nevertheless the properties must first be offered to thepublic bodies on the ‘pecking’ order specified in Regulation 497/97 (whichincludes the coterminous boards) at a reduced price (not to exceed the NewPupil Places grant).

AnalysisThe changing of the disposal date from September 1, 1998 to December 31,1998 for surplus properties does not impact on the TDSB for the followingreasons:

• The process to do so would be too rushed and without adequateconsultation time with our communities.

• The provincial under-funding of the Board makes it imperative that theBoard seek optimum revenue generation from its surplus properties toensure that the operating schools are in good condition with sufficientpupil places for a growing enrolment.

• Giving the schools away erodes the needed asset base for revenuegeneration.

• The offering of surplus schools to the coterminous boards at a lower pricewith no opportunity to generate new pupil place grants also erodes theasset base needed for revenue generation.

Board general administrative and plant administrative space will be underreview this academic year. Objectives regarding administrative facilities canbe found within this report (refer to Plant and General Administrative Space,Section 8.1.8).

The Board has been working on a pupil accommodation review policy and astrategic plan for program rationalization since the early winter and reportswill be forwarded to Board throughout the Fall of 1998.

The Board intends:

(a) to continue with its detailed analysis of studentaccommodation and the development of a consolidationprocess and not rush into the disposal of properties;

(b) to maintain its surplus properties for ongoing revenuegeneration and possible future use; and,

(c) to approve a Pupil Accommodation Review Policy and astrategic plan for program rationalization by September 30,1998.

no fire sale!


Blank page


APPENDICES

APPENDIX C: Age of TDSB Facilities

APPENDIX D: Staff Analysis Of The Impact Of The ProvincialPositions On Pupil Accommodation


546

Blank page


547

Age of TDSB FacilitiesAppendix A

• Over 650 total buildings (including schools, plant, education centres)

• Over 47 Million Square Feet

• Over $4.5 Billion in Replacement Value

• 50% of buildings are over 50 years old

Age Grouping (yrs.)

6%

8%

15%

21%

50%

0 - 9 10 -- 19 20 -- 34 35 -- 50 51 +


548

Blank page


549

Appendix B

STAFF ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF THE PROVINCIAL POSITIONS ON PUPILACCOMMODATION

The Ministry has adopted a funding model for pupil accommodation which reflects thefollowing positions and Board staff comments are included to provide an analysis of itsimpact on the Toronto District School Board:

(t) All school boards across the province should be offering the same level ofprograms and services, and the Ministry is unwilling to recognize and fundunique needs in the City of Toronto at the current level of service beingprovided to their communities.

Staff Analysis:The Ministry has based its entire funding formula on averages, and such a methodologydoes not cater to specific needs or area-specific requirements.

(u) The TDSB Ceiling Cost Formula square footage standards are consideredto be too rich and, therefore, the Ministry will not fund the capital programto this standard across the Province.

Staff Analysis:Although there is some room for tightening student accommodation within all boards, theProvince’s definition of instructional space fails to recognize the required need forresource withdrawal areas to support the basic program as well as unique andcompensatory needs.

(v) Any building that is operated at less than 100% capacity is under-utilized.

Staff Analysis:The failure to recognize that at least 10% of a building’s capacity is required to meetchanging needs such as enrolment growth and enrolment shifts, and responses to splitgrades situations, will create poor learning conditions in many schools. In addition,student options at the secondary level require some flexibility in capacity.

(w) Under-utilized facilities should be transferred/shared with coterminousboards rather than new facilities being built.

Staff Analysis:The principle, taken at face value, would be difficult to argue against in today’s economicclimate. However, the Province’s definition of under-utilized facilities forces the Board tocreate poor learning conditions in its schools and fails to adequately compensate allratepayers, public and separate.

(x) Any retained surplus capacity or inventory should be used as a revenuesource to fund capital needs.

Staff Analysis:Staff agree with this position but see the need for alteration to the Capital Grant Plan,specifically Regulation 497/97, to allow the Board to lease surplus space for varyingperiods and to move such properties more quickly to the marketplace.

(y) School boards should not have permanent capacity in their inventorybeyond their current and short-term projected enrolment needs.


550

Staff Analysis:This position fails to recognize that short term enrolment projection cannot take intoaccount the regeneration process that occurs in large established urban areas. In-fillhousing developments, rezoning of huge tracts of industrial and special uses lands neveranticipated five to ten years ago, are now in the development phase in Toronto and thisprocess will continue for the foreseeable future. The dynamic nature of Toronto’spopulation with its ever-changing demographics and complex settlement flow all makearea-specific projections difficult. Without an adequate inventory of schools and sites,extensive transporting of children with growing traffic congestion and overcrowding ofschools will be the result of a poor planning policy.

(z) To reduce the burden on provincial capital funding, new facilities will onlybe funded when existing facilities are fully utilized on a district-wide basis.

Staff Analysis:Staff agree with the concept of improving facility utilization. However, the Province’sdefinition of full utilization may force the Board to create temporary learning conditions inschools with school closures seemly inevitable. In addition, the use of district-wide criteriato determine utilization could potentially place a significant number of students on buseswith the added costs inadequately funded by the Province. Responsive educationalplanning practices create planning zones to better meet the needs of students.

(aa) There are operating and maintenance inefficiencies in the current system.

Staff Analysis:Staff agree that there is always room for improvement .

(bb) Outsourcing is a service delivery archetype that school boards shouldseriously consider as a model for cost reduction.

Staff Analysis:Staff believe that all service delivery models should be examined closely with the goal ofproviding the best and most cost-efficient service to our students and community. Inconsidering other service delivery models, there must be due regard to the human factorto ensure continuity of the level of service to the student.

(cc) The funding for dedicated program-related spaces such as music, French,industrial arts and family studies programs and community use of facilitiesshould be reduced.

Staff Analysis:The narrowing of support to defined classroom-only programs fails to recognize the valueof such programs in the curriculum and the enriching cultural and life skills benefits to thestudent and the community. Reduced funding in these areas places many of theimportant elements of the curriculum in jeopardy in our schools and results in addedclassroom conversion costs.

(dd) The acquisition of sites will not be funded by the government.

Staff Analysis:The limiting of Board qualification for Education Development Charges to pay for newsites fails to recognize the in-fill pattern happening in Toronto and may force students inlarge in-fill developments to be transported to distant schools, which will negativelyimpact on sales and rentals in these areas and detract from the ‘healthy and sustainablecommunity’ goals of the municipality.

(ee) New site size standards are required and have been established in the EDClegislation.


551

(ff) Staff Analysis:Staff agree that the site size standards established through the EDC legislation areappropriate.

(gg) Education Development Charges (EDC) must be used to finance schoolsites only and the construction of new pupil places should be borne byprovincial grants.Staff Analysis:See comments under (xi).

(hh) Public and private partnerships should be considered to reduce costs andgenerate revenue.

Staff Analysis:Staff agree that all avenues to meet student and community needs should be explored.

(ii) Transportation is a viable operating strategy to maximize existing schoolutilization and as an alternative to new school construction.

Staff Analysis:Staff believe that transporting of students should be used when all other avenues ofstudent accommodation have been exhausted. Staff believe that when busing is requiredas an alternative to constructing new pupil places, the Province should fund the 100% ofthe costs through its cost savings.

(jj) The size of the operating budget deficit, as it pertains to facilities, willrequire as part of cost-reduction, the consolidation/closure of under-utilized local neighbourhood schools.

Staff Analysis:See staff previous staff comments on defining under-utilization. The Ministry policy forcesthe Board to close schools which are providing viable programs. Staff believe thatalthough some closures may be inevitable, given the size of the provincial under-fundingto this Board, every effort should be made to ensure such closures leave the system witha sustainable system for the long term.

(kk) Prescriptive funding strategies are an essential provincial tool to ensurethat boards respond to Ministry expectations.

Staff Analysis:Staff believe that local funding with the resulting accountability is far more responsive tomeeting the needs and expectations of our communities.

(ll) Reduced funding in capital areas will not negatively impact on studentoutcomes.

Staff Analysis:Overcrowded facilities housing large numbers of students transported to the schools willbe the result of the current funding mechanisms and such conditions are not conducive togood learning


552

Blank page


553

REPORT NO. 13, STANDING COMMITTEE(Private Session)

September 16, 1998

To the Chair and Members ofThe Committee of the Whole(Private Session):

The Standing Committee (Private Session) of the Toronto District School Board met at7:00 p.m. on September 16, 1998, in the Board Room at 155 College Street, Toronto,Ontario, with Co-Chair Gerri Gershon presiding.

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


1. Declaration of Possible Conflict of Interest

Trustee Atkinson declared a possible conflict of interest with regard to the matter ofteacher negotiations as her daughter is a member of OSSTF. Trustee Atkinson retiredfrom the meeting during consideration of this item.

2. Teacher Negotiations Update

The Standing Committee received an oral staff report, giving an update on thesecondary school teachers negotiations.

Respectfully submitted

Gerri GershonCo-Chair of Committee


554

Blank Page

toronto district school board...akshara kothari, who placed 8th in canada and lucas uy, who placed...

Documents