TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD REGULAR MEETING
PUBLIC SESSION AGENDA FEBRUARY 18, 2016
Angela Kennedy, Chair Michael Del Grande Trustee Ward 11 Trustee Ward 7
Frank D‘Amico, Vice Chair Joseph Martino Trustee Ward 6 Trustee Ward 1
Ann Andrachuk Sal Piccininni Trustee Ward 2 Trustee Ward 3
Patricia Bottoni Barbara Poplawski Trustee Ward 4 Trustee Ward 10
Nancy Crawford Maria Rizzo Trustee Ward 12 Trustee Ward 5
Jo-Ann Davis Garry Tanuan Trustee Ward 9 Trustee Ward 8
Allison Gacad Karina Dubrovskaya Student Trustee Student Trustee
MISSION The Toronto Catholic District School Board is an inclusive learning community rooted in the love of Christ. We educate students to grow in grace and knowledge and to lead lives of faith, hope and charity. VISION At Toronto Catholic we transform the world through witness, faith, innovation and action.
Recording Secretary: Lalita Fernandes 222-8282 extension 2293
Angela Gauthier Angela Kennedy Director of Education Chair of the Board
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD PUBLIC SESSION
Angela Kennedy, Chair Frank D'Amico, Vice-Chair
Thursday, February 18, 2016 7:00 P.M.
Pages 1. Call to Order
2. Memorials and Opening Prayer
3. Singing of O Canada A Capella
4. Roll Call & Apologies
5. Approval of the Agenda
6. Reports from Private Session
7. Notices of Motions
8. Declarations of Interest
9. Approval and Signing of Minutes of the Previous Meetings for 1 - 30 Public Session
9.a Special Board - January 6, 2016
9.b Special Board (Student Achievement) - January 14, 2016
9.c Special Board (Corporate Services) - January 21, 2016
9.d Regular Board - January 28, 2016
Page 1 of 2 10. Presentations
10.a Monthly Report from the Chair of the Board 31
10.b Monthly Report from the Director of Education 32
10.c Monthly Report from Student Trustee(s)
11. Delegations
11.a Lina Nacarato, representing CUPE 1328 regarding budget cuts to 33 Education Assistants
11.b Lalit Lobo, representing Lift Jesus Higher Rally Core Committee, 34 regarding Lift Jesus High Rally 2016
12. Consideration of Motions for which previous notice has been given
13. Unfinished Business from Previous Meetings
14. Matters referred/deferred from Committees/Board
15. Reports of Officials for the Information of the Board of Trustees
16. Reports of Officials Requiring Action of the Board of Trustees
16.a Report regarding Liquor Permit Request from St. Boniface Catholic 35 - 36 School
16.b Multi Year Recovery Plan (MYRP) 37 - 152
17. Listing of Communications
18. Inquiries and Miscellaneous
19. Updating of Pending Items List 153 - 161
20. Closing Prayer
21. Adjournment
Page 2 of 2
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE
TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
HELD JANUARY 6, 2016
PUBLIC SESSION
PRESENT: Trustees F. D’Amico, Acting Chair N. Crawford A. Kennedy – by teleconference A. Andrachuk – by teleconference M. Del Grande – by teleconference J. Martino – by teleconference S. Piccininni – by teleconference B. Poplawski – by teleconference M. Rizzo – by teleconference G.Tanuan – by teleconference
A.Gauthier G. Poole A.Sangiorgio P. Matthews
L. Fernandes, Recording Secretary
MOVED by Trustee Kennedy, seconded by Trustee Andrachuk, that the agenda, be approved.
CARRIED
Page 1 of 161 The Chair called for nominations to the interview panel for the position of Executive Superintendent of Business Services and Chief Financial Officer.
MOVED by Trustee Tanuan, seconded by Trustee Andrachuk, that the name of Trustee Del Grande be placed in nomination.
Trustee Del Grande declined the nomination.
MOVED by Trustee Kennedy, seconded by Trustee Andrachuk, that the name of Trustee Crawford be placed in nomination.
Trustee Crawford accepted the nomination.
MOVED by Trustee Rizzo, seconded by Trustee Kennedy, that the name of Trustee D’Amico be placed in nomination.
Trustee D’Amico accepted the nomination.
MOVED by Trustee Rizzo, seconded by Trustee Andrachuk that Trustees Crawford and D’Amico be appointed to the interview panel for the position of Executive Superintendent of Business Services and Chief Financial Officer.
On the vote being taken, as follows:
In favour Opposed
Trustees F. D’Amico N. Crawford A. Kennedy A. Andrachuk M. Del Grande J. Martino S. Piccininni B. Poplawski M. Rizzo G. Tanuan
Page 2 of 161 The Motion was declared
CARRIED
MOVED by Trustee Kennedy, seconded by Trustee Crawford, that staff explore the availability of Parliamentarian, Mr. Alasdair Robertson for January 12, 2016 and that it be a dinner meeting.
On the vote being taken, as follows:
Trustees F. D’Amico N. Crawford A. Kennedy A. Andrachuk M. Del Grande J. Martino S. Piccininni B. Poplawski M. Rizzo G. Tanuan
The Motion was declared
CARRIED
MOVED by Trustee Andrachuk, seconded by Trustee Crawford, that the meeting adjourn.
CARRIED
______S E C R E T A R Y C H A I R
Page 3 of 161 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
HELD THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 2016
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT PRESENT: A. Kennedy, Chair F. D’Amico A. Andrachuk P. Bottoni N. Crawford J.A. Davis M. Del Grande J. Martino M. Rizzo G. Tanuan K, Dubrovskaya A. Gacad
A. Gauthier G. Poole A. Sangiorgio P. Matthews R. McGuckin P. De Cock J. Yan
L. Fernandes, Recording Secretary
The items dealt with at the Student Achievement and Well Being, Catholic Education and Human Resources Committee in PRIVATE SESSION were deemed presented.
Earlier this evening in PRIVATE SESSION, the Board of Trustees approved
1. The adoption of a modified lunch schedule for St. Michael’s Choir School on a short term basis pending the outcome of an arbitration on the matter.
Page 4 of 161 2. Received a verbal report concerning an upcoming presentation to be given at the Nurturing Our Catholic Community regarding Advocacy for Catholic Education and that Carol Allen be invited to speak to the Board about the FACE Project and Queen’s Park lobbying.
3. Director’s Performance Appraisal.
MOVED by Trustee Davis, seconded by Trustee Crawford, that the items dealt with in PUBLIC SESSION be approved.
CARRIED
MATTERS AS CAPTURED IN THE ABOVE MOTION
Minutes of the Regular meeting held December 3, 2015 – approved. with the following amendments:
1. Page 3, last paragraph, to replace the word “CSAC” with Catholic School Parent Council (CSPC) and the same on page 4 1st paragraph.
2. Page 6, last paragraph, to indicate that the Report on the Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) Assessments of Reading, Writing and Mathematics: Primary and Junior Divisions be received.
Presentation by Nicole Welch and Vincenza Pietropaolo, representing Toronto Public Health, regarding Student Survey Results - received.
Response to Special Education Audit Summary (RIAT) of June 2015 that a Working Committee be created comprising of: 1. Associate Director of Academic Affairs 2. Superintendent of Special Services 3. Comptroller of Finance 4. Superintendent of Human Resources 5. Superintendents of Schools (2) 6. Elementary School Principals (3) 7. Secondary School Principals (2)
Page 5 of 161 TCDSB Mental Health and Well-Being Strategy 2015-2018 that the TCDSB Mental Health and Well-Being Strategy 2015-18 including its communication and implementation plan be, approved for implementation.
Mental Health Report – received.
Laudato Si on the Care for our Common Home – received.
Additional PA Day – 2015-2016 School Year Calendar that the Board adopt the required additional PA day for the 2015-2016 calendar year as April 15, 2016
Verbal Report on the Strategic Planning Retreat for Trustees and Staff – Saturday, January 30, 2016 that the Strategic Planning Retreat for Trustees and Staff take place on Saturday, January 30, 2016
2016 AGM & Conference Resolutions – received.
Communication from Trustee Del Grande seeking clarification on speaking officially in TCDSB capacity while abroad – received.
Communication from the Chair of the Board regarding OCSTA 2016 January Regional Meeting Discussions – received.
The Chair of the Board to brainstorm with the Director of Education before the Regional Meeting.
MOVED by Trustee Andrachuk, seconded by Trustee Crawford, that the meeting adjourn.
CARRIED
______S E C R E T A R Y C H A I R
Page 6 of 161 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
HELD THURSDAY, JANUARY 21, 2016
Corporate Affairs PRESENT: A. Kennedy, Chair F. D’Amico A. Andrachuk N. Crawford M. Del Grande J.A. Davis J. Martino S. Piccininni B. Poplawski – by teleconference G. Tanuan
A. Gauthier A. Sangiorgio P. Matthews J. Saraco D. Yack P. DeCock J. Yan M. Puccetti M. Silva
A.Robertson, Parliamentarian L. Fernandes, Recording Secretary
The items dealt with at the Corporate Services, Strategic Planning and Property Committee Meeting were deemed presented.
CARRIED
Page 7 of 161 MOVED by Trustee Bottoni, seconded by Trustee Rizzo, that the items dealt with in PUBLIC SESSION be approved.
CARRIED
MATTERS AS CAPTURED IN THE ABOVE MOTION
Minutes of the Regular Meeting held December 8, 2015 and the Special Meeting held December 14, 2015 - approved.
Presentations by Lisa Caldana Fabrizio, on Holy Angels' Response to Director's SARC Report and Derek Shemavonian on the SARC for Holy Angels, OLS, St. Leo, St. Louis, St. Mark - received and referred to staff to be included as part of the analysis and the report coming forward next month.
Presentations by Noreen Reid, representing parents concerned with capacity, regarding Capacity Issues at OLS, Idalia Furtado-DeFaria, representing parents concerned with capacity, Carin McLean regarding OLS Capacity Issues, Lucy Siraco, regarding SARC/OLS boundary review and Greg Grys, on the South Etobicoke SARC - received and referred to staff to be included as part of the recommendations coming next month.
Presentations by Karen Cross, St. Louis SARC Parent representative, regarding HA/St. Louis/St. Leo/St. Mark/OLS SARC Report Recommendations, Jen Ciavoliello, St. Louis Co-Chair, regarding South Etobicoke SARC (St. Louis) and Christine Choo, representing St. Louis Catholic School Student Government regarding the School Accommodation - received and referred to staff to be included with the recommendations coming forward next month.
Presentations by Ashley Barnes, St. Louis, Oliver Oimanov and Jasmine Carlos regarding the SARC Report - received and referred to staff to be included in the recommendations coming to Board next month.
Presentation by Pina Di Ruscio-Young, regarding Accommodation Review - received and referred to staff.
Page 8 of 161 Written submission from Derek Shemavonian, parent of Our Lady of Sorrows regarding the SARC Report - received and referred to staff to be included as part of the review process
Written submission from Andy Abraham regarding OLS and Holy Angels regarding SARC - received and referred to staff to be included as part of the review process
Personal Opinion from K. Krueger regarding SARC - received and referred to staff to be included as part of the review process
Written submission from Holy Angels regarding SARC - received and referred to staff to be included as part of the review process
Communication from Karen Rodricks regarding the SARC report - received and referred to staff to be included as part of the review process.
Report regarding St. Victor Catholic School – Addition Trustee Ward 12 – received.
Capital Project Tender Award
1. That, subject to issuance of the building permit, the construction contract for the FDK + expanded addition to St. Victor Catholic School be awarded to Deciantis Construction Limited in the amount of $4,639,000.00 plus net HST of $100,202.40 for a total cost of $4,739,202.40 utilizing the CCDC2 (2008) standard construction contract and funded as follows: Board Funds EDU Funding Total Proceeds of Disposition 3,114,657.55 3,114,657.55 Full-Day Kindergarten 989,260.00 989,260.00 School Renewal Grant 169,990.43 169,990.43 Capital Land Fund 465,294.43 465,294.43 Total 3,114,657.55 1,624,544.85 4,739,202.40
2. That the revised project cost of $5,810,406, with a budget surplus of $444,024, as detailed in Table 2, be approved, including additional consultant fees of $11,445.00 plus net HST of $247.21 for a total cost of $11,692.21 for Renewal work added to the project scope, funded from the School Renewal Grant.
Page 9 of 161 Report regarding St. John the Evangelist - Replacement Trustee Ward 6 Capital Project Budget Approval that the capital project budget for St. John the Evangelist Catholic School - Replacement of $16,456,959 be approved as detailed in Table 1 and funded, subject to Ministry of Education Approval to Proceed as follows:
Ministry of Ed. Funds EDC & Other Contributions Total
Full Day Kindergarten $ 959,851 $ 959,851 Capital Priorities $ 10,505,329 10,505,329 Ministry Additional Funding $ 117,900 $ 117,900 Children’s Services Funding $ 2,368,583 $2,368,583 Metrolinx Funding $ 350,895 $ 350,895 EDC Eligible Funding $ 2,154,401 $2,154,401 Total $ 11,583,080 $ 4,873,879 $ 6,456,959
Report regarding Investment Report 2014-2015 – received.
Letter from Ombudsman Ontario, regarding Expropriation of Town Homes on Bayview Avenue – received.
Report regarding Final Recommendation School Accommodation Review St. Bruno/St. Raymond (Ward 9)
1. A business case be developed for submission to the Ministry of Education at the next available opportunity for funding of a replacement school at St Raymond.
2. After submission of the business case, that St Bruno be closed and consolidated with the St Raymond school community no earlier September, 2017. St Bruno will act as the temporary consolidated school site once facility work is ready to commence at the current St Raymond site and until such time as the students are able to be accommodated there.
3. The enhanced programming for the consolidated school community will be assessed by staff in consultation with the local community.
Page 10 of 161 4. The attendance boundari es of St Bruno and St Raymond be combined to form the new boundary for the consolidated school.
5. The Director of Education develop a Transition Plan including timelines to facilitate a consolidation, and the process for the naming of the new consolidated school.
Report regarding Final Recommendation School Accommodation Review St. Luke/Senhor Santo Cristo (Ward 9)
That the following recommendations be approved:
1. A business case be developed for submission to the Ministry of Education at the next available opportunity for funding to complete facilities upgrades and retrofits at St Luke in keeping with the recommendations of the community set out in the appendix.
2. After submission of the business case, that Senhor Santo Cristo be closed and consolidated with the St Luke school community as soon as September, 2016.
3. Enhanced programming at the consolidated school be assessed with consultation with the local community and delivered when consolidation at the current St Luke site takes place.
4. The attendance boundari es of Senhor Santo Cristo and St Luke be combined to form the new boundary for the consolidated school.
5. The Director of Education develop a Transition Plan including timelines to facilitate a consolidation, and the process for the naming of the new consolidated school.
Page 11 of 161 Report regarding St. Joseph Morrow Park Catholic Secondary School – Replacement Trustee Ward 7 Capital Project Budget Approval
1. That the capital project budget for St. Joseph Morrow Park Catholic Secondary School - Replacement of $27,247,201 be approved as detailed in Table 1 and funded, subject to Ministry of Education Approval to Proceed as follows:
Ministry of EDC Funding Total Edu. Funds
Capital Priorities $ 21,396,870 $21,396,870 Unique site & TGS Funding $ 303,780 $ 303,780 EDC Eligible Funding 1,512,457 $ 1,512,457 EDC funding for UG parking 4,034,094 $ 4,034,094
Total $21,700,650 $5,546,551 $ 27,247,201
2. That the Ministry of Education be advised that St. Joseph Morrow Park Catholic Secondary School will include underground parking and be further requested to change Section 257.53 of the Education Act to allow for consideration of additional Educational Development Charges (EDC) eligible site preparation and development costs, such as underground parking where warranted.
Staff were directed
1. to ensure that the sign goes up on the site.
2. To bring back information about the programs for St. Joseph’s Morrow Park.
Report regarding System-wide Approach to Under-sized Gymnasiums in Schools – received.
1. That the Board approve, in principle, the evaluation matrix included in the report to prioritize the great need for possible replacement of under-sized gymnasiums, subject to available funding.
Page 12 of 161
2. That staff come back to board with the final evaluation matrix, taking into consideration feedback provided by trustees, with the proposed weighting for each for replacement of under-sized gymnasiums for final approval.
3. That the Board consider gymnasium additions and/or other program-related upgrades under future Capital Priorities.
4. That staff seek other funding opportunities through community partnerships for the construction of new, larger gymnasiums.
Report regarding Employee Expense Reimbursements that the Board of Trustees endorse the continuation of the existing practice of disclosing only Senior Staff and Trustees’ reimbursement of expenses in compliance with existing TCDSB Policies and the Broader Public Sector Expenses Directive.
MOVED by Trustee Bottoni, seconded by Trustee Rizzo, that the items dealt with in PRIVATE SESSION regarding St. Patrick Catholic Secondary School Ryerson University License Agreement Proposed Artificial Turf field & Clubhouse and the Site Plan Approval Process be approved.
CARRIED
(Private Session Minutes Distributed under Separate Cover)
MOVED by Trustee Poplawski, seconded by Trustee Andrachuk, that the meeting adjourn.
CARRIED
______S E C R E T A R Y C H A I R
Page 13 of 161 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
HELD JANUARY 28, 2016
PUBLIC SESSION
PRESENT:
Trustees A. Kennedy, Chair F. D’Amico, Vice Chair A. Andrachuk N. Crawford J.A. Davis J. Martino S. Piccininni B. Poplawski – by teleconference M. Rizzo G. Tanuan
A. Gauthier G. Poole A. Sangiorgio P. Matthews R. McGuckin P. De Cock G. Grant J. Shain M. Puccetti V. Burzotta J. Saraco D. Yack C. Fernandes A. Della-Mora
Page 14 of 161
G. Iuliano Marrello L. DiMarco K. Malcolm N. D’Avella M. Silva J. Yan
A. Robertson, Parliamentarian L. Fernandes, Recording Secretary
MOVED by Trustee Piccininni, seconded by Trustee Andrachuk, that the agenda, as amended, be approved.
On the vote being taken, as follows:
In favour Opposed
Trustees Crawford Kennedy Poplawski Davis Tanuan Del Grande Martino Piccininni Andrachuk Rizzo D’Amico
The Motion was declared
CARRIED
Page 15 of 161 MOVED by Trustee D’Amico, seconded by Trustee Davis, that the items dealt with in PRIVATE SESSION regarding Safe Schools Inquiry, Enrolment Issue at Don Bosco and update on search for a CFO, Ratification of CUPE and purchase of the Cardinal Newman site be approved.
(Private Session minutes Distributed under separate cover)
MOVED by Trustee Davis, seconded by Trustee Piccininni, that the following items 9a), 9b), 9c), 9d), 9e) and 9f) - Minutes of the Meetings, be approved with the following amendments:
1. Page 12 of the Caucus-Inaugural Minutes, delete the last line in the first paragraph.
2. Page 15 of the Caucus-Inaugural Minutes, Motion to nominate a Trustee to the Toronto Student Transportation Group, was moved by Trustee Crawford and not Trustee Davis and Trustee Davis was appointed to the Toronto Student Transportation Group.
On the vote being taken, as follows:
In favour Opposed
Trustees Crawford Kennedy Poplawski Davis Tanuan Del Grande Martino Piccininni Andrachuk Rizzo D’Amico
The Motion was declared
CARRIED
Page 16 of 161 MOVED by Trustee Crawford, seconded by Trustee Andrachuk, that item 10a) be adopted as follows:
10a) Monthly Report from the Chair of the Board – received.
On the vote being taken, as follows:
In favour Opposed
Trustees Crawford Kennedy Poplawski Davis Tanuan Del Grande Martino Piccininni Andrachuk Rizzo D’Amico
The Motion was declared
CARRIED
MOVED by Trustee Piccininni, seconded by Trustee Davis, that item 10b) be adopted as follows:
10b) Monthly Report from the Director of Education – received.
On the vote being taken, as follows:
Page 17 of 161 In favour Opposed
Trustees Crawford Kennedy Poplawski Davis Tanuan Del Grande Martino Piccininni Andrachuk Rizzo D’Amico
The Motion was declared
CARRIED
MOVED by Trustee D’Amico, seconded by Trustee Rizzo, that item 10c) be adopted as follows:
10c) Monthly Report from Student Trustee(s) – received.
On the vote being taken, as follows:
In favour Opposed
Trustees Crawford Kennedy Poplawski Davis Tanuan Del Grande Martino Piccininni Andrachuk Rizzo D’Amico
Page 18 of 161 The Motion was declared
CARRIED
Geoffrey Feldman, Chair of CPIC addressed the Board regarding CPIC’s Annual Report
MOVED by Trustee Andrachuk, seconded by Trustee Crawford, that the presentation by Geoffrey Feldman, Chair of CPIC regarding CPIC’s Annual Report be received and referred to staff for a report to come back which would include:
1. Statistics on the number of meetings CPIC have had with the school communities
2. The outcome of these meetings and the number of parents who came out to these meetings
3. The initiatives recommended to the school communities by CPIC to help them
4. How CPIC and the Board of Trustees could work collaboratively together in the best interest of students and wards
5. How email addresses could be collected from parents and guardians
On the vote being taken, as follows:
In favour Opposed
Trustees Crawford Kennedy Poplawski Davis Tanuan Del Grande
Page 19 of 161 Martino Piccininni Andrachuk Rizzo D’Amico
The Motion was declared
CARRIED
Annalisa Crudo Peri and Sandra Mastronardi, representing OAPCE Toronto, addressed the Board regarding the OAPCE Conference
MOVED by Trustee Bottoni, seconded by Trustee Rizzo, that the presentation by Annalisa Crudo Peri and Sandra Mastronardi, representing OAPCE Toronto, regarding the OAPCE Conference be received.
On the vote being taken, as follows:
In favour Opposed
Trustees Crawford Kennedy Poplawski Davis Tanuan Del Grande Martino Piccininni Andrachuk Rizzo D’Amico
The Motion was declared
CARRIED
Page 20 of 161 MOVED by Trustee Rizzo, seconded by Trustee D’Amico, that item 14a) be adopted as follows:
14a) Request for permission to serve liquor at a high school reunion on Saturday, April 2, 2016 at Marshall McLuhan Catholic Secondary School that the permit policy be waived and that permission be granted to serve alcohol at the Marshall McLuhan Catholic Secondary School reunion on Saturday, April 2, 2016 at Marshall McLuhan Catholic Secondary School.
On the vote being taken, as follows:
In favour Opposed
Trustees Crawford Kennedy Poplawski Davis Tanuan Del Grande Martino Piccininni Andrachuk Rizzo D’Amico
The Motion was declared
CARRIED
MOVED by Trustee Andrachuk, seconded by Trustee Tanuan, that item 14b) be adopted as follows:
14b) Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Special Education Advisory Committee of January 20, 2016 – received.
On the vote being taken, as follows:
Page 21 of 161
In favour Opposed
Trustees Crawford Kennedy Poplawski Davis Tanuan Del Grande Martino Piccininni Andrachuk Rizzo D’Amico
The Motion was declared
CARRIED
Trustee Kennedy declared an interest in item 15a) Financial Update as of November 30, 2015 as her family members are employees of the Board. Trustee Kennedy indicated that she would neither vote nor participate in the discussion of the item.
Trustee Kennedy turned the Chair over to Trustee D’Amico and left the meeting.
MOVED by Trustee Rizzo, seconded by Trustee Davis, that item 15a) be adopted as follows:
15a) Financial Update as of November 30, 2015 – received.
On the vote being taken, as follows:
Page 22 of 161 In favour Opposed
Trustees Crawford Kennedy Poplawski Davis Tanuan Del Grande Martino Piccininni Andrachuk Rizzo D’Amico
The Motion was declared
CARRIED Trustee Kennedy returned to the meeting.
Trustee D’Amico turned the Chair over to Trustee Kennedy.
MOVED by Trustee Davis, seconded by Trustee Poplawski, that item 16a) be adopted as follows:
16a) Safe Schools Inquiry Recommendations Report
1. That the Board of Trustees approve the staff responses to the 33 recommendations made by the Safe Schools Inquiry Panel.
2. That as per recommendation #33, the Director will assign a team to monitor the recommendations
3. That a report on the implementation status of the recommendations will be presented to Board each fall until all recommendations have been fully implemented
4. That Recommendation 28, 31 and 32 be submitted as Notices of Motion at the February 2016 Board meeting.
Page 23 of 161 5. That Recommendation 4 and 5 be added to the MYRP Report in the appropriate section for the consultation and future meeting agendas.
MOVED in AMENDMENT by Trustee Tanuan, seconded by Trustee Davis, to add #6 clause to the main motion to add local parish based groups to staff recommendation #3 contained in the report.
On the vote being taken on the Amendment, as follows:
In favour Opposed
Trustees Bottoni Trustees Martino Rizzo Andrachuk D’Amico Kennedy Tanuan Davis Crawford Poplawski
The Amendment was declared
CARRIED
MOVED in AMENDMENT by Trustee Crawford, seconded by Trustee Andrachuk, to include Recommendation #30 to clause 4 of the main motion.
On the vote being taken, on the Amendment as follows:
In favour Opposed
Trustees Andrachuk Trustees Martino Bottoni Rizzo D’Amico Tanuan Crawford Davis Poplawski Kennedy
Page 24 of 161 The Amendment was declared
LOST
MOVED in AMENDMENT by Trustee Crawford, seconded by Trustee Bottoni, to add #7 that staff be requested to come back with a report advising the Board on recommendation #30.
On the vote being taken, as follows:
In favour Opposed
Trustees Poplawski Trustee Rizzo Andrachuk Bottoni D’Amico Tanuan Davis Kennedy Crawford
The Amendment was declared
CARRIED
MOVED in AMENDMENT BY Trustee Bottoni, seconded by Trustee Rizzo, to #2 to define the membership of the monitoring team and the time lines and report to Student Achievement in March 2016.
On the vote being taken, on the Amendment as follows:
In favour Opposed
Trustees Andrachuk Bottoni Rizzo D’Amico Tanuan
Page 25 of 161 Poplawski Davis Kennedy Crawford
The Amendment was declared
CARRIED
MOVED in AMENDMENT by Trustee Poplawski, seconded by Trustee Rizzo on Recommendation 17, that Placement protocols, purpose and information on the FRESH START program be put on the Board Web Site for easy access and understanding for parents and students under the heading FRESH START - EVERY STUDENT MATTERS.
On the vote being taken, on the Amendment as follows:
In favour Opposed
Trustee Bottoni Trustee Andrachuk Rizzo D’Amico Tanuan Poplawski Davis Kennedy Crawford
The Amendment was declared CARRIED
On the vote being taken, on the Motion as Amended, as follows:
1. That the Board of Trustees approve the staff responses to the 33 recommendations made by the Safe Schools Inquiry Panel.
Page 26 of 161
2. That as per recommendation #33, the Director will assign a team to monitor the recommendations to define the membership of the monitoring team and the time lines and report to Student Achievement in March 2016
3. That a report on the implementation status of the recommendations will be presented to Board each fall until all recommendations have been fully implemented
4. That Recommendation 28, 31 and 32 be submitted as Notices of Motion at the February 2016 Board meeting.
5. That Recommendation 4 and 5 be added to the MYRP Report in the appropriate section for the consultation and future meeting agendas
6. That a clause be added to the main motion to add local parish based groups to staff recommendation #3 contained in the report.
7. That staff be requested to come back with a report advising the Board on recommendation #30
8. That on Recommendation 17 , that Placement protocols, purpose and information on the FRESH START program be put on the Board Web Site for easy access and understanding for parents and students under the heading FRESH START - EVERY STUDENT MATTERS
In favour Opposed
Trustees Andrachuk Bottoni Rizzo D’Amico Tanuan Poplawski Davis Kennedy Crawford
The Motion, as Amended, was declared
Page 27 of 161
CARRIED
The Chair declared a 10 minute recess.
The meeting continued with Trustee Kennedy in the Chair
MOVED by Trustee Davis, seconded by Trustee Crawford, that the meeting be extended until the item on the Multi Year Recovery Plan (MYRP) has been dealt with. CARRIED
Trustee Kennedy declared an interest in item 16b) Multi Year Recover Plan (MYRP) as her family members are employees of the Board. Trustee Kennedy indicated that she would neither vote nor participate in the discussion of the item.
Trustee Kennedy turned the Chair over to Trustee D’Amico and left the meeting.
MOVED by Trustee Davis, seconded by Trustee Crawford, that item 16b) be adopted as follows:
16b) Multi Year Recovery Plan that the Board receive this report for consideration, and the following:
1. Approve the budget consultation approach at the “Involve” level.
Page 28 of 161
2 Approve the timelines identified in Subsection 4 of Section F in which the report will be brought back to the Board meeting scheduled for February 18th 2016 for approval to submit to the Ministry of Education
3 That the Online Town Hall Webcast with chat feature be rescheduled to Monday, February 8, 2016
4 That staff make themselves available to engage parents at Ward meetings, as required.
5 That there be a Special Meeting for CPIC and OAPCE with the date to be confirmed.
MOVED by Trustee Rizzo, seconded by Trustee Davis, that the meeting be extended for another five minutes.
CARRIED
On the vote being taken, as follows:
In favour Opposed
Trustees Bottoni Rizzo D’Amico Tanuan Poplawski Davis Crawford
The Motion was declared
CARRIED
Trustee Kennedy returned to the meeting.
Page 29 of 161 The meeting continued with Trustee Kennedy in the Chair.
MOVED by Trustee Davis, seconded by Trustee Tanuan, that the meeting adjourn.
CARRIED
______S E C R E T A R Y C H A I R
Page 30 of 161
CHAIR’S MONTHLY REPORT FEBRUARY 2016
Following are highlights for the period of January 22 to February 18, 2016.
Held several planning teleconferences with the Director and Facilitator to set the agenda for the Trustee/Senior Staff Retreat Attended along with Trustees and Senior Staff the Strategic Planning Retreat held on Saturday, January 30th at O’Connor House Participated, along with the Vice-Chair of the Board and the Director of Education, in a Provincial Roundtable organized by the Ontario Education Services Corporation (OESC) and the Ministry of Education Along with the Director of Education met with the conductor of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra regarding opportunities for joint initiatives
Page 31 of 161
DIRECTOR’S MONTHLY REPORT FEBRUARY 2016
Following are highlights for the period of January 25 to February 18, 2016.
Held several teleconferences with Ministry staff regarding Syrian Newcomers as well as participating in a provincial working committee with the Ministry, school boards and various stakeholders Held several teleconferences with COSTI and TDSB regarding Syrian Newcomers regarding a joint TCDSB/TDSB initiative Participated in the Family Literacy Day event at St. Helen Catholic Elementary School Brought Greetings at the i-Lite Conference (elementary students) Participated in the Strategic Planning Retreat with Trustees and Associate Directors of Education Dialogued with the Director of TDSB regarding matters of relevance to both school boards Met with Ministry regarding the Board’s financial situation Met with the Latin American Education Network regarding issues of concern Welcomed staff and students at the Black History Month Mass held at the CEC Met with representatives of the Arab Community Centre of Toronto in relation to Syrian Newcomers Attended the Police/School Directors’ Meeting at Police Headquarters hosted by the Deputy Chief of Police Along with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board attended a Provincial Roundtable organized by the Ontario Education Services Corporation (OESC) and the Ministry of Education Attended the City/School Boards Advisory Committee at Toronto City Hall Met with the Chief Medical Officer of Health, representatives from the TDSB and The Angel Foundation for Learning regarding Student Nutrition Governance Attended a Ministry of Education working group meeting regarding Education, Literacy, Employment and Training Along with the Chair of the Board met with the conductor of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra regarding opportunities for joint initiatives Page 32 of 161 For Board Use TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT Only SCHOOL BOARD Delegation No. DELEGATION REGISTRATION FORM ____ FOR STANDING OR OTHER COMMITTEES [ ] Public Session PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT ALL STANDING [ ] Private
COMMITTEE MEETINGS ARE BEING Session RECORDED [ ] Five (5) Minutes
Name Lina Naccarato Committee Regular / Special Board Date of 2/11/2016 Presentation Topic of Budget Deficit Presentation Topic or Issue The reduction of Educational Assistants The Impact of the reduction of Educational Assistants on the School Details Board overall. Action Examine all efficiciences and reduce the amount of reductions. Requested
I am here as a delegation to speak only on my own behalf I am an official representative of the Catholic School Advisrory
Committee (CSAC) I am an official rep esentative of student government I am here as a spokeperson for Yes another group or organization CUPE Local 1328
Submittal Date 1/30/2016
Page 33 of 161 For Board Use TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT Only SCHOOL BOARD Delegation No. DELEGATION REGISTRATION FORM ____ FOR STANDING OR OTHER COMMITTEES [ ] Public Session PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT ALL STANDING [ ] Private COMMITTEE MEETINGS ARE BEING Session RECORDED [ ] Five (5) Minutes
Name Lalit Lobo Committee Regular / Special Board Date of 2/18/2016 Presentation Topic of Lift Jesus Higher Rally 2016 Presentation Topic or Issue Student Evangelization in the Extraordinary Jubilee Year of Mercy. Will invite each student and members of the entire board and staff to Details attend the biggest Annual Catholic Indoor Rally in Canada. Action Attendance to event on March 5th. 2016 Requested
< R> I am here as a delegation to speak only on my own behalf I am an official representative of the Catholic School Advisrory
Committee (CSAC) I am an official representative of student government I am here as a spokeperson for Yes another group or organization Lift Jesus Higher Rally Core Committee
Submittal Date 2/11/2016
Page 34 of 161 Select Public/Private
REPORT TO REGULAR BOARD
LIQUOR PERMIT REQUEST FROM ST. BONIFACE SCHOOL
ECCLESIASTES: 9:7 Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.
Created, Draft First Tabling Review February 11, 2016 February 11, 2016 Click here to enter a date. Trustee Nancy Crawford, Ward 12
RECOMMENDATION REPORT
Vision: At Toronto Catholic we transform the world through witness, faith, innovation and action. G. Poole Associate Director of Academic Affairs Mission: The Toronto Catholic District School Board is an inclusive learning community rooted in the love of Christ. We educate students to grow in grace and A. Sangiorgio knowledge and to lead lives of faith, hope and charity. Associate Director of Planning and Facilities
Angela Gauthier
Director of Education
Page 35 of 161
A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Request Board permission to serve alcohol at an event to be held at St. Boniface School on Monday, February 29, 2016.
B. BACKGROUND
A request was received from Grace Iafrate, the principal of St. Boniface School to waive the liquor policy to serve alcohol at a retirement reception to be held at the school on Monday, February 29, 2016 from 6.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.
C. PURPOSE
Request the Board waive its liquor policy for this event.
D. CONCLUSION
This report is presented for the information of the Board.
Page 2 of 2 Page 36 of 161 PUBLIC
REPORT TO REGULAR BOARD
TCDSB MULTI-YEAR RECOVERY PLAN (2015-2019)
“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened” Matthew 7:7-8
Created, Draft First Tabling Review January 4, 2016 January 28, 2016 February 18, 2016 P. De Cock, Comptroller of Business Services & Finance P. Matthews, General Legal Counsel
RECOMMENDATION REPORT
Vision: At Toronto Catholic we transform the world through witness, faith, innovation and action. G. Poole Associate Director of Academic Affairs Mission: The Toronto Catholic District School Board is an inclusive learning community rooted in the love of Christ. We educate students to grow in grace and A. Sangiorgio knowledge and to lead lives of faith, hope and charity. Associate Director of Planning and Facilities
Angela Gauthier
Director of Education
Page 37 of 161
A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents a Multi-Year Recovery Plan as required by the Ministry of Education in order to eliminate TCDSB’s in-year deficit and accumulated deficit by 2018-19. This proposed plan will eliminate the accumulated deficit of $15.3M by the end of 2018-19 and mitigate the shortfall arising from future reductions to Ministry funding over the next three years.
Deloitte LLP was retained by the Ministry of Education to work with TCDSB towards the development of a Multi-Year Recovery Plan and make recommendations towards a budget reduction strategy. Albeit the Deloitte plan and recommendations work within a three year timeframe, this report also contains a request to the Ministry of Education to extend the timeline by one year. This request to extend to a 4 year timeline has been approved by the Ministry of Education. In this manner, the reduction measures which may lead to staff redundancies, can be more closely aligned with natural attrition rates and allow for revenue generating opportunities to be realized.
A four year recovery plan will help the organization to absorb the considerable and inevitable pressures on the services delivered by the TCDSB given the reductions, especially in the area of Special Education and Early Literacy Intervention.
The proposed financial plan included in this report identifies the selection of specific expenditure reduction opportunities, their respective timelines, related impacts, and provides some risk mitigation strategies as well as contingency plans for programs and services which may experience reductions.
B. PURPOSE
1. This report is an official response to the Ministry of Education’s formal request for TCDSB to develop a Multi-Year Recovery Plan (MYRP) and discloses that the Ministry of Education has agreed that the Board’s MYRP timeframe will be for the four years ending August 31st 2019. This proposed MYRP plan requires Board approval before final submission to the Ministry of Education by the end of February 2016. The Board of Trustees’ approval will be sought at the Board meeting scheduled for February 18th 2016.
Page 2 of 12 Page 38 of 161
C. BACKGROUND
1. The Ministry of Education mandated the Director of Education to develop a draft deficit recovery plan at the earliest opportunity and report that draft plan to the Board of Trustees for approval.
2. Deloitte LLP was retained by the Ministry of Education to assist the TCDSB in formulating a MYRP and identifying expenditure reduction opportunities. Deloitte’s report to TCDSB is attached as Appendix A.
3. A detailed multi-year financial plan (Appendix B), which includes a high level overview of significant expenditure reductions, impact assessments and identification of associated risks has been formulated for approval by the Board of Trustees prior to being submitted to the Ministry of Education. Included in this planning exercise is a request to the Ministry of Education to extend the timeline by 1 year to the fiscal year ending August 31st 2019 (Appendix C). The Ministry of Education’s positive response appears in Appendix D.
4. Extensive community consultation concerning the MYRP as outlined in Section F of this report will be undertaken early in 2016, as the budget planning activities begin for the 2016-17 Budget Estimates.
D. EVIDENCE/RESEARCH/ANALYSIS
1. This report provides 3 MYRP scenarios for consideration in Tables 1-1, 2-1 and 3-1 (Appendix B):
a) The first scenario appearing in Table 1-1 proposes budget reductions totalling $19.1M spread out over the next two years beginning in 2016-17. b) The second scenario appearing in Table 2-1 proposes budget reductions totalling $25.7M spread out evenly over the next three years beginning in 2016-17.
Page 3 of 12 Page 39 of 161 c) The third scenario appearing in Table 3-1 proposes budget reductions totalling $28.4M spread out over the next three years with the objective of not increasing the Accumulated Deficit in each year and eliminating the Accumulated Deficit in the 3rd and final year of the MYRP.
2. TCDSB staff are recommending the third scenario which defers the elimination of the accumulated deficit to the 3rd and final year of the MYRP. This scenario proposes to utilize the ASO Benefits Surplus, if any, as an one-time budget savings in the fiscal year 2018-19. This approach will align the budget reductions to the greatest extent possible with the natural attrition rates for employee groups. TCDSB is committed to maintaining employees’ motivation and well-being throughout this period of structural and systemic change and will engage the appropriate stakeholders at various levels of the restructuring process.
3. The most significant and long-standing cost pressures facing TCDSB has been in the areas of Special Education, Transportation Services and Teacher Salaries and Benefits which exceed Provincial funding benchmark rates. Given the overspending in these areas, TCDSB has historically always offset these overspends by underspends in areas such as Board Administration, School Operations & Maintenance, English as a Second Language Programs (ESL) and Textbooks & Classroom Supplies. Any further reductions to Board Administration and School Operations & Maintenance would lead to significant operational risks in areas that have undergone significant reductions in the past. As identified within the Deloitte LLP Report, “it will be important to minimize any further reductions in administration and operations, as these functions are already lean and need capacity to implement successfully many of the recommendations.” (Appendix A, pg.3)
4. The Toronto Catholic District School Board ended the 2014-15 fiscal year- end with an accumulated year-end deficit of $15.3M which is the sum total of the previous year’s accumulated deficit of $7.4M and the 2014-15 actual fiscal year-end in-year deficit of $7.9M.
5. TCDSB has already embarked upon a significant recalibration of programs and service delivery models in order to realize the Board approved budget reductions totalling $29.4M in the fiscal year 2015-16. This significant commitment to reducing the expenditure budget already includes substantial changes in the area of Special Education. Board staff are aggressively
Page 4 of 12 Page 40 of 161 monitoring and quantifying the impact of the program delivery model changes, and building additional capacity in the regular classroom in order to mitigate the impact of reductions to central supports. This process of building capacity in the regular classroom will require a re-culturing in the classroom supported by intensive professional development interventions.
6. We express our gratitude to all TCDSB community stakeholders, all of whom have worked diligently and professionally towards achieving the required changes to programs and services while maintaining the focus on student success and well-being.
7. In addition to the projected accumulated deficit, the Ministry of Education has already announced further grant for student needs reductions amounting to approximately 0.8% or $8M reduction per year over the next three years. These projections do not account for any possible grant reductions due to enrolment changes.
8. Inclusive in the overall projected grant reduction, the School Operations & Maintenance Grant allocation will be under additional pressure by approximately $3.3M over the next two fiscal years.
9. Given the identified and approved expenditure reductions totalling $29.4M in 2015-16, further expenditure reductions spread over the next three years are required in order to mitigate the additional losses in provincial grants and ensure that TCDSB is both balanced in-year and progressing towards the elimination of the accumulated deficit.
10. The recommended expenditure reduction strategies and their associated implementation timelines appear in Table 3-1 and 3-2 (Appendix B).
11. Throughout the budget communication and engagement process, the Board of Trustees requested additional comparative analyses. The additional analytics appear in Appendices G, H, I and J.
E. METRICS, RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES
1. Board staff will strive to protect all TCDSB community members including students, parents and parish communities by developing mitigation strategies
Page 5 of 12 Page 41 of 161 for each proposed budget reduction. Aligning the reductions with natural attrition rates will serve the best interests of employees and their respective families. Instilling and developing a greater capacity within the regular classroom will continue to foster student success and the well-being of each student and ensure greater inclusivity in the delivery of programs.
2. The recommended expenditure reduction opportunities contained within Appendix B of this report will be measured and monitored by comparing the multi-year recovery plan to actual revenues and expenditures received and incurred. In addition, Board staff will continue to monitor and assess the impact of budget risks which may create future funding or cost pressures. These future risks may create cost pressures due to occasional teacher usage rates and transportation bussing costs. As these risks materialize, in-year and subsequent year budget adjustments will be brought forward to the Board of Trustees for consideration and approval.
3. On February 9, 2016, at the Corporate Services, Strategic Planning and Property Committee meeting, the Board approved the awarding of a contract for school bus transportation services. The contract is for a six-year term and is a joint agreement between TCDSB, TDSB, and 7 school bus companies. TCDSB will see its share of school bus transportation costs increase by approximately $3.7 million over the current year’s cost. This cost pressure will result in an increase of approximately $11.1 million in transportation expenditures over the next 3 fiscal years ending August 31, 2019. This increase in transportation costs will necessitate a further permanent expenditure reduction of $3.7 million in 2016-17, which will have the effect of requiring an increase in total expenditure reductions from $28.4M to $32.1M in Scenario 3.
The Board further resolved that the Directors and Chairs of the TCDSB and TDSB request a meeting with both political and administrative leaders at the Ministry of Education to address the significant imbalance in transportation funding.
4. It is anticipated that additional changes will need to be considered especially in the area of Special Education and Early Literacy Support. In the area of Early Literacy Support, programming at the Full Day Learning level will better enable students to achieve success in the primary grades and reduce the need for 5th Block Program interventions. Central Support Teams will
Page 6 of 12 Page 42 of 161 provide professional development at the Full Day Learning level in order to build the required capacity in the TCDSB.
5. The development of capacity throughout the TCDSB, and the re-visioning of special education delivery of services will be facilitated by the recently approved Special Education Working Committee. This committee is comprised of various Board staff representatives who will be involved in planning and developing alternative Special Education Program delivery models, and following-up by actively monitoring and assessing the impact and results. The recommendations of this committee will be brought forward for appropriate consultation, engagement and Board approval.
6. The delivery of alternative Special Education Programs, which has already begun during the current year (Appendix E), will continue to be retooled and streamlined in order to respond with efficacy and efficiency. Some anticipated changes will be seen in the reorganization of Intensive Support Programs (ISP), i.e. Behaviour, Learning Disability (LD) and Mild Intellectual Disability (MID) classes. A greater degree of integration of these students from Special Education classrooms will take place. It is widely acknowledged that the integration into mainstream classrooms is a fundamental goal for all children. In order to effectively implement this move to greater integration, it is recognized that the Board will need to provide extensive opportunities for Professional Development to Classroom Teachers.
7. In addition, a redefinition of the criteria used to assign Support Workers to those areas of greatest student need will be required. The Working Committee will continue to develop and assess the required mitigation strategies and processes in order to ensure that we are successfully providing Special Education services.
8. The restructuring of our professional development model has seen a shift from centrally controlled and delivered activities to a more decentralized model. Resource staff has been allocated to work with the family of schools’ Superintendents and Principals. This will facilitate the more accurate determination of local needs and the tailoring of professional development to meet those specific needs, as identified by school staff and administration (Appendix F).
Page 7 of 12 Page 43 of 161 9. Albeit, the above mentioned reorganization strategies, capacity building actions and professional development opportunities are important objectives, there can be no doubt that the Multi-Year Recovery Plan’s primary objective is to achieve long-term financial stability while providing a level of service consistent with TCDSB’s commitment to high quality catholic education.
F. STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN
1. The Communications and Community Engagement Strategy for the TCDSB Multi-Year Recovery Plan (MYRP) has been specifically designed to reflect the compassion and care dictated by applying the Catholic lens to this important process. Emphasizing the important and unique roles of family, parish and school in these consultations underscores the Board’s commitment to retaining public confidence and ensuring transparency at all levels of the TCDSB community regarding the measures necessary to comply with the Ministry of Education’s directive to eliminate the Boards deficit by the end of the 2018-2019 fiscal year.
2. A submission deadline of the Board’s MYRP at the end of February 2016 has been established by the Ministry of Education. Given the critical nature of the MYRP to the financial future of the Board, and the comprehensive consultation process required, the community engagement level of “Involve” has been set.
Community engagement level “Involve” requires:
To work directly with the community members throughout the process to ensure that their concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered in decision-making processes.
3. To optimize stakeholder input in as comprehensive a process as possible regarding the MYRP, the parameters for public consultation and communication is guided by these key factors:
a) Alignment with dates for Special Board and pre-scheduled Standing Board/Committee meetings (see chart below in section 4) prior to the February 2016 submission deadline established by the Ministry of Education
Page 8 of 12 Page 44 of 161 b) An interactive, virtual town hall forum for discussing the recommended changes and savings options identified by Deloitte, and other options arising from workshops involving Senior TCDSB staff and Trustees
c) Facilitate the need to be inclusive to reflect views of all TCDSB community members by overcoming language, cultural and socio-economic access barriers.
4. The TCDSB community will be given 8 opportunities to present their views (7 face-to-face opportunities and 1 virtual town hall)
All feedback received through public consultation activities will be reviewed to inform the budget recommendations in the MYRP Report for the three (3) years ending August 31st 2019 to be considered at the Board of Trustees meeting on February 18, 2016, as well as forming the foundation for budget consultations regarding the 2016-2017 Budget.
Page 9 of 12 Page 45 of 161 DATE PUBLIC CONSULTATION ACTIVITY
1. Wednesday, January 20, 2016 General overview of funding challenges related to Special Education Advisory Committee Special Education to support awareness of these (SEAC) issues among SEAC members.
2. Thursday, January 28, 2016 Posting of Multi-Year Recovery Plan Report Board Meeting (MYRP) recommendations and accompanying appendices published and consultation page GO LIVE on TCDSB website. Deputations heard and received at meeting.
3. Thursday, February 4, 2016 MYRP to be addressed, deputations heard & Student Achievement Committee Meeting received at meeting.
4. Tuesday, February 9, 2016 Multi-Year Recovery Plan Report, deputations Corporate Services Committee Meeting heard and received.
5. Wednesday, February 10, 2016 Present Multi-Year Recovery Plan Report to CPIC Special CPIC/OAPCE Meeting required as members (with agreement of CPIC Chair and no current meeting scheduled in February Committee) Respond to questions and discuss recommendations that may impact directly on student success and parent engagement
6. Monday, February 8, 2016 Online presentation of MYRP recommendations Online Town Hall Webcast with chat and savings options to gather direct community feature stakeholder feedback. Real-time answering of questions and discussion of MYRP recommendations
7. Wednesday, February 10, 2016 Consultation and discussion of MYRP Meeting with Union Partners recommendations and options.
8. Thursday, February 18, 2016 Multi-Year Recovery Plan Report, final discussion Board Meeting and approval for submission to Ministry
Page 10 of 12 Page 46 of 161 5. A section of the TCDSB web site will be dedicated to the MYRP, including: a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) information sheet developed to support and assist understanding of the financial issues and the use of “Ask the Director” feedback tool, which was used in the consultations for the 2015-2016 budget.
6. The Communications Plan will also be aligned to support the initiative through follow up in the Director’s Bulletin Board , Weekly Wrap Up, web (TCDSB’s external and internal portal), social media (i.e. Twitter) and E-newsletters, posters to engage and inform internal and external audiences and stakeholders. This will be further sustained through school newsletters. A formal request will be made to the Archdiocese to provide a link via their website, supported by information provided for inclusion in individual parish bulletins.
7. As a result of an on-line survey completed on February 11th 2016 (Appendix K), the highest number of the survey respondents indicated a preference for Scenario 3 of the Multi-Year Recovery Plan as shown in the table below. TABLE 2: Reponses by Option Selected ______Option Responses % Option 1 (Aggressive reductions over 2 years): 208 27% Option 2 (Reductions spread evenly over 3 years): 169 22% Option 3 (Reductions over 3 years, back-ended): 357 47% *No option selected, comments submitted only: 31 4%
Page 11 of 12 Page 47 of 161 G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1) That the Board of Trustees approve Scenario 3 (Table 3-1 in Appendix B) as per Comment 1(c) in Section D, that “proposes budget reductions totalling $28.4M spread out over the next three years with the objective of not increasing the Accumulated Deficit in each year and eliminating the Accumulated Deficit in the 3rd and final year of the MYRP
2) That the Director of Education quantify the additional cost pressures described in the report, and address the $3.7M additional bussing transportation costs for a total required expenditure reduction of $32.1M in the annual budget planning and consultation process.
Page 12 of 12 Page 48 of 161 Appendix A
TCDSB Multi-Year Recovery Plan (MYRP) 2015-16 to 2017-18
July 2015 Submission to Senior Administration and Management at the Toronto Catholic District School Board
Page 49 of 161 Appendix A
Executive Summary
The Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) is projected to report an in-year deficit of approximately $9.5M in 2014-15. With an accumulated deficit from previous years of $7.4M, by the end of 2014-15, TCDSB will have an accumulated deficit of approximately $16.9M. With a reduction in Ministry of Education (Ministry) funding for the next three years, TCDSB is now faced with a significant fiscal challenge. Deloitte was retained by the Ministry of Education to assist TCDSB in developing recommendations and measures to eliminate TCDSB’s accumulated deficit position within the next three years.
The most significant and long-standing cost pressures are in areas such as Special Education, Student Transportation and Teacher Salary and Benefits. In these areas, TCDSB has historically overspent its allocation from the Ministry, while trying to off-set these expenditures with underspend from other areas such as ESL programs, School Board Administration, Textbooks and Supplies. While it is recognized that conscious decisions have been made to invest in areas beyond Ministry funding allocations, this pattern of spending has resulted in annual in- year deficits of over $9M each year over the last two years. The financial position was further undermined by a benefits budget miscalculation in FY2012-13 by almost $10M. Furthermore, in FY2015-16, the Ministry announced a reduction in the Grants for Student Needs (GSN) for TCDSB by 0.8% or approximately $8M/year. This reduction will be carried forward for the next three years, creating potential cost pressures of over $24M. Finally, any decline in enrolment will have a subsequent impact on GSN and corresponding expenditures. At this time, TCDSB does not project a further decline in enrolment in 2016-17 and 2017-18. More accurate projections will be available in the coming months and will need to be factored into the overall financial picture.
The recent 2015-16 Budget has started the process of reducing the accumulated deficit In April 2015, the Board of Trustees approved expenditure reduction measures totalling $29.4M in areas of special education, classroom and administrative spending. However, the impact of expenditure escalation in areas which cannot be avoided, such as movement in the negotiated teacher salary grid, and the reduction in the GSN, has led to only a modest in-year surplus. At the time of this review in June 2015, the FY2015-16 in-year, projected surplus is $3.7M which reduces the accumulated deficit to $13.3M.
Page 50 of 161 Appendix A
Significant cost reduction decisions remain for 2016-17 and 2017-18 Deloitte has worked with staff to produce a three year forecast of revenues and expenditures with the reductions required to return to fiscal balance by the end of 2017- 18. In the years that follow, TCDSB will need to work to produce a reasonable accumulated surplus for contingency purposes that we believe should be approximately $10M. The expenditure reduction recommendations cover both classroom and non-classroom spending and also focuses on areas where TCDSB is overspending, including special education, transportation and classroom teachers. In order to attain a balanced budget and eliminate the accumulated deficit by the end of 2017-18, the Board will need to find an additional $27M in reduction opportunities. Going forward, very difficult and sensitive decisions will need to be made in areas of program delivery and student support in order to realize the projected savings. It will be important to understand whether there are associated impacts on enrolment that could offset planned savings. In addition, staff and trustees will have to work with bargaining agents to examine and potentially modify collective agreements that may restrict the design and implementation of flexible new delivery models. There are a number of risks that have been identified: • System Stability – System-wide expenditure reduction measures may impact overall TCDSB operations. While school operations will continue, it is recommended that TCDSB take a phased approach, over the three year period, to implement the recommendations described throughout this report. • Employee morale – Significant budgetary reductions may reduce employee morale. Every effort should be made to continue to provide professional development to staff. In addition, TCDSB should consider implementing a wellness program within its schools to increase staff productivity, decrease employee absenteeism and decrease overall employee health and benefits costs. • Public Perception – TCDSB’s financial position has been widely reported in the media. It is important to ensure that communications on behalf of TCDSB be delivered through one channel with one common voice and standard messaging. Multiple communications channels and messages may alter public perception. • Administration and Operations - It will be important to minimize any further reductions in administration and operations, as these functions are already lean and need capacity to implement successfully many of the recommendations. TCDSB staff will need to complete additional analysis to provide the Board of Trustees with detailed options and recommendations in order to submit a Multi-Year Financial Recovery Plan to the Ministry by September 30, 2015.
Page 51 of 161 Appendix A
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...... 2 Introduction ...... 5 Historical Financial Review and Forecast to 2014/15 ...... 6 Factors Contributing to Annual Operating Deficits ...... 6 Three Year Financial Forecast for 2015-18 ...... 9 Potential Expenditure Reduction Opportunities ...... 14 Additional Recommendations and Key Considerations ...... 29 Revenue Generation Opportunities...... 33 Implementation Roadmap ...... 34 Appendix ...... 36
Page 52 of 161 Appendix A
Introduction
As a result of an accumulated deficit of approximately $16.9M by the end of 2014-15, coupled with the reduction in Ministry funding over the next three years, the Ministry formally requested that TCDSB eliminate the in-year deficit and accumulated deficit by 2017-18. As a result, TCDSB is required to prepare a Multi-Year Recovery Plan (MYRP), which will outline a three year reduction strategy that will aim to eliminate the structural deficit and develop a surplus of 0.3-1% of total operating revenue (approximately $3-10M) by 2017-18. In general, the Ministry encourages school boards to attain an unappropriated accumulated surplus balance of 1% of operating revenues, but not less than 0.3% for contingency purposes. The MYRP will also take account of other known funding pressures that will impact 2016-17 and 2017-18. Deloitte has been retained by the Ministry of Education to work together with TCDSB in preparing this MYRP which will include recommendations and measures to eliminate TCDSB’s accumulated deficit position within the next three years. This report is divided into three parts: • The first part provides a historical financial review and forecast to 2014/15. This section will provide an assessment of TCDSB’s current financial situation, including an overview of the circumstances which led to the projected accumulated deficit of $16.9M for 2014-15. • The second part will analyze TCDSB’s projected structural deficit over the next three years and will include analysis of approved expenditure reduction measures for 2015-16. • The final section of this report will highlight additional reduction opportunities that will assist TCDSB in attaining a surplus and eliminating the accumulated deficit by the end of 2017-18. It will also include an implementation plan for all expenditure reduction opportunities across the three year timeline. It is important to note that at the time of writing this report in June 2015, the 2014-15 expenditure figures have not yet been finalized. The financial year will end on August 31, 2015 with the submission deadline to the Ministry in November 2015. As a result, all numbers in this report are subject to change. Finally, Deloitte would like to thank TCDSB staff for their collaboration throughout development of this report. They were able to provide Deloitte with data and analysis that contributed to the final Multi-Year Recovery Plan.
Page 53 of 161 Appendix A
Historical Financial Review and Forecast to 2014/15
This section highlights TCDSB’s financial position from FY 2012-13 to 2014-15 and outlines the resulting projected accumulated deficit position as of FY 2014-15.
Table 1: TCDSB Financial Position Summary 2012-13 to 2014-151
2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 Actuals ($M) Actuals ($M) Revised Estimates ($M)2
Opening Accumulated Surplus / (Deficit) 6.1 2.3 (7.4) Revenue 972.8 1,117.2 1,051.2 Expenditure 976.6 1,126.9 1,060.7 In-Year Surplus (Deficit) (3.8) (9.7) (9.5) Accumulated Surplus / (Deficit) 2.3 (7.4) (16.9)
Over the last three years, TCDSB has experienced in year deficits that have collectively led to an accumulated deficit. The total accumulated deficit from 2013-14 was $7.4M with an additional projected in-year deficit in 2014-15 totalling $9.5M. As a result, by the end of the 2014-15 fiscal year, TCDSB will have an accumulated deficit of approximately $16.9M.
Factors Contributing to Annual Operating Deficits There are two main factors that have contributed to in-year operating deficits since 2012-13: areas of overspend relative to Ministry funding and a budget miscalculation of benefits.
Areas of Overspend Relative to Ministry Funding
An analysis of 2014-15 revenue and proposed expenditures indicates that there are five main areas of overspend for TCDSB relative to Ministry funding: classroom teachers, teacher consultants, occasional teachers, transportation, and education assistants.
1 Source: Summary of In-Year and Cumulative Operating Surplus / Deficit. Please note that there may be slight discrepancies in the figures relative to rounding 2 The 2014-15 expenditure figures will not be finalized until November 2015. As a result, all 2014-15 numbers are estimates and subject to change
Page 54 of 161 Appendix A
Figure 1: Estimated Spending Under / (Over) Allocation ($M) in 2014-153
Within classroom teachers, TCDSB has overspent for a variety of reasons4: • As a result of travel times and scheduling of prep time periods, itinerant teachers are often not fully utilized leading to increased costs for itinerant and prep-time teachers; • TCDSB has on average smaller classroom sizes compared to the Ministry benchmark for secondary school classes. TCDSB has a ratio of 20.84 students to 1 teacher, whereas the Ministry benchmark is 22 students to 1 teacher at the secondary level; • A less integrated special education delivery model results in a lower student to teacher / Education Assistant ratio. This results in additional support which is not fully funded by the Ministry. • There are additional unfunded costs for providing special education support to pupils classified as “Not Applicable” (i.e. those that do not fall into an exceptionality such Autism or Behaviour).
The figure above highlights the areas and amount of under / over spend by TCDSB relative to Ministry funding. Across the five main areas of overspend, TCDSB has overspent by approximately $30M in 2014-15. A further analysis of overspending within classroom teachers shows that the majority of this overspend
3 Summary of 2014-15 Revised Grants & Other Revenues Compared to Revised Budget Before Proposed Reductions 4 Please note that the areas of overspend in 2014-15 do not take into consideration measures approved in the 2015-16 budget
Page 55 of 161 Appendix A
comes from secondary school regular classroom teachers and secondary special education teachers and Educational Assistants.
Figure 2: Estimated Breakdown of Elementary and Secondary Under / (Over) Spend by Categories in 2014-15 ($M)5
Adjustment in Retirement Gratuity Liability
For the fiscal year ending August 31, 2013, the period in which the Board was amortizing its retirement gratuity liability needed to be adjusted (from 20 years to 13 years), which resulted in the Board restating the 2012-2013 financials to reflect an increase in amortization expense of $2.9M. The prior period adjustment for increased retirement gratuity amortization contributed to a $3.8M deficit in the fiscal year ending August 31, 2013.
TCDSB will continue to receive funding over the next ten years to fund the retirement gratuity expenses; however, there will be no funding available in the last three years (starting in 2021-22). In addition, future funding will not be provided for the full cost of gratuity expenses, which creates an unfunded cost pressure.
As part of TCDSB’s long term budget planning process, future in-year surplus funds should be internally restricted to cover these cost pressures.
5 Summary of 2014-15 Revised Grants & Other Revenues Compared to Revised Budget Before Proposed Reductions
Page 56 of 161 Appendix A
Three Year Financial Forecast for 2015-18
As detailed in the previous section, by the end of 2014-15, TCDSB is projected to have an accumulated deficit of $16.9M which is comprised of an accumulated deficit from previous years of $7.4M and a projected in-year overspend of $9.5M. The Ministry has already announced provincial wide reductions to many school board’s Grant for Student Needs (GSN) and TCDSB will experience a 0.8% reduction per year in operating revenue over the next three years, totaling approximately $24.0M. In addition, there reductions to the Special Education Grant and the Board Administration Grant each year for the next three years. Any additional decline in enrolment in 2016- 17 and 2017-18 will have a subsequent impact on revenue and expenditures. In order to address the decline in revenue as well as the accumulated deficit, the Board of Trustees has approved $29.4M worth of expenditure reductions for incorporation in the 2015-16 operating budget. These reductions will take place immediately in 2015-16 and be sustained through for the following two years. The following table provides an overview of TCDSB’s projected financial position over the next three years, taking into consideration the decline in revenue and expenditures as described above.
Table 2: Summary of TCDSB Financial Projections6
2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 Estimates Projections Projections Projections ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) Opening Accumulated Surplus / (Deficit) (7.4) (16.9) (13.1) (7.2)
Total Revenue 1,051.2 1,050.9 1,039.6 1,028.3
Expenditures 1,060.7 1,076.6 1,047.2 1,033.7 Board Approved Reductions - (29.4) - - Further Reductions Required - - (13.5) (13.5) Total Expenditures 1,060.7 1,047.2 1,033.7 1,020.2
In-Year Surplus (Deficit) (9.5) 3.7 5.9 8.1
Accumulated Surplus / (Deficit) (16.9) (13.1) (7.2) 0.9
6 A number of assumptions have been made to calculated the three-year projected surplus / deficit, including the following: a) Expenditure projections in 2016-17 and 2017-18 assume the same level of expenditure as 2015-16. b) Numbers have been rounded to the nearest hundred thousand c) Revenue assumptions for 2016-17 and 2017-18 do not include potential decline in enrolment
Page 57 of 161 Appendix A
While TCDSB has made significant progress in identifying and approving $29.4M of reductions for 2015-16, given the decline in Ministry funding of approximately 0.8% of operating revenue per year over the next three years, TCDSB is projected to be in a deficit situation by the end of 2017-18 without further savings. As a result, additional reduction opportunities need to be found to eliminate both the projected accumulated deficit of $16.9M by 2017-18 and build accumulated surplus in accordance with Ministry guidelines. These additional reduction opportunities beyond 2015-16 must total at least $27M which has been illustrated in the table above as $13.5M of required savings in each of 2016-17 and 2017-18.
Approved 2015-16 Expenditure Reduction Measures In February and March 2015, a number of cost saving opportunities were developed in order to address TCDSB’s deficit. These opportunities were presented to the Board of Trustees in March and April 2015 and a number of reduction measures were approved by the Board for implementation in 2015-16. The majority of these measures had staff surplus implications but there are other measures which impact non-classroom expenditures. Additional non-classroom savings may be identified and approved by the Board of Trustees once revised estimates are available in November 2015.
The total FTE reduction of these measures is 260 with a total cost savings of approximately $29.4M.7 In June 2015, the Board of Trustees approved the 2015-16 budget which included these expenditure reduction measures. Figure 3 below, illustrates the proposed over/under spend by in 2015-16 and it is important to note that the majority of overspend will come from classroom teachers, special education and prep-time, three categories which were also areas of overspend in 2014-15 (among others). Figure 3: Projected TCDSB (Over)/Under Spend in 2015-168
7 Due to a projected decline in enrolment, an additional 13 FTEs (approximately $1.3M) have been surplused. 8 2015-16 Grant Allocation by Category
Page 58 of 161 Appendix A
In addition, the 2015-16 budget revealed that only $13.5M of reductions were realized due to additional cost pressures in the budget that negate over 50% of the approved reduction opportunities. These cost pressures include:
1. Salary Increases and Grid Movement – For each year of service and qualifications, teachers move along the salary grid and can reach the top of the pay scale 10 years after starting their career. The Board’s teacher salary grid provides higher compensation than the provincial average at the top end of the grid. This has resulted in an annual cost pressure of $4.4M (above ministry funding) and as more teachers move up the grid (as a result of years of experience and qualifications), this cost pressure will be sustained and possibly increased. 2. Benefits - The nature of the benefits plan (open formulary9, prohibited use of generic drugs, etc) and the experience level trends indicate an ongoing cost pressure of at least $8.3M annually for classroom, library and guidance teachers.10 This number does not reflect additional benefits cost pressures from non-classroom teachers. 3. Transportation – Currently TCDSB provides transportation services to over 7,000 students who are outside the catchment areas or within walking distance of a TCDSB school. In addition, traffic congestion within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) means that TCDSB is increasing the number of vehicles on the road in order to provide transportation services.
As stated above, while significant progress has been made to reduce TCDSB’s deficit, management still needs to find an additional $27M over 2016-17 and 2017-18 in order to achieve a surplus and eliminate the accumulated deficit. A discussion of opportunities and targets for 2016-17 and 2017-18 are presented later in this report. Table 3: Approved Expenditure Reduction Measures for 2015-16
Approved Approved Expenditure Reduction Measure FTE Savings Savings ($M)
Reduce the number of 5th Block teachers 6 0.6 Eliminate the Junior Literacy Intervention 20 2.0 Program Increase Secondary School Class Sizes to 42 4.2 meet Provincial Benchmarks Increased efficiencies in Music Preparation 10 1.0 time
9 A closed formulary plan will not pay for drugs not on a negotiated list (that would typically list less expensive generic drugs) unless your doctor wins a medical appeal to prescribe. An open formulary plan is not common in school board benefits plans as it may allow any drug (or drugs not on the list) to be prescribed which could potentially generate additional costs. 10 The drug and benefits plan varies from Board to Board and often within a Board, depending on the collective agreement of each group. Approximately 50% of all drug plans for school board employees in Ontario prohibit the use of generic drugs.
Page 59 of 161 Appendix A
Approved Approved Expenditure Reduction Measure FTE Savings Savings ($M) Replace Secondary School Gifted Program Teachers with Gifted Resource Teacher 14.4 1.4 Support Increase Monsignor Fraser class sizes 4 0.4
Replace Elementary School Teacher Librarians 42.5 2.1 with Library Technicians
Reduce Secondary School Teacher Librarians 5.57 0.6
Reduce Reliance on Contracted Support -- 2.3 Workers Further Align Child Youth Workers (CYWs) to 7 0.4 meet School Board Benchmarks
Reduce Non Classroom Resource Teachers 30 3.0
Modify Extended Day International Languages -- 0.9 Program to an After Hours Program Reduce Board Administration and Governance -- 0.6 spending
Reduce Non-Classroom Spending -- 0.4
Replace Central Program Coordinators with 14 1.8 Resource Teachers Reduce Secondary School Vice Principals in 4 0.4 Smaller Schools Reduce Elementary School Vice-Principals in 4 0.4 Smaller Schools
Reduce Professional Development budget -- 0.5
Reduce Textbooks budget -- 1.7
Eliminate Budget for Unfilled Ombudsman 1 0.2 Position Increased Efficiencies in Planning and 10 1.0 evaluation time Realign and Reallocate Educational Assistant 30 1.5 staffing model Realign Regional Elementary Guidance 4 0.4 Teachers Model Reduce Special Education Secondary School 12 1.2 Teachers
Reduce Computer Technology budget -- 0.4
Page 60 of 161 Appendix A
Approved Approved Expenditure Reduction Measure FTE Savings Savings ($M) Reduce Director’s Discretionary Fund -- 0.05
Total Savings 260 $29.4M
Page 61 of 161 Appendix A
Potential Expenditure Reduction Opportunities
While significant progress was made to approve $29.4M worth of expenditure reductions in 2015-16, in order to eliminate the accumulated deficit by the end of 2017- 18, TCDSB needs to find another $27M of savings.
This section provides an overview of a number of additional expenditure reduction opportunities to assist TCDSB in eliminating their structural deficit over the next three years.
Table 4: Summary of Potential Expenditure Reduction Opportunities11
2015-16 Potential 2016-17 Potential 2017-18 Potential Total Potential Net Opportunity Net Benefit ($M) Net Benefit ($M) Net Benefit ($M) Benefit ($M)
Schedule 5 – School Block 3.1 -- -- 3.1 Carryover*
th Literacy – 5 Block Program -- 3.1 -- 3.1
Student Transportation -- 1.5 -- 1.5
Elementary Guidance Teachers -- 0.4 -- 0.4
Itinerant Teaching Model (0.25) 2.65 (0.25) 2.15
International Languages -- 1.5 -- 1.5
Energy Management 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.8
Attendance Support Program (0.2) 0.7 0.2 0.7
Short Term Disability 0.3 -- -- 0.3 Adjudication
Benefits Audit 1.2 1.2
Strategic Sourcing -- 1.1 0.8 1.9
E-Sourcing 0.75 1.5 1.5 3.75
Special Education (0.6) 5.7 6.8 11.9
Estimated Potential Total Savings 4.5 18.5 9.3 32.3
11 Opportunities with an asterisk (*) represent one time savings vs. those opportunities which represent a structural savings for TCDSB Page 62 of 161 Appendix A
School Block Carryover: Context: Each year, schools are allocated a budget for which to procure goods and services. Annual budgets allocated to schools are not completely used and the residual funds at fiscal yearend are carried over to the following year’s budget.
Opportunity: Although the historical practice has been for TCDSB to restrict internally these carried over funds, the Ministry does not classify them as restricted. As such, there is an opportunity to apply the $5M of unspent school funds towards the deficit. This is a one-time measure in 2015-16.
Although these funds are available and Deloitte recommends using these funds towards eliminating the structural deficit, the board has earmarked a portion of these funds towards other priorities:
• $1.1M – Professional development • $0.5M – Sinking fund interest • $0.2M – Trustee playground Deloitte recognizes that some commitments to use these funds have been made; as a result, only $3.1M can be utilized towards the structural deficit. This $3.1M has been carried over from unspent school funds.
Risks and Key Considerations: This approach of limiting school expenditure to historical spend will have more of an immediate impact on expenditures. However, a detailed spend analysis should be conducted by the board’s Material Management division to understand which commodities constitute the majority of spend and whether supplier and transportation costs are expected to increase independently of school buying patterns. Utilizing the school block carryover is a one time reduction in 2015-16 and applying this reserve to the accumulated deficit will not be required in future years. However, there is an opportunity for schools to modify their budgets to ensure that they do not continue to maintain a carryover each year which will in turn generate overall savings for TCDSB.
A key dependency for implementation will be clear communication to schools as well as fiscal policy alignment, systems configuration and spending controls that will stop any transaction that has the potential to exceed the maximum budget. Principals will need to work with Materials Management to plan as much of their buying as possible and to use system reports to diligently track budgets.
Page 63 of 161 Appendix A
Literacy 5th Block Program: Context: The 5th Block program is an elementary literacy program for students who require additional literacy assistance. This program is not funded by the Ministry of Education and continues to put a cost pressure of $3.1M on TCDSB’s annual budget. In April 2015, the Board of Trustees approved a motion to decrease the scope of the program and remove 6 out of the 37 teachers.
Opportunity: Since the 5th Block program is not funded by the Ministry, we recommend completely removing the program and alleviating this cost pressure on the budget. This will involve surplusing the remaining 31 teachers in the 5th Block program.
Risks and Key Considerations: All elementary school teachers are trained in early literacy intervention and as a result, TCDSB will continue to provide literacy support to elementary school children.
Student Transportation: Context: TCDSB’s current transportation model puts a cost pressure of over $4.0M on the budget in 2014-15 and will put a $5.4M cost pressure in 2015-16.
Opportunity: The largest group of students who place pressure on the budget are non- qualifying riders or students who do not live within the catchment area but are nevertheless provided with transportation services. There are over 7,000 non-qualifying riders with an expenditure level of $810,000 per year. However, unless 90% of the affected students are retained, this measure would result in a negative financial impact. With the sole purpose of financial recovery, restricting non-qualifying ridership without further analysis on retention rates is not recommended.
There are however, a number of other transportation savings measures that should not impact enrolment. The following programs listed below contribute to the transportation cost pressure and elimination of transportation services for students in these programs should not impact student enrolment.
• Practical Applied Living Skills • High School EXC • Section 23 Transportation • Summer School Transportation • Outdoor Education
Page 64 of 161 Appendix A
• Co-op Placement • Eastern Rite Realignment • Eastern Rite Transportation • Extended French
Risks and Key Considerations: The biggest consideration that TCDSB must account for when making reductions in student transportation services is the impact on student enrolment. In order to do so, TCDSB must consider that student retention rates after implementation maintain a net positive financial impact.
Regional Elementary Guidance Teachers: Context: In 2014-15, there were 16 regional elementary guidance teachers across eight catchment areas, each of whom were responsible specific schools. In April 2015, TCDSB management proposed a reduction of eight of these regional guidance teachers; the Board of Trustees only approved the removal of four of these positions.
Opportunity: Given that two regional elementary guidance teachers provide support to each catchment area, there is an opportunity to remove another four positions, leaving eight regional guidance teachers, one for each region.
Risks and Key Considerations: There will need to be a reallocation of responsibilities amongst the remaining elementary regional guidance teachers. However, Deloitte research has found that other large school boards in and around the GTA do not have regional elementary guidance teachers; such positions were only found at the secondary level.
Itinerant Teaching Model Context: TCDSB is projected to overspend approximately $5.7M on elementary school itinerant teachers in 2014-15. Within TCDSB, these teachers provide prep-time for regular elementary classroom teachers in areas such French, physical education, vocal
Page 65 of 161 Appendix A music, instrumental and health. However, unlike other large school boards in and around the GTA, TCDSB itinerant teachers do not teach multiple disciplines. Opportunity: Compared to another large GTA school board, TCDSB has a higher itinerant teacher to student ratio.12 Combined with TCDSB’s overspend of Ministry allocation for prep-time teachers, there is a significant opportunity to reduce the number of itinerant teachers in the system by allowing teachers to teach multiple disciplines. While some degree of analysis is required to determine what disciplines teachers are currently trained in, there is an opportunity to reduce the overspend by 50% or $2.9M. This will bring TCDSB closer to Ministry allocation and school board benchmarks. While there is still opportunity, we acknowledge that TCDSB is located in the GTA and teachers will require additional travel time due to traffic and distance between schools.
Key Risks and Considerations: • There may be collective bargaining issues or contract stipulations which specifically prevent itinerant teachers from teaching more than one discipline. TCDSB will need to ensure that adequate training is provided for teachers and additional funds are built into this opportunity for additional professional development and training. • There is a risk of creating itinerancy within the school in order to avoid itinerancy outside of it. • Additional training and professional development may be required to ensure that itinerant teachers are able to teach multiple disciplines. These costs have been estimated at $0.25M per year over three years.
International Languages: Context: The International Languages Program is an elementary school program where children have an opportunity to learn another language. At TCDSB schools, this program is either provided through an Extended Day program or an After Hours program. The extended day program is administered by lengthening the school day by 30 minutes, whereas the After Hours program is held either after school hours or on the weekend. The program is funded by the Ministry as well as external grants; however, in 2014-15, TCDSB was overspending by $1.6M.
12 TCDSB has a 1:103 itinerant elementary school teacher: student ratio whereas another large GTA school board has a 1:119 ratio.
Page 66 of 161 Appendix A
Opportunity: In April 2015, the Board of Trustees approved a $0.9M reduction to the International Languages program. Despite this reduction, the program is still unfunded by approximately $0.7M. According to 2012-13 financial data, the Extended Day program was overspent by approximately $1.2M while the After Hours program was only overspent by $0.058M. As a result, in order to obtain an additional savings, we recommend transferring the Extended Day program and students to an After Hours program.
Total expenditures for the International Languages program in 2012-13 were approximately $6.8M.13 Transferring all students from an Extended Day program ($295/pupil) to an After Hours program ($241/pupil) provides an opportunity to save $54/pupil which can translate up to $1.0M in savings.14
Risks and Key Considerations: Transitioning to an After Hours program for International Languages at a cost of $5.8M, would require support from parents and may incur additional costs for transportation, which have not been factored into this analysis.15 It is important to note that other school boards in the GTA are also implementing International Language programs outside regular school hours. In addition, these school boards either charge a small fee for students to attend or request that students purchase the requisite textbooks prior to starting the course. It is recommended that TCDSB charge a similar fee ($20/student) in order to offset the expenditures for this program and ensure that TCDSB is not incurring a deficit for operation of the International Languages program.
Energy Management: Context: While the school board has taken steps to reduce energy-related costs, their Intensity level (216.91 ekWh/m2) is currently above the provincial level (212.96 ekWh/m2) and the top quartile (150.26 ekWh/m2).16
Opportunity: TCDSB has developed an energy management plan that includes planned system retrofits and the roll out of Building Automation Systems (BAS). The plan includes low-cost initiatives aimed at changing energy consumption behaviours of students and staff as well as other green initiatives unrelated to expensive and lengthy system upgrades. The plan sets achievable consumption reduction targets from 2013-2018 and includes a 6% reduction for 2015-2018. It is recommended that TCDSB adhere to their Energy Management Plan for the
13 Of the $6.8M in total expenditures, $5.2M was funded by the Ministry and $0.3M funded through other grants. 14 All costs to run and operate the After Hours program have been built into the additional costs line. The difference between running the program under the Extended Day program and an After Hours program represents a savings of approximately $1.0M. This is based off of 2012-13 financial data.
16 Current Energy Intensity (EI) level has been referenced from the energy consumption database
Page 67 of 161 Appendix A next three years which will allow them to meet the provincial average by the end of 2015-16.
Based on the board’s estimated total annual heating and cooling spend of $16,421,977, reducing the board’s energy intensity by 1.82% in the first year, 2.0% in the second year and 2.5% in the third year (for a total of 6.3%) will deliver a net savings of nearly $0.8M by FY 2017-18.
Risks and Key Considerations: • The assumption is that rolling system retrofits including BAS implementations have been included in the forecasted annual expenditures for facilities. • Historically the board has also struggled with developing school designs within the Ministry benchmark. This trend could pose a risk to budgets set aside for energy management where funds may be required to compensate for unfunded portions of development. • Achieving EI reductions will require a dedicated staff member who is an expert from the field of energy management (estimated at $80K recurring annual cost for salary and benefits). • Limited net benefits are expected in year 1 because it may take one year to implement programs and/or infrastructure. However, if the target of 6.3% reduction can be achieved by 2017-18 then there is a potential for an accumulated gross savings of $1.0M. The fluctuation in gas and electricity rates, as well as weather patterns, will add a measure of risk and uncertainty in achieving the estimated savings.
Attendance Support Strategy and Program Implementation Context: TCDSB currently spends approximately $18.2M in primary and secondary occasional teachers, of which they overspend by $5.3M annually. These cost pressures stem from the accumulation of short term sick days which is an average of 12.1 days/year. When compared with the average of other boards across the sector, this represents a gap of two days as the provincial average is 10.1 days/year.
Opportunity: In order to reduce absenteeism and support employees who experience high rates of absenteeism, implementation of an Attendance Support program is recommended.
Many other school boards have moved forward with an Attendance Support program during and since the introduction of the Ministry’s MOU. In some instances, the
Page 68 of 161 Appendix A increase in attendance has been as much as 10%, which in TCDSB’s case could represent a saving of $1.8M. However, 3% of these savings will be realized through the Short Term Disability (STD) Adjudication opportunity (see next expenditure reduction opportunity) in the elementary panel under the current contractual agreement. As a result, only 7% of savings will be realized through an attendance support program.
Risks and Key Considerations: Implementation of an Attendance Support program would require investment in the following key areas in 2016-17 with cost savings realized in 2017-18:
• Detailed assessment and policy development support from a 3rd party (i.e. SBCI) • Recruit an experienced and dedicated Attendance Support Coordinator • Labour relations capacity to support union discussions and policy development • Systems modifications to provide enhanced reporting for the Attendance Support Coordinator • Training for Superintendents, Principals, Vice-Principals to be conducted by HR staff and potentially 3rd party support
Short Term Disability (STD) Adjudication Context: While the board could benefit from the eventual implementation of an Attendance Support Program, management currently has an obligation to provide sufficient adjudication of STD (short term disability claims). Relative to industry benchmarks of adjudicators to staff (1:1900), the school board is under capacity (under-staffed)17. The current TCDSB ratio of dedicated STD adjudicator to employees is roughly 1:7,47018.
While the Board has already recruited one adjudication specialist, based on industry benchmarks, it is recommended that a second adjudicator and an administrative assistant be recruited in the first year to support the board’s internal adjudication process for Elementary Teachers, Custodial, Maintenance, and Elementary School Support Staff as well as Board Administration staff, as well as
17 STD adjudicator caseload = 32-35 open cases, Major Canadian Insurer Study; Average length of STD claim (unionized workforce): 34.2 days; Average number of consecutive days of absence required prior to STD claim (unionized workforce): 8.1 days; Percentage of employees on STD (unionized workforce): 15.0%, Conference Board of Canada’s June 2010 report (Beyond Benefits II - Disability Plans and Absence Management in Canadian Workplaces). Based on the statistics above, the average length of a disability, from first day, would be approximately 42.3 days (8.1 days + 34.2 days) or 6.1 weeks. With an optimal open case load of 33.5 cases, this would have one individual handling a case load of approximately 285 open cases per year. If 15% of the population is on STD, this represent an insured population size of approximately 1,900 employees per STD adjudicator 18 Based on 1 adjudicator for 7,472 staff Page 69 of 161 Appendix A
provide full-time administrative support. Depending on need, a third adjudicator should be hired in the second year. In addition, the board should consider additional legal fees to support the management of potential grievances.
Opportunity: The first year would require an investment of $0.21M for three additional resources; however, savings in year one (based on a 5% reduction in elementary supply teachers) would provide $0.32M.
Risks and Key Considerations
• Change management and communications to employees will be critical in order to avoid misunderstanding that this is a net new attendance support program (rather than increasing an existing function’s capacity and expertise). • The board may require additional legal capacity in order to address potential grievances
Benefits Audit Context: The purpose of a third party benefits audit is to review the work of the Plan Administrator (in this case Great West Life) and its subcontractors with regard to its claims adjudication and administrative performance. The objective is to evaluate the completeness, accuracy and quality of claims adjudication and cost management relative to plan policy.
Opportunity: There are several opportunities which fall under this category: • Benefit Claims System Mapping Audit - ensure that the insurer’s system configuration is aligned with the master policy • Targeted History Services Audit - identify potential plan abusers and the extent to which the administrator has taken measures to address and/or whether TCDSB should be compensated • Claims Adjudication Audit of 300 – 400 claims - identify monetary and procedural errors against the master benefits policies and plans • Conduct a PDD (Pay Direct Drug Claims) Audit - identify errors and abuse in the provision of drug benefits as well as the supporting processes relative to the master policy and industry benchmarks.
Benefit carrier audits, based on sector experience19, can deliver anywhere between 1-5% of savings on total spend examined. In some cases, portions of
19 P26. The Road Ahead. A report on continuous improvement in school board operations. Operational Reviews for Ontario District School Boards 2007-2013, Ontario Ministry of Education Page 70 of 161 Appendix A
those benefits paid by the carrier were returned to the school board. Considering that the board has not conducted an audit of this nature in its history with the carrier, the savings have been estimated in the middle of the benchmark range (3%). This metric applied against the school board’s total spend with GWL $46.5M20. The total opportunity has been estimated as $1.2M net of the investment in the audit (estimated at $0.2M).
Risks and Key Considerations: • The audit should be conducted by a third party i.e. not the school board or the benefits carrier (Great West Life). The cost based on Deloitte experience and quotes for similar audits received by TCDSB is estimated at $0.2M and would include the examination of between 300 – 400 claims. • The carrier will need to be fully cooperative with the auditors and allow access to systems and claims. • The audit may require unplanned support time from school board staff. • The final audit report in itself will not deliver the savings. Staff will need to implement the recommendations and react to the findings of the report by e.g. formally requesting adjustments from the carrier, make the necessary system and process changes, etc. • Depending on staff capacity to react to the report, savings may not be fully realized in the year the audit is undertaken.
Strategic Sourcing: Context: a) Spend Under Contract In FY14 the school board spent just over $93.5M through system generated purchase orders (POs). Approximately 22 of the vendors from the vendor master list are currently not under contract with the board. This represents roughly $6M of spend not under contract. However, a large portion of this spend (approximately $4- 5M) is sole sourced (only one vendor can provide the service/goods). This leaves approximately $1-2M of spend with a portion of vendors with which there may be an opportunity to negotiate a contract. b) Spend Under Management Within the group of vendors currently under contract and engaged through POs there is an opportunity to implement vendor management or “spend under
20 Sum of Health and Dental benefits provided by Great-West Life attained from “Comparative Analysis of Benefits 2015-16” Page 71 of 161 Appendix A
management” in order to ensure that contract pricing and vendor performance is being maintained. Key TCDSB categories of spend to consider include Suppliers, Leases, and Services totaling just over $18.3M c) Cheque Requisitions In 2014, TCDSB also processed approximately $121M of spend through payment requisitions (i.e. spend for recurring items such as utilities, data, student transportation, insurance, etc. for which there are vendor contracts in place) with a small portion being processed through cheque requisitions (i.e. not through POs, p- cards, portals, etc.). Schools alone generate over $1.7M in cheque requisitions. While this may be due in some cases to legitimate sole source transactions (purchases where only one vendor is qualified) and only an invoice or receipt can be produced after the transaction has been authorized. There is an opportunity to migrate and consolidate some of this spend under existing contracts with pre- existing board-approved vendors. Opportunity: The board should implement strategic sourcing that focuses on the following key areas and would deliver as a conservative estimate of more than $1.9M over three years: a) Implement a demand management review: Validate essential demand and reduce unnecessary demand) b) Areas for review include, subscriptions, hospitality related to professional development and student outdoor education programs where retreats are included (e.g. the Mansfield Outdoor Centre and Teen Ranch total more than $0.53M annually). • A review of hospitality and travel-related spend relative to the priorities of the board (total spend of $1.2M of cheque requisition transactions and $0.085M of POs) could deliver a saving of more than $0.1M just on a modest 8% reduction21 • Other uncategorized types of spend at the central board level represent an opportunity for a cost avoidance review. The total questionable spend occurs most frequently through cheque requisitions and not through vendors of record or standing contracts. Similarly school spend is inconsistent in terms of the nature of items and the method (cheque requisition) of payment. c) Consolidating spend: Pooling and rationalizing spend to leverage volume discounts from vendors. This can be achieved in a number of ways. The following are only examples based on a high level analysis of specific categories of spend: • Migrating PO spend with vendors not under contract. This type of spend represents $1-2M in transactions. There may be an opportunity to
21 Deloitte strategic sourcing for entire provincial governments, including ministries of education and their intuitions, has delivered between 3- 8% savings in hospitality expenditures alone.
Page 72 of 161 Appendix A
negotiate a contract with approximately 40-50% of those vendors22 and achieve 5-10% savings23 estimated at $0.1M • Reducing School-based Cheque Requisitions by enforcing purchasing policy, conducting a spend analysis to identify new or emerging vendors and or moving spend under contract could produce savings 5 -10%24 savings on $1.7M of total spend could result in $170K in cost avoidance • Consolidate spend from similar vendors to increase volume. General school supplies, as an example, has a total spend of more than $0.7M and is spread across 5 vendors. There may be opportunities to consolidate volume and increase savings by 2-5% (expected benefit $35K) d) Moving to a “spend under management model”25 . It should be noted that putting vendors under contract with TCDSB does not necessarily move them “under management” and so further savings across existing contracts could potentially be achieved through dedicated vendor management and contract renegotiation. Where TCDSB has limited capacity within Materials Management, industry analysis has shown utilization of online eSourcing tools26 can improve spend under management by reducing goods and services pricing by as much as 6-12%27. With a selected spend under contract of $18.3M28 a moderate saving of 9% presents a $1.6M opportunity.
Risks and Key Considerations: • Changing behaviour (primarily at the school-level) through education, and change management, but also the insistence on better demand planning and forecasting from requesters and approvers will be a challenge. This initiative must be supported by a strictly enforced spending policy that also supports flexibility and timeliness of purchasing, balanced with the effort to control spend. • Examining spend “demand” to assess the priority of expenditures related to programs and spending traditions will present challenges to materials management and finance staff. In this regard administrative staff should work closely with program leads to develop an expenditure evaluation framework that can be applied consistently across selected programs and
22 Based on nature and percentage of TCDSB transactions occurring across industry types 23 Based on % of current spend on school supplies and Deloitte strategic sourcing benchmarks from Public sector 24 Based on assumption that more than 50% of spend is related to office supplies and similar contracts currently in place. 25 Note that increasing supplier competition and contract renegotiation is covered in the next section of this report called: Electronic Sourcing 26 See eSourcing section of this report for costing and implementation considerations of supporting tools. 27 Ardent Partners Online 28 Selected TCDSB categories of spend by PO to consider include Suppliers, Leases, and Services
Page 73 of 161 Appendix A
functions to examine on a consistent basis elements such as: value for money, sustainability, centrality to mission, etc.
• In order to effectively understand the patterns of spend and develop more accurate expenditure forecasts as part of a strategic sourcing initiative, the board should consider investing in a data analytics tool and training that is compatible with SAP (e.g. Tableau or Qlikview). Desktop licence and training is estimated at $0.05M. • E-Sourcing tools can provide automation to compensate for limited capacity within the Materials Management Department (for more information see the next section on Electronic Sourcing).
Electronic Sourcing: Context: Currently, TCDSB posts open tenders (RFx) on an online portal that connects suppliers providing goods and services to buying organizations. The process to develop an RFx, post it on this portal, receive, evaluate and award submissions is a lengthy and time consuming process.
Opportunity: In November 2013, the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services (MGCS) awarded BravoSolutions a contract to implement an electronic sourcing solution for the Province of Ontario. Under a Vendor of Record agreement, this solution, Ontario Tenders Portal is available to all Broader Public Sector (BPS) entities in Ontario, free of charge. There are a number of cost savings associated with transitioning onto Ontario Tenders Portal, which other BPS entities have already realized, including increased competition and lower cost per bid, improved spend under management, process efficiency, cycle time improvement and increased capacity.
Key Risks and Considerations: Implementation of a new e-Sourcing solution will require some training and change management. While training is provided free of charge by BravoSolutions, there will be an adjustment period while the Materials Management Division acclimates to this new technology. In addition, TCDSB may need to integrate their SAP system to Ontario Tenders Portal, which will cost approximately $0.25M.
Special Education: Context: An analysis of 2014-15 revenue and revised expenditures indicates that TCDSB is overspending in Special Education Programs by approximately $20M,
Page 74 of 161 Appendix A
particularly at the secondary level. Specifically in 2014-15, TCDSB is projected to overspend in secondary school Education Assistants (EAs) by approximately $10M.
While TCDSB utilizes a scheduling formula called Support Staff for Student Needs, EAs inevitably end up scheduled and assigned to schools and students on an informal and ad-hoc basis; the formula is not consistently applied across the system for allocating EAs to students and schools.
Opportunity: In order to reconcile the funding gap and to eliminate the structural deficit situation at the Board, the primary recommendation being proposed is to formalize a staffing allocation system for EAs and allocate EAs to students based on the needs of the system. This would result in a change in the service delivery model and reduce the number of EAs by 260 at the end of 2017-18.
Risks and Key Considerations: In conducting this analysis, Deloitte applied staffing ratios and benchmarks from other comparable school boards, including Catholic school boards, who are also in the process of determining similar expenditure reduction measures. Proposed measures in this section aspire to current benchmarks. It is important to note that these school boards aspire to the same values and have also demonstrated a commitment to achieve student success.29 Despite the similar mix of students in exceptionality groups across comparable school boards, using benchmarks with two comparable school boards – a large Catholic school board and a large GTA school board - TCDSB has a relatively high staff-to-student ratio for EAs within the Special Education program. Based on a high-level analysis of each Board’s spend, comparable school boards are also overspending on EAs in Special Education; however, TCDSB’s spend is significantly higher. As a result, reduction in EAs through a staffing allocation system represents a significant opportunity for TCDSB to continue to reduce the accumulated deficit and allow the Board to maintain a sustainable financial situation going forward. In order to implement a formal staffing allocation system, there are a number of implementation costs that need to be considered. These are outlined in Table 5. Table 5: Special Education Potential Net Benefit
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 FTE Savings FTE Savings FTE Savings Implementation Costs ($M) ($M) ($M) System Costs - ($0.5M) - ($0.1M) - ($0.1M) Coordinator Training - ($0.08M) - ($0.08M) - ($0.08M) Costs
29 In reducing special education staffing to meet the benchmarks of comparator schools, it is our recommendation that service delivery and quality standards not fall below these schools. Page 75 of 161 Appendix A
EA Training Costs - ($0.05M) - ($0.05M) - ($0.05M) Total Costs - ($0.63M) - ($0.23M) - ($0.23M)
Potential Savings School-based EAs - - 100 $5.0M 100 $5.0M Unassigned EAs - - 20 $1.0M 30 $2.0M Total Potential - - 120 140 $7.0M Savings - - Net Benefit - ($0.63M) 120 $5.77M 140 $6.77M
a) System costs – In 2015-16, there will be an upfront cost of approximately $0.5M to procure a technology solution; each year there will be $0.1M in system upgrade costs to consider b) Coordinator Training costs – A Coordinator is required to manage the staffing allocation system and ensure that EAs are allocated in an appropriate and consistent manner. c) EA Training costs – Additional training and professional development for EAs is required each year so that EAs can improve the level of support they are able to provide to special education students. In 2015-16, the EA allocation for the 1,000 EAs will be as follows: 100 EAs assigned to 100 high-needs students (1:1 ratio), 700 EAs allocated across the various schools and 200 EAs assigned as floater EAs, one EA per school. These EAs are not assigned to a student but could be used for various needs. With a new service delivery model, there would be no need for floating EAs assigned to each school; based on the competency of an EA, they would be assigned to student needs, rather than school-based needs.
It is also recommended that TCDSB establish a comprehensive criteria for assigning EAs to a student based on a thorough assessment of EA skills and competencies. This will ensure that EAs have the skills and ability to meet the needs of students depending on the severity of an individual student’s needs will avoid assigning multiple EAs to one student.
TCDSB also needs to develop a framework for identifying needs of a student, whether they are physical, behavioural, emotional, clinical, etc. The combination of development of a competency criteria applied to staff in a prescribed manner, together with a student needs framework, will guarantee described outcomes.
Page 76 of 161 Appendix A
Additional Recommendations and Key Considerations
In addition to the expenditure reduction opportunities listed above, Deloitte has a number of recommendations for TCDSB:
Special Education
In April 2015, the Board of Trustees approved the reduction of 14 Central Program Coordinators (CPCs), including all five coordinators for special education. These individuals were responsible for coordinating the special education operations and program activities, conducting the IPRC process and acting as a liaison between teachers and management.
Recommendations:
a) Dedicated Support Role: Given that the Board also approved $6.8M worth of special education expenditure reduction measures, it is recommended that TCDSB assign dedicated coordinator special education in order to be able to manage the new special education system and report to the Superintendent of Special Education.30 There is significant risk in implementing a new special education service delivery model without a central coordinator. While discreet tasks can be transferred to other roles in the Special Education program, there remains a need for program oversight and chain of accountability. 31 It is important to note that TCDSB has additional support personnel within special education, including the Chief of Autism Spectrum Disorders, a Chief Psychologist and a Chief Social Worker who provide specialized support but do not provide overarching coordination support to the entire program. Some of the key concerns for the Board without a Central Programming Coordinator role is in the gap left behind in overseeing IPRCs, managing staffing levels and dealing with conflicts and disputes as they arise. b) Utilize Educational Interveners: The second recommendation is to utilize Educational Interveners (EI) rather than EAs to provide support for students
30 Deloitte recommends that this position be analogous to an Assistant Superintendent. Other boards have similar positions (e.g. TDSB has two coordinating superintendents who report to the Executive Superintendent of Special Education and YCDSB has three program coordinators) 31 Core responsibilities for this position would include but are not limited to the following: • Coordinate the operations and program activities across special education areas • Work collaboratively with resource teacher, principals and teachers • Oversee IPRC process and assist in conducting reviews • Assign and supervise support staff (e.g. EAs, CYWs, etc.) based on student need • Represent the Board’s interests at various student assessments and discussions • Directly reports to the Superintendent of Special Education Page 77 of 161 Appendix A
with significant learning or medical needs. This is a role that is also used within other large school boards. EIs possess specialized training and expertise and are able to provide support to students who previously would have required more than one EA. While EIs are compensated above EAs, providing differentiated support to students will ultimately result in lower costs and increased support to students.
Capital Expenditures While the focus of this report is on operating expenditures, the management of capital projects at TCDSB has possible implications for operating expenditures going forward, TCDSB cannot use their Proceeds of Disposition (POD) funds for capital over expenditures. The Board is reminded to make every effort to design and build school capital projects that are within the Ministry’s benchmarks and funding. Recommendations:
a) Adherence to Ministry Capital Construction Approval Process: TCDSB has been working together with the Ministry to improve the design of future capital projects; we encourage TCDSB to continue to work within the Ministry’s Capital Construction Approval Process to ensure that projects can be built to within Ministry funding benchmarks. The design process for school construction is a critical starting point in ensuring that the total cost for a capital project remains within the approved funding allocation provided by the Ministry. TCDSB should complete the Facility Space Template (for new schools and major additions and retrofits that cost more than 50% of the value of the existing school) and have it approved by the Ministry prior to the board retaining the services of an architect. The approved Facility Space Template is to be provided to the architect to serve as the project’s space requirement document. The Ministry encourages the TCDSB to complete the Facility Space Template to allow for potential future cost escalation during a project’s construction. This may require the TCDSB to design its space requirements for a project to 90% - 95% of the available space benchmark ratios in the Facility Space Template.
It is important to note that the Ministry’s Capital Construction Approval Process provides the TCDSB with flexibility to design spaces and features within its schools to serve its needs, as long as the overall project cost remains within the total project approval amount. For example, some school boards have been able to include air conditioning in schools, but have foregone other features to ensure that the total project costs remain within budget. TCDSB is encouraged to consult with other school boards that have successfully designed and constructed schools to within the Ministry’s funding benchmarks.
TCDSB is also reminded of the Ministry’s new policy on the use of Proceeds of Disposition, with the focus on the use of these funds to address school renewal needs. As a result, TCDSB should adjust its capital budgeting process accordingly.
Page 78 of 161 Appendix A
a) Establish Contingency in Capital Budgets: Budgets for new capital projects should contain a contingency fund of at least 10%.
b) Utilize Ministry Capital Consulting Resources: TCDSB should continue to utilize the Ministry’s capital consulting resources in the planning and design development stages in order to ensure that plans are efficient and aligned to the Ministry's guidelines.
Small School Consolidation
A number of School Accommodation Reviews (SAR) are currently underway in order to balance enrolments, right-size schools and increase efficiencies of existing school spaces. There are three definitions for a small school32:
1. Schools less than and equal to 200 pupil places – there are currently 9/168 elementary schools which fit this definition 2. Schools with an enrolment less than or equal to 200 students – there are currently 30/168 elementary schools which fit this definition 3. Schools with a utilization rate of less than 50% of the Ministry rated capacity – there are 19/168 elementary schools which fit this definition.
TCDSB has identified three cycles for School Accommodation Reviews; the first phase is currently underway. There are operational efficiencies that are associated with school consolidations; however, there are also a number of cost implications which are unknown at this time, specifically within transportation, which may place additional cost pressures on TCDSB’s operating budget and need to be considered. Further analysis as well as stakeholder consultation is required prior to identifying and recommending certain schools for consolidation.
Transportation
In December 2011, an Effectiveness and Efficiency (E&E) Review of the Toronto Transportation Group (TTG) was conducted by a review team selected by the Ministry of Transportation. The E&E Review evaluated four areas of performance to determine if current transportation practices are reasonable and appropriate; to identify if any best practices have been implemented; and to provide recommendations on areas of improvement. Based on the overall rating by the review team, the Ministry determined whether any additional in-year funding would be provided to TCDSB for student transportation services. As noted above, TCDSB provides student transportation services to over 7,000 non- qualifying riders who are either outside of the catchment areas of within walking distance of a TCDSB school. It is not recommended that TCDSB restrict non-qualifying ridership without further analysis on retention rates. Recommendation:
32 TCDSB School Accommodation Review Priority Ranking, January 2015
Page 79 of 161 Appendix A
a) Harmonize TCDSB policies: Deloitte recommends that TCDSB revisit the board’s policies and procedures and harmonize their policies with the public board in TTG where possible.
Cashless School System
Although the implementation of cashless schools provides an opportunity to increase administrative capacity (both centrally and at the school level), and has been proven to increase participation in school based programs (e.g. school food programs), the purpose of the Multi-Year Recovery Plan is to identify material cost savings as quickly as possible.
Recommendation: a) Conduct in depth analysis of cashless school system: In this regard, the review team found that cashless schools was a lower priority as the time to value will begin to exceed the three year time constraint. Additionally, since the business case for cashless schools will rely on transaction fees and system implementation cost recovery margins; a detailed stakeholder price sensitivity and risk analysis would need to be conducted before moving forward to implement this solution.
Benefits Surplus
The Board and its unions have shared ownership of a benefits surplus, a portion of which can be released back to TCDSB, if all parties are in agreement (including the Ministry, unions and TCDSB). An actuary will ultimately determine how much will be released and how much will remain in reserve. It is recommended that the amount that is released should be applied to the structural deficit with the acknowledgement that this is a one-time revenue source.
Page 80 of 161 Appendix A
Revenue Generation Opportunities
In addition to determining a number of cost reduction opportunities, the Board has brought forward additional revenue sources for consideration which can offset the cost of operating expenditures. The table below highlights specific opportunities and projected revenue per year for TCDSB. Table 6: Revenue Generation Opportunities Opportunity Description Potential Implementation Potential Net Revenue Costs ($M) Benefit ($M) ($M) Parking Charge staff, students and visitors for parking across TCDSB’s 7000 parking spots through the use of a $1.1M ($0.5M) $0.6M Parking Access and Revenue Control System (PARCS) Visa Expand TCDSB’s Students International Education Program which provides $0.9M -- $0.9M international students an opportunity to study at one of TCDSB’s schools. Facility Increase fees that TCDSB Rental Fees charges organizations for the use of their facilities. Begin to charge religious $0.3 - institutions and school- -- $0.3 - 0.6M oriented events to lease its $0.6M space or attain a permit. Currently TCDSB does not charge these organizations for their events. Total $2.3 – 2.6M ($0.5M) $1.8-2.1M
Page 81 of 161 Appendix A
Implementation Roadmap
The following three-year roadmap provides a high level overview of the design and analysis required for each recommendation together with a timeline for implementation.
Page 82 of 161 Appendix A
Page 83 of 161 Appendix A
Appendix
Page 84 of 161 Appendix A
Appendix 1: Description of Approved 2015-16 Savings Measures
Savings Measure Description of Measure Risk and Impact of Measure Sustainability of Continuing FTE Financial to Implement this Measure Impact Impact ($M) for 3 Years • The 5th Block program is an • This measure reduces the the • The 5th Block program is intensive, short-term literacy program by approximately not funded by the Ministry intervention program for 16% as it removes 6/37 5th and is currently placing a grade one and two students Block teachers $3.7M cost pressure on who require additional • There will be reduced the TCDSB budget each support to develop effective services for students in Grade year reading skills 1-4 during the regular • With these reductions, • 5th Block • Students who experience instructional day who will there will still be a $3.1M 6 $0.6M teachers some difficulty with reading need extra literacy support cost pressure on TCDSB’s are recommended by the budget each year classroom teacher for participation in the 5th Block program • This measure will remove 6 elementary classroom teachers from the program • The JLI program is an after • This measure eliminates the • The JLI program is not school literacy program for entire JLI program (100%), funded by the Ministry and elementary students requiring which is currently unfunded by is placing a $2M cost additional assistance the Ministry pressure on the TCDSB • The JLI program is unfunded • There are currently 873 budget each year • Junior Literacy by the Ministry and this students in JLI; this program • There are currently 34 Intervention measure eliminates the can be absorbed into existing schools with staff trained 20 $2.0M Program program and all 20 FTEs Junior After School tutoring in JLI and many schools programs have existing Junior After School programs based on their school’s needs. As a result of these initiatives, the measure is sustainable in the long run
Page 85 of 161 Appendix A
Savings Measure Description of Measure Risk and Impact of Measure Sustainability of Continuing FTE Financial to Implement this Measure Impact Impact ($M) for 3 Years • Current secondary school • This would result in an • Given that this reduction class size is 20.8 students to increase in class size from will bring TCDSB closer to 1 teacher; however, Ministry 20.8:1 to 22.1 which is the Ministry benchmarks for benchmarks allow for up to Ministry benchmark secondary school 22:1 • To be in compliance with the classroom sizes, this • This measure will result in a Education Act, the Secondary measure is sustainable in • Secondary reduction of 42 secondary Class Size cannot exceed the the long term School 42 $4.2M school teachers in order to ratio of 22:1 and Teachers bring TCDSB class size recommended reduction in ratios up to Ministry the average class size will not benchmarks exceed this prescribed limit. • This measure eliminates 1.9% of secondary school classroom teachers • Under-utilized music teachers • There will be no impact on the • This new prep-time model can assume responsibility for current delivery of the Music will increase efficiencies of preparation time duties from program as unassigned time Music Preparation • Music full time prep teachers, which will be used towards providing Teachers while decreasing Preparation will result in a reduction of 10 Preparation Time cost pressures for TCDSB 10 $1.0M Teachers FTE • There will a 1.6% reduction to preparation time teachers who will be replaced by Music Teachers • This measure eliminates all • While there are no gifted • This measure is 14 gifted program teachers classes for students at sustainable in the long from secondary school TCDSB, gifted teachers who term but parents may • Secondary provide resource support to ultimately end up sending School Gifted students will no longer be their children to a school 14.4 $1.44M Program available board which provides Teachers • However, all regular gifted program services classroom teachers are and support trained in the gifted curriculum
Page 86 of 161 Appendix A
Savings Measure Description of Measure Risk and Impact of Measure Sustainability of Continuing FTE Financial to Implement this Measure Impact Impact ($M) for 3 Years and are able to provide support to these students • This measure eliminates 100% of the gifted program teachers from secondary school • Monsignor Fraser College • There are only 87.5 FTE • Monsignor Fraser provides an alternative classroom teachers at operates on quad cycle, program to the traditional Monsignor Fraser; this rather than a semestered school setting for high school measure eliminates 4.6% of cycle, like the rest of students and new adults to these teachers TCDSB. As a result, the Canada. It provides a small • Due to the small size of the Ministry enrolment counts and personalized program, this may impact on October 31 and March environment as well an Monsignor Fraser’s ability to 31 are not an accurate individualized program to provide flexible and alternate representation of the meet students’ unique number of students • Monsignor programs to students in need learning styles enrolled in Monsignor Fraser 4 $0.4M Fraser and funding Teachers • The measure was passed to reduce the number of provided by the Ministry as teachers from Monsignor a result of these enrolment Fraser by 4 FTE counts provides lower funding than often required. A further reduction to the program may reduce their ability to take students that are in need of an alternate program • This measure will eliminate • TCDSB will have to recruit • While there will be all elementary school and train 42 library additional costs to recruit • Elementary librarians and replace them technicians to replace and train new library School Teacher with library technicians librarians technicians, this measure 42.5 $2.1M Librarians • During library time with is sustainable in the long elementary librarians, term classroom teachers were able
Page 87 of 161 Appendix A
Savings Measure Description of Measure Risk and Impact of Measure Sustainability of Continuing FTE Financial to Implement this Measure Impact Impact ($M) for 3 Years • This model is used across to use that period for unofficial other school boards, prep time, however, going including TDSB forward, they will lose that prep time • This measure will reduce elementary school teacher librarians by 100% • Eliminate all secondary • TCDSB will have to recruit • While there will be school librarians and replace and train approximately 6 additional costs to recruit • Secondary them with library technicians library technicians to replace and train new library School Teacher • This model is used across librarians technicians, this measure 5.57 $0.557M Librarians other school boards, • This measure will reduce is sustainable in the long including TDSB secondary school teacher term librarians by 16.5% • At the moment, TCDSB has a • Any absences will need to be • Over a three year period, reserve fund of $2,650,000 covered by existing special remaining EAs and CYWs for external contracted education staff may need to be trained to support workers, including • TCDSB programs and handle more urgent needs Education Assistants and services need to be reviewed in special education that Child Youth Workers for equitable, effective and were once addressed by • This measure would reduce efficient methods in delivering contracted support workers • Contracted expenditures by $2.25M, services to all students. Support while maintaining a safety • The increased burden on -- $2.25M Workers reserve of $0.65M to assist special education staff in the with most needy requests long term can have an impact through the year on employee morale/performance • This measure will reduce the amount that TCDSB spends on contracted support workers by 85%
Page 88 of 161 Appendix A
Savings Measure Description of Measure Risk and Impact of Measure Sustainability of Continuing FTE Financial to Implement this Measure Impact Impact ($M) for 3 Years • CYWs work with special • This measure would reduce • While this reduction in education classroom CYWs by 3.8% CYWs further aligns teachers to provide continuity • TCDSB currently has the TCDSB to the provincial in the care and/or treatment highest CYW to student ratio average of 0.66:1000, • Child Youth of students through the in the province with a ratio of additional reductions can Workers 7 $0.42M development of personal life 2.2 : 1000 (there are 184 be made to further align (CYWs) management skills CYW FTEs) TCDSB to the provincial average • This measure would reduce • With this reduction, TCDSB CYWs by 7 FTE would end up with a ratio of 2.1 : 1000 • A Resource Teacher works • This measure would decrease • This measure, particularly directly with special the number of resource for special education and education classroom teachers by 25.6% coupled together with the teachers to support children • The increased burden on reduction of Central with physical or education special education staff in the Program Coordinators, will learning difficulties long term can have an impact lead to a gap in • This measure will reduce on employee management and Non-Classroom Support morale/performance guidance services at a central level Resource Teachers by 30 • • Non Classroom FTE • Tasks and activities which Resource were performed by Central 30 $3.0M Teachers Program Coordinators may need to be transitioned to Non Classroom Resource Teachers where possible. With the reduction of Non Classroom Resource Teachers, this may place additional burden on remaining staff • International • The International Languages • Depending on where the • Although TCDSB has Languages Program (Elementary) gives reduction is coming from, this been overspending on the -- $0.9M Program children an opportunity to program may become International Languages
Page 89 of 161 Appendix A
Savings Measure Description of Measure Risk and Impact of Measure Sustainability of Continuing FTE Financial to Implement this Measure Impact Impact ($M) for 3 Years learn another language and understaffed if the number of program in previous years culture schools requesting an in- (prior to 2014-15), they • International Languages school program increases have attained a $2.0M Program at the elementary • This measure will reduce surplus in 2014-15. If level is provided outside TCDSB’s spend on the revenues and school hours unless the International Languages expenditures grow at the parents of at least 67% of the Program by 29% same rate moving forward, children in a school request then TCDSB will not need that a program be to make any additional established during an expenditure reductions extended school day within the International Languages Program as it • The school day is then is not putting any lengthened to accommodate additional cost pressure the International Languages on TCDSB’s bottom line. classes • This measure would reduce spending on the International Languages program by $0.9M • Current Board Administration • Board Administration and • By continuing to reduce and Governance Governance is an area where from areas of underspend, expenditures are TCDSB is underspending by cost pressures from areas approximately $20M over $4M; which contribute to the • This measure will reduce • TCDSB runs the risk that the deficit will continue to rise • Board spending that falls under Ministry will envelope certain • Making further cuts to Administration Board Administration and line items and not allow areas already underspent -- $0.588M and Governance by $0.588M Management to allocate funds is not sustainable in the Governance from underspent to overspent long run areas. • This measure will reduce the Board Administration and Governance budget by 2.9% • Non-Classroom • Out of the approximately • The measures being • By continuing to reduce -- $0.436M Spending $55M of non-classroom proposed impact a number of from areas of underspend,
Page 90 of 161 Appendix A
Savings Measure Description of Measure Risk and Impact of Measure Sustainability of Continuing FTE Financial to Implement this Measure Impact Impact ($M) for 3 Years expenses, this measure line items where TCDSB is cost pressures from areas targets certain line items that currently underspending which contribute to the can be reduced in the • For example, through a deficit will continue to rise amount of approximately separate measure, computer • Making further cuts to $0.435 technology expenditures are areas already underspent • In particular, this measure already being reduced by is not sustainable in the approves additional $0.350M and this measure long run reductions in computer would further reduce it by • In addition, technology by $0.284M, $0.284M curriculum and accountability by $0.05M, human resources by $0.032M and Legal Fees by $0.027M • This measure will completely • CPCs, especially in Special • This measure, particularly remove Central Program Education, have a critical role for special education and Coordinators and re- in providing management and coupled together with the distribute their responsibilities guidance at a central level reduction of Non- to Resource Teachers and • Their tasks and activities are Classroom Resource • Central Superintendents often ones which require Teachers, will lead to a Program specialized knowledge and gap in management and 14 $1.8M Coordinators training and cannot always be guidance services at a performed by others staff central level members • This measure will remove 100% of the Central Program Coordinators • This measure will reduce • This measure reduces overall • Depending on the schools Secondary School Vice Secondary School Vice where these Vice • Secondary Principals by 4 FTE Principals by 6.6% Principals are located, School Vice • TCDSB is currently on budget removing these individuals 4 $0.464M Principals with expenditures matching will place added pressure funding for Principals and and burden on other in Vice Principals school administration including principals and
Page 91 of 161 Appendix A
Savings Measure Description of Measure Risk and Impact of Measure Sustainability of Continuing FTE Financial to Implement this Measure Impact Impact ($M) for 3 Years resource support. Given that principals are already being tasked with new responsibilities from special education, TCDSB needs to ensure that they are balancing the workload equally amongst school administrators in the wake of these reduction measures • This measure will reduce the • This measure reduces overall • Depending on the schools number of Elementary School Elementary School Vice where these Vice Vice Principals 4 FTE Principals by 9.4% Principals are located, • TCDSB is currently on budget removing these individuals with expenditures matching will place added pressure funding for Principals and and burden on other in Vice Principals school administration including principals and • Elementary resource support. Given School Vice- that principals are already 4 $0.44M Principals being tasked with new responsibilities from special education, TCDSB needs to ensure that they are balancing the workload equally amongst school administrators in the wake of these reduction measures • This measure will reduce the • Currently TCDSB is • While this measure is • Professional Professional Development overspending in professional sustainable going forward, -- $0.5M Development budget by $0.5M development by $0.75M; this given the magnitude of measure will decrease the change for TCDSB over the next several years,
Page 92 of 161 Appendix A
Savings Measure Description of Measure Risk and Impact of Measure Sustainability of Continuing FTE Financial to Implement this Measure Impact Impact ($M) for 3 Years amount of overspend in this teachers and support staff line item may require additional • This measure will reduce the training and development Professional Development opportunities budget by approximately 20% • TCDSB should ensure that this line item does not continue to decrease over time • This measure will reduce the • Similar to Board • By continuing to reduce overall textbook budget by Administration and from areas of underspend, $1.7M Governance, textbooks is an cost pressures from areas area where TCDSB is which contribute to the currently underspending deficit will continue to rise relative to ministry funding • Making further cuts to • Textbooks • TCDSB runs the risk that the areas already underspent -- $1.7M Ministry will envelope certain is not sustainable in the line items and not allow long run, particularly as Management to allocate funds the curriculum and from underspent to overspent learning materials are areas. updated and modernized by the Ministry • There is currently one • This position is filled at the • This measure is allocated position in the Ministry level; the role of the sustainable as long as the TCDSB budget for an Provincial Ombudsman is Ministry does not require ombudsman, however, that expanding to include school that each schoolboard hire position currently remains boards and thus TCDSB will an ombudsman vacant. not require its own • Ombudsman 1 $0.15M • This measure would see an ombudsman elimination in the Ombudsman position at TCDSB as this position is currently being filled at the provincial level
Page 93 of 161 Appendix A
Savings Measure Description of Measure Risk and Impact of Measure Sustainability of Continuing FTE Financial to Implement this Measure Impact Impact ($M) for 3 Years • Due to a reduction in • This measure is a by-product • This measure is classroom teachers, there will of the reduction in classroom sustainable in the long • Increased be increased efficiencies in teachers run, provided the number efficiencies in planning and preparation • A decrease in the number of of classroom teachers 10 $1.0M planning and time resulting in a reduction stays constant evaluation time classroom teachers results in of an additional 10 FTE of a decrease in the number of prep-time teachers prep-time teachers required • There are currently 1,029 • This measure reduces EAs by • While this measure begins Educational Assistants 2.9% to address the current • Educational working in Special Education overspend in EAs, there is 30 $1.521M Assistants Classrooms still a cost pressure on the • This measure would see a TCDSB budget from EAs. reduction of 30 EAs • There are currently 8 • This measure will eliminate • School specific guidance Elementary Guidance 50% of the Elementary teachers are provided for Teachers who provide Guidance Teachers elementary students so regional support to schools • These guidance teachers are they will continue to • This measure will eliminate 4 regionally based and travel to receive the support they • Elementary of the guidance teachers different school to provide required 4 $0.4M Guidance support to teachers • However, the four Teachers • There are specific guidance remaining guidance teachers at elementary school teachers at the central to provide more constant level will need to adjust support to students their work load appropriately due to the reduction in FTE • This measure will reduce • Staff capacity and timeliness • TCDSB is currently • Special Secondary Special Education of Intensive Supports for overspending in special Education Classroom Teachers for ISP Students with special needs education secondary Secondary (Intensive Support Program) will be reduced school teachers 12 $1.2M School by 12 FTE • This measure will reduce • While this measure begins Teachers secondary special education to address the current overspend, there is still a
Page 94 of 161 Appendix A
Savings Measure Description of Measure Risk and Impact of Measure Sustainability of Continuing FTE Financial to Implement this Measure Impact Impact ($M) for 3 Years classroom teachers for ISP by cost pressure on the 5.1% TCDSB budget from these teachers. • A new special education delivery model may further address this cost pressure • This measure will reduce the • TCDSB is currently slightly • By continuing to reduce computer technology budget underspending on computer from areas of underspend, by $0.35M technology. cost pressures from areas • TCDSB runs the risk that the which contribute to the Ministry will envelope certain deficit will continue to rise. line items and not allow • If TCDSB continues to Management to allocate funds make cost reductions from from underspent to overspent computer technology, they • Computer areas. run the risk of not being -- $0.35M Technology • This measure will reduce the able to provide future Computer Technology budget technology resources in by approximately 7% the classroom, particularly as the curriculum and learning materials are updated and modernized by the Ministry and technology becomes more prevalent in the classroom • Currently, the Director’s • As a result of this measure, • Depending on the Discretionary Fund is the Director of Education will utilization of the $100,000. The fund is used have less discretionary funds discretionary fund, this • Director’s for certain school initiatives available to support initiatives could result in a reduction Discretionary not funded through Ministry that may arise in schools to various school initiatives -- $0.05M Fund grants and has been used in which are not funded by the past to fund theater and Ministry grants musical expenses • This is a 50% reduction to the Director’s Fund
Page 95 of 161 Appendix A
Savings Measure Description of Measure Risk and Impact of Measure Sustainability of Continuing FTE Financial to Implement this Measure Impact Impact ($M) for 3 Years • This measure would see a reduction in this fund by $50,000 TOTAL 260 $29.47M
Page 96 of 161 Appendix A
Page 97 of 161 APPENDIX B
Table 1-1: Additional Cost Pressures included and Budget Reductions spread out over the next 2 years (Total Reduction of $19.1M) 2015-2016 2014-2015 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 Rev.Est. Actuals Projections Projections Projections Projections ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) Opening Accumulated Surplus / (Deficit) (7.4) (15.3) (14.0) (8.2) (4.8) Total Revenue 1103.3 1070.4 1061.8 1053.3 1054.8 Expenditures 1111.2 1098.5 1069.1 1056.1 1049.9 Board Approved Expenditure Reductions 0.0 (29.4) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Further Expenditure Reductions Required 0.0 0.0 (13.0) (6.1) Total Expenditures 1111.2 1069.1 1056.1 1049.9 1049.9 In-Year Surplus / (Deficit) (7.9) 1.3 5.7 3.4 4.9 Accumulated Surplus / (Deficit) (15.3) (14.0) (8.2) (4.8) 0.1 Asssumptions: a) Initial expenditure projections before expenditure reductions in 2016-17 and 2017-18 assume the same level of expenditure as 2015-16 b) Numbers have been rounded to the nearest hundred thousand c) Revenue assumptions for 2016-17-18-19 do not include potential decline in enrolment d) Revenue Generation opportunities, i.e. Revised Permit Rates, Parking Fees, etc., will increase 2018-19 Revenues by $1.5M e) TCDSB will strive to attain an unappropriated accumulated surplus balance of approximately 1% by the end of 2019-2020 f) Occasional Teacher Costs are trending higher than historical average trends and will create cost pressures in the current and future fiscal years. g) Transportation bussing costs are increasing and will create an annual cost pressure of $3.7M in the 2016-17 and future fiscal years. This additional cost pressure not included in the forecasted expenditures will be accounted for as part of the annual budget planning process. h) Cost of movement on the Teachers' Salary Grids for Qualifications & Experience will create cost pressures in future years. i) Energy Savings will depend on upon utility rates and seasonal weather fluctuations j) The work of School Board Accommodation Review Committees which may lead to school consolidations/closures may generate savings in future fiscal years.
Page 98 of 161 APPENDIX B
Table 2-1: Additional Cost Pressures included and Budget Reductions spread out evenly over the next 3 years (Total Reduction of $25.7M) 2015-2016 2014-2015 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 Rev.Est. Actuals Projections Projections Projections Projections ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) Opening Accumulated Surplus / (Deficit) (7.4) (15.3) (14.0) (12.7) (11.3) Total Revenue 1103.3 1070.4 1061.8 1053.3 1054.8 Expenditures 1111.2 1098.5 1069.1 1060.5 1051.9 Board Approved Expenditure Reductions 0.0 (29.4) 0.0 0.0 Further Expenditure Reductions Required 0.0 0.0 (8.6) (8.6) (8.5) Total Expenditures 1111.2 1069.1 1060.5 1051.9 1043.4 In-Year Surplus / (Deficit) (7.9) 1.3 1.3 1.4 11.4 Accumulated Surplus / (Deficit) (15.3) (14.0) (12.7) (11.3) 0.1 Asssumptions: a) Initial expenditure projections before expenditure reductions in 2016-17 and 2017-18 assume the same level of expenditure as 2015-16 b) Numbers have been rounded to the nearest hundred thousand c) Revenue assumptions for 2016-17-18-19 do not include potential decline in enrolment d) Revenue Generation opportunities, i.e. Revised Permit Rates, Parking Fees, etc., will increase 2018-19 Revenues by $1.5M e) TCDSB will strive to attain an unappropriated accumulated surplus balance of approximately 1% by the end of 2019-2020 f) Occasional Teacher Costs are trending higher than historical average trends and will create cost pressures in the current and future fiscal years. g) Transportation bussing costs are increasing and will create an annual cost pressure of $3.7M in the 2016-17 and future fiscal years. This additional cost pressure not included in the forecasted expenditures will be accounted for as part of the annual budget planning process. h) Cost of movement on the Teachers' Salary Grids for Qualifications & Experience will create cost pressures in future years. i) Energy Savings will depend on upon utility rates and seasonal weather fluctuations j) The work of School Board Accommodation Review Committees which may lead to school consolidations/closures may generate savings in future fiscal years.
Page 99 of 161 APPENDIX B
Table 3-1: Additional Cost Pressures included and Budget Reductions spread out over the next 3 years (Total Reduction of $28.4M) 2015-2016 2014-2015 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 Rev.Est. Actuals Projections Projections Projections Projections ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) Opening Accumulated Surplus / (Deficit) (7.4) (15.3) (14.0) (14.0) (14.0) Total Revenue 1103.3 1070.4 1061.8 1053.3 1054.8 Expenditures 1111.2 1098.5 1069.1 1061.8 1053.3 Board Approved Expenditure Reductions 0.0 (29.4) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Further Expenditure Reductions Required 0.0 0.0 (7.3) (8.5) (12.6) Total Expenditures 1111.2 1069.1 1061.8 1053.3 1040.7 In-Year Surplus / (Deficit) (7.9) 1.3 0.0 0.0 14.1 Accumulated Surplus / (Deficit) (15.3) (14.0) (14.0) (14.0) 0.1 Asssumptions: a) Initial expenditure projections before expenditure reductions in 2016-17 and 2017-18 assume the same level of expenditure as 2015-16 b) Numbers have been rounded to the nearest hundred thousand c) Revenue assumptions for 2016-17-18-19 do not include potential decline in enrolment d) Revenue Generation opportunities, i.e. Revised Permit Rates, Parking Fees, etc., will increase 2018-19 Revenues by $1.5M e) TCDSB will strive to attain an unappropriated accumulated surplus balance of approximately 1% by the end of 2019-2020 f) Occasional Teacher Costs are trending higher than historical average trends and will create cost pressures in the current and future fiscal years. g) Transportation bussing costs are increasing and will create an annual cost pressure of $3.7M in the 2016-17 and future fiscal years. This additional cost pressure not included in the forecasted expenditures will be accounted for as part of the annual budget planning process. h) Cost of movement on the Teachers' Salary Grids for Qualifications & Experience will create cost pressures in future years. i) Energy Savings will depend on upon utility rates and seasonal weather fluctuations j) The work of School Board Accommodation Review Committees which may lead to school consolidations/closures may generate savings in future fiscal years.
Page 100 of 161 3.1 1.6 0.4 0.5 0.6 (28.4) TOTALS B 5.0 4.0 0.0 31.0 FTE 0.2 APPENDIX APPENDIX (12.6) ($M) 2018-2019 Projections Projections FTE 1.0 1.0 0.6 (8.5) ($M) 2017-2018 Projections Projections 10.0 FTE 2.1 0.4 0.4 0.5 (7.3) ($M) 2016-2017 Projections Projections Page 101 of 161 4.0 5.0 21.0 FTE Transition to an After-Hours After-Hours an to Transition Additional training and and training Additional Additional reductions to to reductions Additional provide to will continue TCDSB guidance 8 remaining The program. Rationale & Possible & Rationale Impact: Program Delivery Modeland implement asmall feeto enrichment voluntary this for required if costs the mitigate order to reduce travel time. travel reduce to order Languages International Rationale & Possible & Rationale Impact: that ensure to required be may development professional in disciplines multiple teach to able are teachers itinerant classroom teacher to build capacity in the regular classroom. regular in the build capacity to teacher classroom Model Teaching Intinerant Elementary Guidance Teachers Guidance Elementary Possible & Rationale Impact: provided as required. as provided Literacy- 5th Block Program Possible & Rationale Impact: school elementary to support interventation literacy early instruction, Differentiated setting. classroom inthe children willbe development professional and coaching additional teacherswill act as professional guidancecoaches to the TCDSBCommunity stakeholders. Rationale & Possible& Rationale Impact: to communicated be can Allocations Budget School Regular 2016-17 the of beginning the priorto Communities School all by planning proactive enable to in order year school School Block Budget Block School
Total Reduction Required Reduction Total Expenditure Reduction Measure: Reduction Expenditure
5 4
3 2
REF.# 1
(Total Reduction of Reduction $28.4M)(Total Table 3-2: Additional Cost Pressures included and Budget Reductions spread out over the next 3 years 3 next years the over out spread Reductions Budget and included Pressures Cost 3-2: Additional Table APPENDIX B Special Education - Support Workers Rationale & Possible Impact: A new service delivery model is 6 in the 1st step of implementation. Education Assistants are 52.0 2.6 48.0 2.4 30.0 1.5 130.0 6.5 assigned on the basis of student needs rather than school- based needs. Special Education - Teachers Rationale & Possible Impact: The reduction to Special 7 Education Teachers will be consistent with Provinicial 10.0 1.0 10.0 1.0 20.0 2.0 Benchmarks. A Working Committee has been established to guide this restructuring process. ASO Surplus - Pre 2010 Benefits Surplus Rationale & Possible Impact: There is no operational impact, 8 however, this savings is a one-time savings and not a 10.4 0.0 10.4 structural reduction which carries forward into future fiscal years. In Classroom Sub Total 92.0 7.0 68.0 6.0 30.0 12.1 190.0 25.1 Energy Management Rationale & Possible Impact: The fluctuation in gas and 9 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.9 electricity rates, as well as weather patterns, will add a measure of uncertainty in achieving the estimated savings.
Attendance Support & EAP (Employee Assistance Program) 10 Rationale & Possible Impact: This program will mitigate the 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.9 cost of rising staff absenteeism. Student Transportation Rationale & Possible Impact: Reduce transportation services to students which will impact to a lessor degree upon 11 1.5 0.0 1.5 enrolment such as Outdoor Education, Summer School, Section 23, Co-op Placement, Extended French, Practical Applied Living Skills, and Eastern Rite. Non Classroom Sub Total 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 3.3 Total Expenditure Reduction Opportunities 92.0 7.3 68.0 8.5 30.0 12.6 190.0 28.4 Variance +/(-) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Page 102 of 161 APPENDIX C
Page 103 of 161 APPENDIX D
Page 104 of 161 APPENDIX D
Page 105 of 161 APPENDIX E Special Education Organizational Framework for 2015-16
School Based Local Supports
SBST SBST SBST SBST
SBSLT SBSLT SBSLT SBSLT IEP IEP IEP IEP Regional/Field Operations
Areas 1 & 2 Areas 3 & 4 Areas 5 & 6 Areas 7 & 8
S.O. S.O. S.O. S.O. S.O. S.O. S.O. S.O.
Officer Officer Officer Sec Sec Officer Sec Sec
. . .
. . . . . T T T T T T
T
T
. . PAT . PAT PAT
. . .
. PAT . P P P P P P P P
. . .
. . . . A A A A A A A A
25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA
Principal Principal Principal Principal
IPRC Process IPRC Process IPRC Process IPRC Process ISP Placements ISP Placements ISP Placements ISP Placements
Alternative Centrally Located Supports Programs
Psychology Chief Social Work Autism Chief Speech and Section 23 Chief Language Chief Principal S.O.
Sec Sec Sec Sec Sec Officer
Psychologists Autism Team Social Workers Speech & Language Care & Treatment Services Principal Pathologists Programs
LD/Empower Attendance Autism Programs IPRC Process LI and KLP Home Instruction
Gifted Safe Schools SIP Msgr. Fraser/ Early Learning & SEA/ BLV/ Identification IT Forms SAL/ Behaviour ID Programs St. Martin
Transitions DHH Sec
Mental Health Strategy
Special Education Administrative Officer
A.P.T. - Assessment and Programming Teacher KLP- Kindergarten Language Program BLV- Blind and Low Vision SAL- Supervised Alternative Learning DHH- Deaf and Hard of Hearing Special Education SBST- School Based Support Team EA - Educational Assistant Superintendent SBSLT- School Based Support Learning Team (includes ID- Intellectual Disability central members) IEP – Individual Education Plan SEA- Special Equipment Amount IPRC- Identification, Placement and Review Committee SEC - Secretary ISP – Intensive Support Program SIP- Special Incidence Portion IT – Information Technology S.O. - Supervisory Officer LD – Learning Disability PAT- Programming and Assessment Teacher (Secondary) LI- Language Impairment Page 106 of 161
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND SCHOOL SUPPORT MODEL APPENDIX F
FAMILY (A) INSTRUCTIONAL FAMILY OF LEADERS OF SCHOOLS SCHOOLS 1 2 Leading Leading 3 4 Student Student Achievement RESOURCES Achievement (LSA) (LSA) System Student System Student Implementation Success Implementation Success PRIORITIES & Monitoring Initiative & Monitoring Initiative PRIORITIES (SIM) (SSI) (SIM) (SSI) Based on Professional Based on Professional Learning Plan Learning Plan Local Initiatives/ Local Initiatives/ Innovative Practices Innovative Practices Year of Family Year of Family Ministry Goals Multi Year Strategic Plan (MYSP) Board Learning (C) TRANSFORMATIONAL (B) DEVOLUTION OF SYSTEM Improvement Plan SYSTEM/REGION LEADERS IMPROVING AUTHORITY FROM ALIGNMENT (BLIP) MONITORING INSTRUCTIONAL CENTRE School Learning PRACTICES Improvement Plan (SLIP) Pastoral Plan EPO PRIORITIES PRIORITIES Based on Professional Learning Plan Based on Professional Learning Plan Local Initiatives/ Leading Innovative Practices Student Local Initiatives/ Achievement Leading Innovative Practices Year of Family Student (LSA) Achievement Year of Family System Student (LSA) Implementation Success System & Monitoring Initiative Student Implementation Success (SIM) (SSI) PRINCIPAL/TEACHER SUPPORT & Monitoring Initiative (SIM) (SSI) 5 6 7 8 FAMILY (D) SYSTEM WIDE FAMILY OF FOCUS ON OF SCHOOLS STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SCHOOLS
UPLIFTING LEADERSHIPPage 107 of 161 AT ALL LEVELS APPENDIX G Historical Trend Analysis
Enrolment change vs Staffing 12,000 1,841 2,000
10,000 1,363 1,500 10,335 10,287 9,910 9,613 8,000 9,408 8,700
8,651 1,000 8,278 8,007 7,804 6,000 $$M 505 500
4,000 165 Enrolment Student
(122) - 2,000 1,604 1,606 1,632 1,636 1,635 - (500) 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Fiscal year
Prin/VP's, Sch Secr., Board Admin, Transp, Sch Oper Staff Teachers EA's ECE's Prof & Para, Coordinators Total Staff Enrolment Change Page 108 of 161 1 Summary of Staffing 2010-11 to 2014-15 APPENDIX H Total Teachers Classroom and 6,500.0 Resource 6,035.6 6,032.2 6,017.1 5,798.8 5,875.7
5,500.0 Total EA's, ECE's,
4,500.0
Total Prof & Para Prof &Teacher Consultant Staff incl Lunch, FDK & 3,500.0 Student Sup.)
Total School
Administration FTE Staffing 2,500.0
1,437.0 1,500.0 1,228.0 1,324.0 Total Administrative 1,118.1 1,117.0 Staff 1,014.2 1,014.4 1,295.3 1,246.3 887.1 752.8 760.9 760.9 761.9 752.8 500.0 671.2 667.7 680.7 680.7 681.9 Total Sch Operations 179.5 185.2 190.7 194.4 & Transportation Staff 190.7 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 (500.0) Fiscal Years
Page 109 of 161 1 APPENDIX I Historical Trend Analysis – Cont. Special Education ($M) Fiscal Year 160,000 151,288 149,798 146,614 147,859 137,434 140,000 129,871 127,864 127,533 128,856 118,228 120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000 $M
40,000
20,000
- 2010/11 -16% 2011/12 -15% 2012/13 -15% 2013/14 -16% 2014/15 -17% (20,000) (19,206) (19,927) (18,750) (20,326) (22,432) (40,000) Revenues Expenditures Net Deficit Percentage Linear (Revenues) Page 110 of 161 1 APPENDIX J School Block Budget Yearly Rate/ADE
$ RATE/ADE $225.00 300 281.18 281.18 281.18 281.18 281.18 281.18 281.18 281.18 281.18 281.18 281.18
$200.00 $197.02 250 $175.00 $157.62 $157.62 $157.62 $157.62 $146.92 $146.92 $146.92 $146.92 $150.00 $146.92 200
$125.00 151.82 151.82 151.82 151.82 151.82 151.82 151.82 151.82 151.82 151.82 151.82 $122.16 150 $100.00 $126.84 $101.47 $101.47 $101.47 $101.47 $94.58 $94.58 $94.58 $94.58 $94.58 $78.64 TCDSB Rates/ADE TCDSB $75.00 100
$50.00 MOE Benchmark Rates/ADE 50 $25.00
$- 0 $/ADE $/ADE $/ADE $/ADE $/ADE $/ADE $/ADE $/ADE $/ADE $/ADE $/ADE 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Fiscal year
MINISTRY BENCHMARK ELEMENTARY MINISTRY BENCHMARK SECONDARY TCDSB ELEMENTARY TCDSB SECONDARY Page 111 of 161 1 APPENDIX K 2016 Multi-Year Recovery Plan Consultation Survey Results (February 12, 2016) TABLE 1 Survey Respondents (Total: 765) ______Staff 190 (25.0%) ______Parent 119 (15.5%) ______Student 25 (3.2%) ______Catholic Ratepayer 28 (3.6%) ______Other 4 (0.5%) ______Unidentified (chose not to self-identify) 399 (52.2%) ______Total Respondents: 765 ______
TABLE 2: Reponses by Option Selected ______Option Responses % Option 1 (Aggressive reductions over 2 years): 208 27% Option 2 (Reductions spread evenly over 3 years): 169 22% Option 3 (Reductions over 3 years, back-ended): 357 47% *No option selected, comments submitted only: 31 4%
Page 112 of 161 APPENDIX K TABLE 3: Respondent Details by Option Selected
OPTION 1: Summary: Budget reductions totaling $19.1M spread out over each of the next two (2) years ($13.M in 2016-17 and $6.1M in 2017-18). Represents 27% of survey respondents. Option 1 Total Respondents 208 Staff 45 (22%) Parent 29 (14%) Student 3 (1%) Catholic Ratepayer 11 (5%) Other 2 (1%) Unidentified 118 (57%) ______OPTION 2 Summary: Proposes budget reductions totaling $25.7M, spread out evenly over the next three (3) years beginning in 2016-17 ($8.6M in 2016-17 and 2017-18, $8.5M in 2018-2019). Represents 22% of survey respondents Option 2 Total Respondents 169 Staff 33 (20%) Parent 23 (14%) Student 4 (2%) Catholic Ratepayer 4 (2%) Other Unidentified 105 (62%) ______OPTION 3 Summary: Proposes incremental budget reductions to be spread out over the next three (3) years by making a smaller cut in the first year and defers eliminating the accumulated deficit until the final year ($7.3M in 2016-17, $8.5M in 2017-18, and $12.6M in 2018-2019). Represents 47% of survey respondents Option 3 Total Respondents 357
Staff (30%) 107
Parent (17%) 61 Student 18 (5%) Catholic Ratepayer 11 (3%) Other 2 (0.5%) Unidentified 158 (44%) Page 113 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
Option 1 Budget reductions totaling $19.1M spread out over each of the next two (2) years. $13.M in 2016-17 and $6.1M in 2017-18.
Respondent Comment My impression is that if you defer the elimination of the deficit we will really suffer as a system and your error will even more negatively impact the system and the children. The longer we wait the harder it will get. We will still need to dig deep into the system - 28.4 is a huge amount of money. Politicians need to bite the bullet. I support this option. It is important to get the financial situation in order as quickly as possible. Decisions need to be made and this will force the Board to make difficult decisions that are outside of the classroom. A closer look at the Board expenditures is warranted - challenge what has been done in the past and streamline what is required to do internally to support classroom and classroom facing roles. Look at required to do not the nice to do's. Like ripping off a bandaid, let's make this financial pain-that is hurting our kids - as quick to end as possible. Administrative waste is the cause of the deficit, together with the expensive initiatives of 21st century learning, student success, and special education. The ipad initiative is also questionable, at best. Until we seriously address these costs, deficits will also be a concern. The trustees need to be fiscally responsible and close all of the undersubscribed elementary and secondary schools. The Ministry of Education is not going to change the way it funds school boards. The TCDSB lost the most money out of all Catholic Boards in the province because they have too many half empty schools. DO YOUR JOB!
1
Page 114 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
Sell the CEC and move the board to Loretto Abbey, Short Term Pain for Long Term Gain. Allows us to cut the least amount possible in total. Also allows debt reduction to be complete quicker which looks better for the public. Also, no new influx of teachers graduating reduces amount of new hires being affected. The main reason I have chosen this option is because there is less money overall to be cut. However, I was wondering why it is $13 M the first year and only 6.1 the second. Why not make it more even? I also worry about what services will be cut to achieve this result. We have so many vulnerable children in our system (i.e. special needs/Identified Students/students with behavior problems/students from less advantaged homes/neighbourhoods, etc.) and I worry about how these children will cope with less support/less front line services from teachers/support staff/CYW's/etc. Any and all cuts should come from the highest administration areas, ie, assistant director, superintendents, assistant managers of any departments, etc. before ever looking at cuts at the school level. New Program initiations that have costs associated, should be put on hold for the two years, Fee payments for permits should be revisited to generate income. The higher ups caused the problem and they should be the ones to fix it, not the schools, and support staff. Take the Band-Aid off quickly, why paid more. Let us see what is going to be cut and deal with it. It's the least expensive. 9.3 million is a lot of money. So is 2.7 million. Why prolong the inevitable and cost the system even more? Let's take our "knocks" now and get the system back in order quickly. This also means those at the top better make sure this BS doesn't happen ever again or maybe get rid of them and hire people who actually know what they are doing.
2
Page 115 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
I support any option that eliminates International languages. It is a pedagogically unsound venture that needs to end. The savings would be over $2 Million. It is very difficult to see programs like 5th block and JLI be chopped in favour of saving the IL programs which runs haphazardly and without a curriculum or accountability. If it survives, it needs to be replaced with a pay-as-you go model that operates afterschool or on weekends for families who truly want it and recovers its own costs through the tuition fee. Let's get it done and move on! Stop giving away permit time to "NON PROFIT" organizations, it costs more in some cases to keep the lights on in the facility. Close all facilities for 1 month during the summer except for maintenance, consolidate day cares to certain schools for that month. Please fix this mess I prefer the faster method however you should qualify what exactly is being cut and not just the amounts and timeline. I certainly hope it is board overhead cuts and not front-of-line school staff who must once again bear the brunt of overspending measures. My children and all Canadian children deserve the best education. It is a very well funded system and I think there is a lot of waste on non-education related initiatives and overhead. Thanks Daniel Martins Short term pain, long term gain. I hope our board will return to providing education to student s that is quality following paying down the deficit. This year and the cuts made has been tough on all those employed by our board. We await a return to form. Thank you. we think that if guidance teachers coach the teachers it will be a bad idea because they might not have the skill to teach like the guidance teachers do I choose all the options Option 1 is the least expensive therefore it makes the most sense. There are going to be adjustments in the three options anyway. This is the most positive.
3
Page 116 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
Radical change is required to ensure student success. The continuous reduction are being implemented in classroom, student support when in fact there is more opportunity in non essential services, examples include duplicate services in TCDSB vs Tdsb. tThe plans to reduce EA support and guidance will continue to erode student success. im having a really hard time understanding why our kids have to pay for the stupidity and negligence of the TCDSB wasteful spending habits. our schools are falling apart, programs are being cut..why? because no one is held accountable for the ignorant spending!! after so many years you finally realize that the hole you dug needs to be fixed, and the only people who benefit yet again are the bureaucrat at the board ..definitely not our kids! SHAME ON YOU TCDSB!!! Some suggestions for cutbacks: 1. Stop giving teachers credit for non-teaching experience. Why should teachers get credit for training staff in non-classroom environments. It is stupid. 2. Reduce long-term disability payments for non-work-related problems from 90% to 50%. There will be double savings from the payments and from abuse of the system. 3. Cut the prep time of specialty teachers. Their job is much less time consuming than classroom teachers. 4. Replace half the special ed teachers with EAs. Once the programs have been set up, almost anyone could work with the small groups and one on one situations they deal with. Hurry up.
4
Page 117 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
There is so much room for cost cutting without hurting programs. Teachers are getting paid for related work experience that isn't in the classroom which is ridiculous. Specialists such as French, Music, Spec Ed get the same amount of prep time as classroom teachers despite far less responsibilities. Teachers are abusing sick days as if they are owed days off. They should get 5 days off without a doctor's not and then require one for each additional day. Teachers are abusing long term disability 90% for non-work caused problems is too much. 50% to not work is more than fair. This would cut the cost of payout to those teachers as well as the number of teachers abusing the system. Half of the special ed teachers could be replaced with two times the number of EAs. After programming is created, working with one to three students at a time does not require such a highly paid individual. Parent Get rid of the trustees and their expense accounts Parent If teachers unions were not always so greedy, we could have more money in the classroom. Suggest we ask the government to rollback our teacher salaries to the Ontario average.
Staff Keep as many support staff in the school as possible (cyw and ea's) Reach out to parents to become partners in the year of austerity. Help them understand they have to make concessions too and provide help to get us through without too much damage. Too many parents see the school system as their own personal private school and the board has not been very good at changing that perception. Make parents accountable for expecting more of their child, not more services from the school. They could make a huge difference in filling in gaps in the short term. f Parent You have provided no detail on what would be cut, making it essentially impossible to weigh the pros and cons. I hope this is not how you teach critical thinking skills to our students.
Parent When will the trustees and educational leaders advocate publicly for increased funding to ensure that the needs of the most vulnerable students are met? It is not acceptable to shrug your shoulders and hope that others will take up this cause.
5
Page 118 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
Staff Time is money. All plans lead to the same surplus at the end, and we do not know what other impacts will or will not occur in the future. Aggressive stance now will result in a more financially stable Board, which then can better serve our Teachers. Staff Why isn't the Gifted Program being cut ?!?! Why is it that Spec.Ed Teachers, EAs and 5th Block and guidance counselors have to be cut and put more pressure on classroom teachers through differentiated instruction, yet no where does the board cut the Gifted Program - that could save $$$ and those students wouldn't suffer because they are already excelling in the classroom and can receive differentiated instruction, and the board saves money by not paying those Gifted Teachers, the bussing, the entire program, and you redirect the Gifted Teachers into schools and utilize their expertise within the school. The Gifted Program should be fully cut out. It could be provided as an after school or Saturday school enrichment option. I also think taking out International Languages during regular school hours is a great idea, and have those classes after school or on the weekends for a nominal fee. Staff International Language Program should be after school program that parents should pay for. It is an optional program that often has negative impact on the regular program. Staff Will be very difficult for us but we can get back to normal quicker and not accumulate additional costs getting there. Parent reducing the deficit quickly so that it doesn't grow any bigger Staff Cut from the top. I still don't understand why we need so many superintendents and "management" people. ALL cuts impact student programs and as a result the TCDSB quality of education continues to slip, slip, slip... Might as well merge the two boards so ALL students get equal funding and programming.
6
Page 119 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
Staff Special Ed is valuable but could be run much more efficiently. After programming is complete, spec ed teachers typically spend their time teaching one to three students at a time in between breaks. Often students don't even go to them as the classroom teacher is conducting a full class activity. Many spec Ed positions could be replaced with two EAs who can be used to reach many more students. The amount of prep time compared to the actual time spec ed teachers have contact with students is ludicrous and a hugely wasteful. Catholic Rethink how Special Education classes are structured to save millions of dollars! Ratepayer Staff Many teachers try to use their sick days up whether they need to or not. This abuse of the system can be curbed by requiring a doctor's note after the first 5 or days have been used up. Simple, yet effective. Staff Spec Ed and ESL specialists work with one to three students at a time typically and are often not used at all when a teacher wants all his or her students to be present for an activity. ESL teachers should be replaced entirely with EAs and the prep time for spec ed teachers should be all but eliminated. There is no way they require the same amount of time as classroom teachers with 20-30 students in a room. Staff P.E, French and Music teachers do not require the amount of prep time they are given as they do not have the same follow-up to do with students as classroom teachers do. If a student has a problem, the specialty teacher usually tells the classroom teacher who has to handle the situation. Let's get them helping out more with the special needs students. Special ed and ESL are also highly inefficient for the reasons mentioned above, plus they only deal with a handful of students at a time. Most positions could be replaced with double the EAs to the benefit of the entire school system. Classroom teachers would welcome the additional support they so desperately need.
7
Page 120 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
Staff Thousands of teachers are making thousands of dollars for non-classroom related experience. That's millions right there be wasted. Training employees in a non-classroom environment counting as teaching experience is insulting to the work teachers do in the classroom. That money could be used to make education better. So simple. Also, sick days and long term disability are being abused. Require a doctor's note after 5 days are used and reduce the payment for injury and sickness from 90% to 75%. Stress should not be a valid reason for ltd. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. There are a lot of young teachers starving for jobs. Staff How are non-teaching board employees entitled to the same holidays as teachers? It doesn't seem right. Staff Substitute teachers are a wasted source of information in regards to what is happening across schools since they see so many and are less likely to simply defend their own territory as most people do. Their experience could be used to audit schools and find where cuts could be made and where further investments might be required. Staff As an experienced substitute teacher, I think I have a wider perspective on the needs of the school system than typical employees who are in one school or office every day. These are four observations I have to share: 1. Without a doubt, classroom teachers require help dealing with multitudes of behavior and learning challenges. 2. In contrast, I see Spec Ed teachers and ESL teachers being highly underused. They work with small groups in low-stress settings yet enjoy the same amount salary and prep time of their highly stressed classroom counterparts. EAs could be much more cost effective. 3. French, Music, and Phys Ed teachers have the luxury of reporting issues to the classroom teacher and walking away while enjoying their 'prep' time. 4. Many teachers call to use up their sick days when they are not sick.
8
Page 121 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
Staff Teachers moving up the pay grid for non-teaching experience is ridiculous. Training other workers in a non-classroom environment is costing money that could be used to keep vital jobs and programs. 1000s of teachers times 1000s of dollars equals the deficit. Let teachers who have benefited from this unfair pay rise keep what they have already received but repeal the credit they have for non-classroom experience immediately! They may complain, but they should consider themselves lucky for the money they have already unfairly pocketed. Staff Simply stop paying thousands of teachers thousands of dollars for 'work related experienced' that really isn't work related. If it's not in a classroom with more than 15 kids of various abilities, behaviours and motivations, it's not like being a teacher. Catholic Eliminates accumulated and annual deficits at lowest cost. Although potentially more Ratepayer disruptive to the system from a service and operations perspective, once the deficit is eliminated there would appear to be greater flexibility to make budget adjustments to best support service and operations in future years, provided balanced budgets and non-deficit actual results are achieved. It would be most undesirable for a cycle of accumulating deficits and then having to develop and implement plans to eliminate them to recur. We are parents of four children who successfully graduated from the TCDSB, understand the high quality and very special nature of Catholic education in Toronto. Thank you for this opportunity to provide input.
9
Page 122 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
Staff I am also a parent of two children in the elementary level. I find it disturbing that the person in charge of this does not offer an Option 4 so I will deal with that later on in these comments. I have picked Option 1 in the meantime because it will insure that my comments get through. These documents do not easily explain why there is a discrepancy of 9.3 million dollars between option 1 and option 3. Does the board owe 19.1 million or 28.4 million? Also each option works on the assumption/trend that costs for occasional teachers, bussing/transportation, teachers moving up the grid and energy costs will rise. While enrollment may or may not change. I know that if you cut important programs like 5th Block and parents feel their child's education is in jeopardy then they may choose another option for their child's education and the board will begin to shed enrollment of children already in the system. Pushing the board into a more dire situation. If these students remain and are given "intervention support...in a classroom setting" then we will have a problem later on when they do less well on subsequent provincial tests. If this was good pedagogy the board would already be doing it. It is not. The need is to retain all of the students we currently have and continue our tradition of taking care of our most needy. Unfortunately like any institution the person(s) responsible for the problem in the first place are also the ones who are tasked with fixing it or at least that is the impression one gets. For example, when the director came to our school to explain the problem - and no one is clear on whether there is one or two problems here but there is an on-going problem - she was either unwilling or incapable of saying that she was sorry; did not answer the reasonable questions that were asked of her by the staff and only offered a limited number of options - all of which involved cuts to services for the most needy students. We are a Catholic school board after all and forgiveness is part of our value system. As a teacher my vocation is to educate the students who are assigned to me. The leadership within the board is expected to perform their duties not only to allow me to do the best job that I can but also to ensure that Catholic education continues and continues to thrive well into the 21st century. My solution is that a savings of between 2 and 4 million dollars could be realized by cutting administrators personal service contracts by between 7 and 15%. With the
10
Page 123 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
director and associate directors on the upper end and VP's on the lower end. Once this is done you invite teachers who are at the top of the pay grid to make a similar sacrifice in the neighbourhood of 5-7% of their salary. This will almost mirror the amount from the admin and get the board back to where it needs to be in a financial sense. This will not be an easy task. The push back will be considerable. But it is imperative that it be done by the top down, to show everyone below them that they are willing to submit to this humbling yet transformative act in order to protect Catholic education. My parents were a product of this board, as were all of my siblings. If this is exercise is done haphazardly the risk is the very existence of Catholic education as we currently know it. If this is done right then the parents of our current and future students will see that we are a truly Catholic school board in both name and deed. Thank you for taking the time to read this.
11
Page 124 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
Parent Managed to implement $29M already, which is more than would be done over the two years. Better to address now rather than delay some of the "easier" decisions - feels too much like we are putting off making the tough decisions which admittedly is due to the incompetence of people who are hopefully no longer around or are part of the cuts. Catholic You need to fire the Trustees and TCDSB staff responsible for budget management and put in Ratepayer place people who know how to handle money. These yearly budget shortfalls are indicative of a Board that doesn't know how to manage finances. Stop wasting taxpayers' money, bite the bullet and reduce the deficit immediately! If this were your household budget, you wouldn't think twice about making drastic cuts to stop accumulating more debt! Get rid of the ridiculous spending in special education!! Too much money spent on a very small group that will not be productive in society anyway! Get rid of the ridiculous spending in special education!! Too much money spent on a very small group that will not be productive in society anyway! Teacher salaries should be frozen until all the deficits are eliminated. you can't just keep spending and spending. The budget needs to be balanced NOW!! Cut out all special needs and freeze and reduce teacher salaries and cut in half all administrative staff and superintendents, contract out janitorial and maintenance, eliminating obscene union wages and non productivity. Catholic No more waste, press reset and then, no more waste. Ratepayer Staff Special Education should not have further reductions as these students need all the support necessary for their well being and future.We are experiencing greater needs which require additional supports. Please reconsider. We need to control our own destiny as quickly as possible. Spreading out inefficient spending is wasteful and these wasted funds could be used were they are needed on a more timely basis.
12
Page 125 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
If these are the only three choices we have then I would have to vote for option one. The Board needs to get on this as quickly as possible and also prepare contingencies as there will be variances that many of us fear will be negative to both costs and revenues as the plan is implemented. Some of us are surprised that Deloitte did not or was not instructed to organize forums for input and feedback and speak with parents and guardians who have an outside perspective of what is working and is not. If they, did many of us are not aware of it taking place as we were not invited to any sessions in our communities be it for elementary or high schools to speak to what our ideas might be. We are after all the customers of the system. For those of us that have experience in reengineering matters and who have hired and used Deloitte, KPMG, McKinsey, Booz Allen and other consulting firms I'm sure the board and consultants would receive very valuable info from an outsiders perspective as to what can be done in terms of needs, service and costs. Working with just insiders is not going to get you all of the major restructuring ideas that might be possible. And an invitation to a Townhall just doesn't get it done. What we need are organized focus groups in key communities with parents and guardians that are organized, knowledgeable, informed and who wish to be engaged. A major problem confronting the school board is an operating model that has a declining revenue stream in large part not only because of because of shifting demographics but also major dissatisfaction levels. It is a major reason for the increase in demand for private schools. Now the school board is looking to bolster its revenue by bringing in international students at what we understand are significant fees. The school board needs to stop the incredible degree of segmentation that goes on the across schools and inside schools. Focus on delivering three levels of service in education particularly at the high school level; University, College, general/special education. All these other specialty programs like gifted, AP, IB and halo type programs that are marketed to parents and have them bussing kids out of their communities in their neighborhoods to other schools are a very significant cost to the system and community. If parents want the special programs or the special halo curriculums have them pay for it. But do not take the resources away from special-education, the kids that absolutely need it. We
13
Page 126 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
did after all drop grade 13, another year of preparation and maturity for many of the students that may require more time. You're also pitting schools against one another when all schools are supposed to provide excellent consistent education. So not only are you running the risk of additional costs and possibly also compromising the academic and grading integrity across schools. Just saying that it's consistent doesn't make it so. Schools are creating halos to have their facilities filled. Another point, why is there no real mention of the headquarters or the shared services staff units like finance, human resources, communications, systems, HQ Facilities etc. or senior staff expense reductions in the reenginnering plan. Surely there must be significant savings in these groups and opportunities to work with the other school boards in order to gain a shared services environment while at the same time protecting the Catholic school brand and delivery of education at local levels. One final point many of us believe that there's much more that can be done and strongly urge that the most vulnerable students/families i.e.those in the most need who require more time to learn and develop are not those who suffer from a reduction in resources. To state the obvious, this will have serious and irreversible consequences for the future of these students in post secondary who are future adult citizens and hopefully supporters of the system as they raise their own families.
Staff Makes sense to have to pay less.
14
Page 127 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
Parent We need to get the system to the right state and not delay the inevitable. If more dollars come in or additional sources of revenue made it can be applied to the priority of the day or directlyt to the related program. Start selling off some properties Cuts to maintenance workers Parent Although painful at first, it doesn't mortgage our future for the additional year and who knows what lies ahead. The benefits of limiting the total cost vastly outweigh the systemic disruption that this option might impose. Staff Can the board not sell underperforming assets: idle land, empty buildings...etc. Coupled with retirements? What about reducing the discretionary budgets of principals? I work at a place where food is constantly being purchased for Staff members and administration; and where money is spent In ways that does not directly benefit student lives. Staff I do not support any of these options, but the lesser of the evils is number 1. Cut early and save people the stress of wondering what's going to happen to them and when. Then get on with running the Board in a responsible manner. Parent Important to get rid of the deficit quickly and option 1 so the most cost effective way. We don't need to incur additional costs by spreading it over 2 or 3 years. It's appalling that the board is in this position to begin with.
15
Page 128 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
Option 2 Proposes budget reductions totaling $25.7M, spread out evenly over the next three (3) years beginning in 2016-17 ($8.6M in 2016-17 and 2017-18, $8.5M in 2018-2019).
Please do NOT make cuts to Elementary Guidance positions. Thank you :) Mental Health wellness plays a critical role in the elementary school life of students. In order to ensure the emotional, psychological, and social well-being of our students these services: elementary guidance, psychologists, and social workers must be non-negotiable during these budgetary cuts. Due to a system that does not appear to know how to fix the PROBLEM they created. (accounting mistake)? We are all made to suffer. This is how I see it... When the option of two school boards is eliminated from Ontario. Both the government and school Boards will no longer have a deficit problem.. Cuts should apply to everyone maybe even at the top. Cutting wages at the top will help too try it as an option? Please keep current guidance counsellors on. They are a great benefit to the intermediate students as they transition to high school. I strongly advocate looking at the top of the salary grid in the TCDSB to make cuts. The cuts you are making at the other end of the grid are having a direct and immense impact on our students. Not to mention the fact that the standard of education also decreases with such poor decisions. Also, programs such as the Gifted, need to be looked at as a potential area for cuts or restructuring, to serve the more vulnerable students. I strongly advocate looking at the top of the salary grid in the TCDSB to make cuts. The cuts you are making at the other end of the grid are having a direct and immense impact on our students. Not to mention the fact that the standard of education also decreases with such poor decisions. Also, programs such as the Gifted, need to be looked at as a potential area for cuts or restructuring, to serve the more vulnerable students.
16
Page 129 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
get rid of the busses! Please do not reduce the number of Elementary Guidance Counsellors! They have a direct impact on student achievement snipe well-bring!! 1. Is the TCDSB looking to replace teacher librarians with librarian techs? 2. Does employee absenteeism contribute significantly to deficits? I ask only because I have noticed more TCDSB employees are using more of their sick days. Is there any way to address this concern to help alleviate the deficit? Employee absenteeism may have a significant impact on student learning, success, well-being and acheievment. We cannot rush the process of reductions. Students are the ones who will suffer most - taking away their most vital resources in the span of two years is simply too soon. You need to find a way to keep 5th Block in low economic schools...those are the children that need it the most. As much as these options are great, all I see are different numbers spread over the years, but no real measure of what is really being cut. do not cut staff but rather all the costly P.D workshops and special projects prepared to make few feel good about what they are doing at the cost of many. Back to Basics please!
Still very aggressive and damaging no wonder moral is so low more detail is neede to know where cuts will be made> how programs will be affected. very devastating no wonder moral is so low more details neede as to where cuts will be made and impacts If we need to cut we have to do it sooner rather than later. Full inclusion and boundaries for all children including sped kids with one resource room per school for them would save money. One sped teacher in resource room for 15 kids in it at the time. Sped class contained for kids who aren't toilet trained only. Please do not make cuts to elementary guidance or other educator positiins
17
Page 130 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
As a student I want guidance counsellor because I think it's a good experience for kids and teachers As a student I think If you pick option 3 it will cost you more money but it will be slower. If you pick option 1 it will cost you less money and it will be faster. So if you do option 2 it will be in between more money and less. Kids need guidance because they learn stuff from the guidance teacher, it teaches kids to express your feelings and the teachers don't need guidance the kids do. I think that guidance is for students, DO NOT CUT GUIDANCE COUNCILLLERS!!! do not cut the guidance counselor because it is a good experience for kids and teachers don't need guidance and kids need help for high school. i like guidance counselling We do not want to make budgetary cuts which involve cutting guidance counselors as they play an integral role in the educational system as well as the social, emotional, and psychological well-being of the students. students need guidance directly from the guidance counsellor As a student I want Guidance classes because I think it's a good expedients for us students and I think I will understand more if the Guidance Counselors teach me then the teachers.
I agree with cutting guidance counselor. we should not cut guidance counselors because they play an important role and they teach us things that we can not find in a book I don't agree with cutting guidance counselor. I agree to cutting the guidance counselor Hi, I am a student and I hope the trustees do not cut the guidance counselors because the students need them😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭 do not cut guidance counselors do not cut guidance teachers they help kids with their problems
18
Page 131 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
I think making most of the cuts to special education is a very big mistake as more and more students require help with education and emotional services. They have no where else to go and if EA are cut they will not get the service they need.
While I stated that I supported option 2, I'm not sure that it is a truly informed decision, given that the proposed options do not outline where the cuts come from. I would have liked to have had more detailed information regarding where exactly the cuts would be coming from (vs. just an outline of how much would be saved). The total reduction is not as high as the third option and the transition seems smoother than the first option. There should be no more school buses since not all families and children benefit. As someone whose children either lived too close, or too far from each school, I would prefer my taxes to be spent on teaching rather than student transportation. Student transportation by the school board should be supported by user fees for those who use the system. All students with a valid student card should ride the TTC for free during the day as is done in some American cities. Staff My concern is making sure that there are staff that understand all implications of budget. Initially declaring a surplus and then turning around and declaring a huge deficit was embarrassing to every staff member of the TCDSB. The impact of this error was/is huge and how many decisions were made based on the board having a surplus, now to be in a deficit position,.....scary As mental health is a priority within our Catholic schools, it is imperative that we maintain the staff who can address such situation as a child with suicidal ideation or self harm. I strongly recommend that all elementary guidance, secondary guidance, social work and psychology staff are maintained. In addition, I recommend that senior staff and the trustees allow for the opportunity to speak to these groups around their roles and responsibilities in ensuring safe and caring school which nurture the achievement and wellbeing of all students (K-12).
19
Page 132 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
Parent Option 2 is more feasible-though there is an additional 6.6 M compare to Option 1- the budget cuts will be spread out evenly thus the impact will not as drastic as Option 1 (i.e.staff layoffs,short of teachers). Option 3 which is also good though the most expensive but will creates jobs for the newly grad teachers/staff because of the retirees. That would relieve some pressure already now existing from cuts made to special education. Board can remove underutilized schools in the mean time to find money and stop cutting from special education. More time to approach non-profit organizations to help with special education needs that Board has not been fulfilling Staff I can not believe that once again cuts are being made at the front lines. All over the world mental health is being highlighted yet educational assistants are once again the target of these reductions. There are many other options such as closing schools with low enrolment and selling the properties, just to mention one. Leave the front line workers alone because that's who the kids depend on. Staff Shame on the Board for once again cutting important and valuable programs, particularly 5th Block...children, especially those is poor neighbourhoods, need this program.
Staff As a 5th Block teacher I know first hand that early literacy intervention is important. From what I observe at my school half of the students need extra help in Reading in grade's 1 and 2. The 5th Block programme is an essential service. The possession of good reading skills is important for a child's success in the world. Parent I hope you start at the top with the cuts. I'm sure there is a lot of cost cutting to be done at the main office of TCDSB. I was there few times, and it seems a lot coffee breaks... There needs to be cuts there. Also every time some retirees at the main office cut the Salary so if the pay was 160k a year make it 145k. Or when someone retirees they job that person did get spread out to the remaining staff until the budget is paid off. If this works then don't change it. I feel there is more waste at the top levels then the bottom. But it seems like the cuts always happens at the
20
Page 133 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
bottom which is not far. or Cut salary for all staff at the main office that make over 100k a year. Thank you.
Any cuts should not affect our students, especially those most in need! Do not expect teachers to carry the load for these budget reductions as this will always negatively impact the children.
Staff Programs that are in place to promote student achievement should NOT be subject to elimination. Data supports the benefits in student achievement which is evident in EQAO, CAT scores. Staff I believe that Extras such as field trips will need to be entirely cut back. Bussing and 'extra's' to events such as a far away church for the school will need to be eliminated for the short term of three-five years. This is a suggestion only; however, this will assist with some costs. There could still be "guests" who come to the schools, such as Scientists in the school or theatre productions. The elimination of transportation costs will assist. Hopefully, jobs will NOT be negatively impacted. Staff Don't understand how one can vote on a option of how to eliminate the debt when you first don't know what is going to be cut. Regardless of option students are getting hurt. Staff Could this impact the future of publically funded Catholic education in Ontario? If services do not meet the needs of our students who then go to alternative boards for their education?
Parent This cuts are affecting the success and safety of our children specially special needs students. As a parent I'm willing to participate in events to collect money to rescue our schools.
21
Page 134 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
Parent It's ridiculous that a school board could be this far in debt. 1st item in cost reduction should be trustee salaries and pensions. Why are the cuts coming from front line employees like Special Education ? (valuable programs that are required). Superintendents received a pay increase in 2010 145000 to 175 0000 (a public record). Their salaries are higher than superintendents in other Boards? Greater accountability and transparency is required in positions of authority. Staff As a Fifth Block teacher I can tell you that I see first-hand the students that will be impacted by cutting this program. These students are not able to read at grade level and will never do so unless they have the specific, intensive intervention that the fifth block program provides. Cutting the program will definitely increase (multi-fold) the number of illiterate individuals in our school system. What a shameful disaster!!! What a hopeless future. This could all be avoided if the program is kept in place. Staff For clarity, could there be a statement made to stakeholders re: actual deficit? (Number kept changing last year!)
22
Page 135 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
Parent A reduction of EAs to meet provincial benchmarks is unethical when one considers a large component of special needs is Autism which is projected to increase. It means the most vulnerable students will be given an education that will not meet their requirements. AS we all know from countless studies, the rate of Autism in Canada is now estimated to be somewhere between 1:94 and 1:100. Similar U.S studies indicate a 30% growth since their last large scale studies. Different studies have argued that DSM IV reclassifications and physician awareness have been responsible for some of the increase. However, while there is some disagreement over the magnitude of the increase, there is widespread consensus among medical professionals that autism is on the increase. The one thing we ethically cannot do is cut existing service to a vulnerable sector where there is established evidence of increased incidence. If you proceed with these cuts…you must be at peace with the knowledge that you have made the decision to provide a level of service to these students that will never meet their needs. The result will be stressed staff trying to meet IEP goals that will be unattainable. Alternatively, we lower the IEP goals to match service delivery and shortchange these students. Implement the Deloitte recommendations and you subject vulnerable children to a substandard education that will impact their lives long after these cuts. Staff Without the 5th Block program, literacy will suffer in our board. The loss of this program would be detrimental to the students who are in the most need. Reading is one of the most essential skills which is cross curricular and losing this program would be damaging. Students, teachers and parents appreciate the help and support this program provides primary students at their most vulnerable. Please take this into consideration. Catholic Reasonably flexible option where all stakeholders can see "the light at the end of the [deficit] Ratepayer tunnel".
23
Page 136 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
Staff With the purposed cuts to Spec Ed - those students in ME/DD programs and those with IEP's who are serviced through the extra support of Educational Assistants are the ones who need the support in order to strive and success through their education will utterly suffer the most with the cuts. It's not fair to those students who cannot help themselves by having learning disabilities and being identified, shouldn't haven't support taken away from them succeeding and working through daily endeavours. Staff I strongly believe that programs such as the 5th Block are needed. We must keep this program in order to support many of our students who require this intense literacy intervention in order to strengthen their skills. and succeed in all areas of the curriculum. It's our home grown program that is proven effective and yields great results. It's a program we are very proud of and should do everyting we can to preserve it. I overheard one grade two student stating after the program was over "How can it be done...5th Block is my life"
Option 1
24
Page 137 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
Option 3
Proposes incremental budget reductions to be spread out over the next three (3) years by making a smaller cut in the first year and defers eliminating the accumulated deficit until the final year ($7.3M in 2016-17, $8.5M in 2017-18, and $12.6M in 2018-2019).
Why don't the supers give back their car allowances? Why are you hiring more supers? Make sure that elementary schools do not bear the brunt of the cuts. Ensure that BOTH the elementary and secondary panel bear the pain of cuts equitably. Ensure equity in cuts throughout the system, at all levels. Optics projecting fairness is essential. Take it easy and take it slowly for the betterment of our services to the students under our care now. Three years of aggressive cost cuts following recent significant measures affects services provided to our high school students whose years with us may be seriously undermined and I do not want to see them exploited to build the system for future students. Therefore I do not favour any aggressive cost cutting following so closely upon recent cuts as it will affect a generation of students in our secondary system who need the teachers and support as a priority. Reductions should not affect students who are most vulnerable. That is no cuts to Education
Assistants who are already in short supply. Split one principal between two schools for additional savings. Eliminate vice-principal
positions in all but largest high schools. There has been such a great disruption this past year we cannot continue to make drastic cuts. The students are suffering. We do not have the supports we need in schools. Any future cuts should be done with the least possible disruption. The impact of option 3 is less invasive than the other two options.
25
Page 138 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
Will E.A's get more pay for doing more and being retrained in certain areas? What about those
that are permanently accommodated how do they fit into the new model? financially option 1 seems the obvious choice, but this is about people, (students and educators), and the effect on them/us needs to be lessened, caring and compassionate,
especially in light of the pain and turmoil of the changes in our current school year, brought on us through no fault of our own Save teachers jobs. Parents will switch boards and go to the private system. We should not be looking to reduce the number of EA's, guidance counsellors, special needs programs. There are already many students in the board that have been affected by your previous reductions. These children need and deserve help more than anything and if you have to hurt them because of your own "accounting errors" you should not be leading this board. Take this into account please. This is more costly, but a very worthy investment. Attrition and surplusing are far less disruptive to students, families, and the special needs students that we have a legal and ethical responsibility to accommodate. It is also less disruptive to the dedicated teachers in schools with vulnerable populations, albeit these teachers may have less seniority. Certainly, many of the principals are also very aware of that reality. This is more costly, but a very worthy investment. Attrition and surplusing are far less disruptive to students, families, and the special needs students that we have a legal and ethical responsibility to accommodate. It is also less disruptive to the dedicated teachers in schools with vulnerable populations, albeit these teachers may have less seniority. Certainly, many of the principals are also very aware of that reality.
26
Page 139 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
Why hasn't the Board looked at/studied a revenue tool such as Solar Panels? How much savings would their be to return the IPads prior to the end of the lease? I find them difficult to manage. It consumes too much time and effort to deploy apps on to them individually. There
are so many glitches with them from them being individual based. IPads are meant for individual users and not group of students to share. We can't even load dropbox or Google Drive for students to save their work. Take into consideration about special education and the workers who make it possible! Co-op teachers should be replaced with content specialists (actual carpenters or plumbers or electricians). Bring back vocational. As it stands now, we have so many coop teachers whose sole role is to 'monitor' and not "teach". My son has a coop teacher who knows nothing of carpentry, yet he makes 100k while the carpenter associated with my son in coop makes less than the teacher! My son also states that the coop teachers have max case loads of two dozen students (for the whole semester) while regular teachers can have 30 or more kids in EACH of three classes. Some suggestions: 1) Make one PA Day an unpaid PA Day 2) Reduce the amount of Professional Developments being run throughout the school year 3) Eliminate LOYOL PD for
2017-2019 and perhaps focus on school improvement plan/literacy/numeracy strategies for the day 4) Narrow sick days down to 12 (which INCLUDES UPB, and Non-Personal Illness) I don't know how you think small elementary schools will be able to provide a safe environment for their students when you plan to slash almost all of our EA's - they are in our
classrooms to make sure children who have been identified can come to school and be safe and stimulated while attending this school board. Personally I propose the dissolution or severe reduction of the number of trustees who have obviously not done their job in preventing this deficit in the first place. This would be an
enormous cost savings and would then eliminate the need to raise this money on the backs of the students and staff.
27
Page 140 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
The proposed cuts to Special Education staff and programming will be devastating to TCDSB students. The current staff are already stretched thin and students are unable to access the supports we need. This is in the context of having increased Mental Health diagnoses and issues board wide. Classroom teachers will be expected to meet the needs of students who legally (IEP/IPRC) require more service. This will undoubtedly deter parents from enrolling students in Catholic education and further drive the public outcry to amalgamate the boards. The cuts need to be as soft as possible because we are talking about the education of children here. It is not their fault that the Board made accounting errors or that the Ministry is cutting their funding. The children's learning needs to be of paramount importance. The information provided here does not specify where the cuts are coming from. It is impossible to make an informed decision without appropriate information. As a teacher, I would fail a student that handed in this type of work. Thank you for your efforts to present an option that tries to preserve job loss by allowing
retirements to take place instead of cutting people. this needs to be a slow process...cuts to the low ecomonic schools will be the most difficult...try to keep early literacy in those schools, as those children come to school already
behind...get them when they are young...you are in a very difficult position...morale will be affected, as it already is Cut teacher's salaries. They are all overpaid We have too many children who will be hurt in these options and what will cost to our society
be then. If we really are saving 10 million by option one be sure to give it back to our students. I selected option#3 because it has a plan - natural staff attrition/retirements, while other 2 Parent options have no clue on what is going to happen. I think the survey was not setup in a fair hypothesis. There will always be debt there are always ways to cut without affecting the most vulnerable
students.
28
Page 141 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
Make cafeterias healthier and run by the school having all profit go to the tcdsb. Charge for Staff parking in prime locations for residents in after school hours and on weekends. Staffing who work with children with special needs should not be cut. There are medical and safety needs for these children and any cuts will effect this greatly. Things students should not Staff take the brunt of over budgeting errors. Our students do not equate dollar signs. They deserve more than what is being thrown at them. Special needs students should not be taking the brunt of the cuts when there are many other places you can cut from. It becomes a medical and safety concern for the special needs Staff students when you remove their support in the classroom. Look higher up instead of cutting from the bottom. My grave concern is that these cuts will affect the Fifth Block Reading Program for Primary children. It is critical for these children at the grade 1 and grade 2 levels to learn crucial literacy skills and experience success. It is one of the few programs that meet the needs of primary
children in literacy. The 5th Block Program is very, very successful. The children move up 2- 3reading levels in the few months that the program is offered to them. Thank you for the survey. Marlene Colla Language and Math skills are the fundamental and basic building blocks for all other learning skills and should not be compromised, particularly in the primary years. The 5th Block program is a highly successful program (based on statistical data) which provides an opportunity for grade 1 & 2 students, who would otherwise "fall through the cracks", to achieve success in reading. Studies show that the primary years are the most important for children to develop appropriate reading skills, which furthermore is an indicator of future overall success. The BENEFITS of this program GREATLY outweigh the costs of 3.1M! This program is an INVESTMENT in children’s learning. The “RISK AND IMPACT” is great for the children who would otherwise benefit from this program, both immediately and in the long-run.
29
Page 142 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
I support option 3 because it includes the explicit elimination of International Languages. Option 1 and Option 2 do not make clear what is being cut. If option 1 or 2 include that cut, my Staff preference would be to have les years of cuts but more severe cuts in the year the budget is cut. Take the Band-Aid off quickly, and begin to rebuild. I support the illumination on International Languages. It is very imperialistic that I am not of Parent the decent of the language being taught to my child (Italian) but am forced to have my child learn it.
30
Page 143 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
Although I have selected option 3 I am not in agreement with all the proposed cuts. The reduction in guidance teachers and the reduced time the present guidance teachers have in the school has been a noticeable difference. We have some students who were seeing the guidance teacher last year and were making good progress and this year the issues have escalated to requiring social work support. Also, I do not see the need for guidance coaching for teachers. I am capable of providing the guidance, its the out of classroom time for intensive discussion with these students that is needed which requires extra personnel. I am also concerned about the 5th block programming loss and reduction of special education teachers. Early intervention is crucial for student success. Grade 1 and 2 teachers struggle to find the time to differentiate and meet the literacy needs of the students in their classroom. I believe that many teachers have the skills to teach early literacy but the intensive support required for students needs additional personnel. Asking teachers to be all things to all students is a reciped for disaster. To be educational assistance to special needs students, special education teachers, guidance teachers and specialized literacy teachers will result in either lower student achievement or increased teacher absents due to poor mental health. Teachers do not do well when they are not achieving success and this will result in teachers focusing on what they have not been able to do well as opposed to which students are achieving well. Lastly the absentee police is a waste of money. I am entitled to 15 sick days and will use them as needed and I am not afraid of anyone asking me to explain my reasons for absents. This is in my opinion, fear mongering and bullying. I believe that there will be an increase in teacher leaves do to stress if the personal supports for students is decreased anymore than it is now. I also do not believe that there are no further administrative costs that can be reduced. I believe that the money is not spent effectively and efficiently.
31
Page 144 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
I do agree all the cuts you are making to the EA:s,why just us I think the support staff is important we are needed the children will lose out a lot.It seems were the ones that get hit first in the budgets,I guess to the board were nobody when it comes the budget cuts to save money. It:s so sad for some this hits home badly this is their income. This is my opinion I had to put my two cent worth in. Thanks for listening...... Staff Very little impact on students Will you be cutting EA and CYW jobs ? If so , will you be going by senority this time ? Unlike last year where you surplused many jobs not taking into consideration the number of years the employees had worked at the TCDSB . As a parent, my children (2) benefitted from the 5 th block program...they became confident readers and are not struggling now...I think this program needs to continue as is. I really Parent believe my kids would be in a special class had they not had this class. You have to find. a way to save it, if not in all the schools that have it, but at least in those communities where the kids need it most. This is going to hugely impact morale iin a negative way. This current school year has been difficult with last year's cuts. How can additional lose of good programs not impact staff morale? There needs to be a way to fund the programs in those schools that really need it, Staff especcially in the low income neighbourhoods. Surely, some schools could keep 5th block. Can Empower not be brought to more schools(via Sick Kids)? The kids will suffer, even though you say you are committed to them. I feel that students with special educational needs are going to suffer with these cuts. Whether by cutting literacy intiatives or removing support from specialist teachers and support workers, the board will be doing a disservice to the children with the most need. I understand that
financial pressures must be dealt with, but it shouldn't be at the expense of stuggling children. If schools don't meet these needs now, society will be forced to support them financially for many years with government aid.
32
Page 145 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
Option 3 is the best option. This way student needs will be but less affected than if we were to Staff opt for either Option 1 or 2. Option 3 is one of the better options so that students are not affected that much if option 1 or Staff 2 were selected. the 1st one is very ideal. If it could be done it would be the best. But there is a big deficit already showing the cuts cannot be that easy. it's only looking at having no deficit but not at looking at the progress ,(which is important) to this particular avenue. I chose the last one Parent because its giving time to get used to the cuts and make it more practical and when it comes to the 3rdyear may be one would have found ways to increase the cuts, and the income or profit as well. Since the deficit error was made CEC upper management originally, as an EA who makes less than $38,000. annually, I feel that the cuts should be made over the next three years. We pride ourselves on being the Toronto Catholic school board, and since this is the catholic year of the family. We should follow in the words of the great St. Francis and the Holy Father where our actions speak much louder than our words. This would also be in accordance with Staff our board's mantra, of love, faith and charity in dealing with EAs and cuts to our employees and student needs. The three year proposal would allow some of our support staff to seek alternate employment and /or earlier retirement options and less drastic disruptions to the Catholic board and its encompassing the Catholic school families. Laureen Bellio Education Assistant Try to minimize the damage and protect programmes for students - where possible cut in areas
that do not affect student learning. Cutting ea's and teachers hurts kids. Please try to maintain as many of the programs as possible...phase them out over the course of Staff the 3 years, but try not to eliminate at once...you are in a difficult situation. You want to cut staff who are directly working with children. Have you really looked at reduciing, at the board level where there are overlapping / duplication in positions? What about when you retire -- bringing back the 85 factor?
33
Page 146 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
you have to find a way to save and keep 5th block in the schools where they kids are poor...it's Parent their only way out of poverty Cut librarians. Cut special ed $500 bonuses. Cut the number if guidance councillors. Cut non- teaching teachers (coop and Spec ed). Cut the number of secretaries and VP in each school. Cut
board office coordinators. Cut youth workers per school. Cut EAs. School is about teachers and students. Period. Cut the coattails. I do not agree with the plan of the board of cutting 130 EA's (Educational Assistants) and 20 Special Education Teachers in the next 3 years across the board. This will affect terribly our Special Ed children not only because they may loose some of the skills that with so much effort they have been able to achieve but because they wont have available the proper support at school to successfully complete their elementary or high school education. I believe that our Special Ed children have already been affected with the cuts that we suffered last year, we Parent cannot afford any more cuts, not in the Special Education area, this children really need and deserve the support that Special Ed teachers and EA’s provide them. As parents and educators we are responsible to do what is within our power to provide our children with the best possible education, values and empower them to be the best they can be, for them and for the future generations. I kindly request for the board to reconsider these cuts that affect the most needed, that are our Special Education Children and maybe consider the cuts starting at the Top or other areas where they do not affect our children's wellbeing. cuts should not be made to ea's in the schools. They are very vital to the childrens needs. Staff Other cuts should be looked at before reducing the ea's in the schools. Support staff is essential to students with challenges. Currently many children with needs are falling through the cracks. How does the board plan on meeting the needs of these needy children and families? No layoffs; shortened work period/week for EAs;
34
Page 147 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
It was extremely difficult to select an option as the first two options do not show where the reductions are coming from. The 3rd option is the only one that shows where the reductions Parent would come from. If I could see where the reductions are coming from for Option 1 and 2 my decision may have been different. (i.e. more aggressive approach may be beneficial from my perspective depending on where the reductions are coming from). Staff Get rid of the trustees first Expecting classroom teachers to handle their students with special needs without the support of 5th Block and Special Education services will drastically reduce the potential future success of these students and may save short term monies now, but will tax our school and social services not far down the road. Teachers will burn out and the system will get out of control...quickly. you are in a bind...definitely reduce guidance...eliminate heritage classes...but you have to keep some 5th block programs...it works, as I know via my own kids...how does TDSB fund Parent Reading Recovery classes, which is similar to 5th Block...you are running the risk of loosing more kids wheen all these cuts are done...I would not enrol my kids in the TCDSB after all this...the public school offers more...tough times ahead...feel badly for staff and kids
I feel forced to vote for an option that I do not support. Every option 1 through 3 proposes the elimination of the 5th Block Reading Intervention Program by the end of the year 2018. There is no price you can put on early literacy. A strong literacy foundation sets children up on the road to academic success. It is incumbent on all stakeholders to find a way to balance this budget so that our students can achieve reading proficiency. That is not a privilege. It is a right. It is clear that most of the cuts are affecting elementary school children. It is time to look at making additional cuts in other areas and to other programs (ex. gifted programs) and to close schools with small enrolment. If cuts are going to made to 5th Block, they should be made elsewhere as well and be minimal for 5th Block in order to sustain a program that has
35
Page 148 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
proven to impact student achievement and build student confidence. There is a narrow window of opportunity. Let’s not shut it on our struggling readers.
Strong literacy skills form the basis of learning in all subject areas. With low Math scores, why Staff would we support the elimination of the 5th Block program? Meanwhile our literacy scores have improved every year. The 5th Block program supports our struggling readers. The program is an Early Intervention reaching students at a critical stage. The success of our students is the success of our board. Staff Some suggestions for areas to make cuts include cuts at the board level or closing schools with low enrolment such as St. Catherine and Holy Redeemer. Let's make sure to put the current students first. Not the administration, not the teachers but the students. They have four years in high school. Let's make sure that they get the best Parent possible education possible in the Catholic environmemt !! All talk of budget cuts and reductions don't appear to put the impact on the students front and centre. Why are we here after all??? Wholly oppsed to option #1 for this reason. What is the intention behind sick days? Is there a tacit understanding that these can be used for other purposes? More importantly what does it cost the board when a teacher (or a staff Staff member) calls in sick? Perhaps if teachers were made aware of the costs they would be less likely to use them for non-sick purposes.
36
Page 149 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
I have seen the benefits of a reading intervention program for students in our school. I feel that cutting any of these programs would jeopardize this critical need for support. I am in favor of continuing to have the 5th Block program in our schools. Why are we even contemplating cuts to our funding when this government pissed away 700 Parent million with Hydro? Staff Board should look into utilizing vacant school parking lots on the weekend (starting Friday after Staff 6 to Sunday 11pm) at all downtown schools. I don't truly support any of the above as all of the options will be reducing services and programming at the secondary level, and the impact of these reductions will be felt down the Parent road when these students are part of the general population, which will serve to cause issues anyway. this is unfortunate...my children were enrolled in your schools...the board as it is known, will Catholic no longer exist. This is devastating. You need to find a way to save the early literacy program, Ratepayer especially in the poor neighbourhoods.
37
Page 150 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
I am an itinerant teacher, and I would be more than willing to give up the mileage I am paid in order to help the current budgetary crisis. I have not submitted any mileage so far this year, and I will not submit any in the remainder of the year. I support option 3, as I like how it is spread out over a longer time frame, in order to take advantage of other options and hard numbers that may come forth over that time frame. I am not in favour of the reduction of itinerant teachers, nor the idea of keeping itinerant teachers in one school. I am a new teacher Staff (4 yrs) and am very happy driving around and working only in my specialty. I would not be happy being forced to teach many different subjects during the day to many different levels of students. My wife works for another board, where they have prep teachers in the school, and they have had many problems with this situation, where the classroom teacher pawns off whatever they may not feel like teaching on the prep teacher, and the prep teacher ends up with a huge workload of marking in core subjects like math, language and science. I am worried that this is what is going to happen to me, and I am very worried and upset about it. It's difficult to select an option that proposes massive cuts to the 5th Block program. We have a moral responsibility to ensure that students can read with competency. In order to lead student achievement in our Board, it's imperative to keep the 5th Block program in our schools. Through the 5th Block program, students make many gains in their reading ability. Staff These gains are the building blocks to becoming successful, strategic and effective life-long learners. Providing students with the 5th Block early literacy intervention program should be non-negotiable. Please consider the long term benefits of keeping the 5th Block program in our schools. Thank you for your time and interest in reading my comments. keep the 5th block the children need it. Children are number one Aside from a temporal schedule the plan doesn't outline specific budget cuts. That, as a Staff stakeholer, would impact my decision more than the rate that the budget is re-calibrated.
38
Page 151 of 161 APPENDIX K 12-02-2016 2016 MYRP Consultation Comments
Please consider eliminating the Gifted Testing. There are a ton of resources spent on these students, while students with significant behaviour,medical and other special needs are Staff neglected.Consider reducing transportation costs,children should walk to school as it is good fir their whole being. Eliminate the APT positions, teachers should work in the classrooms teaching students, not processing paperwork. Please do not eliminate any 5th Block positions. I have witnessed first hand the outstanding
results of this program. What a shame for a program such as this to be eliminated! I do not support any of the options, but have selected option 3 for the purpose of completing the survey. I think that it is time that the Board considers other programs to cut, rather than the ones that affect our most needy children. Why is the gifted program not being Staff eliminated? Why are there not significant cuts being made at the secondary level? Why are schools with low enrolment not being closed down? 5th a Block is a lifeline for those children struggling to read. It is proven to positively affect student achievement, and yet it is facing elimination? Serious, serious consideration needs to be given to saving the 5th Block program. I don't agree with any of the options so I am forced to choose #3. Fifth block should not be cut. It's an outstanding program that has changed numerous lives.
Gifted students will succeed regardless. Please keep Fifth Block for the sake of the kids! Staff Save 5th Block!! It is a vital program for early intervention for non readers!! B Option 1 Budget reductions totaling $19.1M spread out over each of the next two (2) years. $13.M in 2016-17 and $6.1M in 2017-18. Budget reductions totaling $19.1M spread out over each of the next two (2) years. $13.M in 2016-17 and $6.1M in 2017-18. Option 1 Budget reductions totaling $19.1M spread out over each of the next two (2) years. $13.M in 2016-17 and $6.1M
39
Page 152 of 161 PENDING LIST AND ROLLING CALENDAR AS OF FEBRUARY 18, 2016
Date # Due Date Committee/Board Subject Delegated To Requested 1 Feb-15 Mar-16 Student Staff investigate the chaplaincy model at the Associate Director, Achievement elementary panel within the existing Academic Affairs allocation given the financial realities. 2 Mar-15 Deferred to come Student Piping In Classical Music To Washrooms & Associate Director, back at a later Achievement Parking Lots To Address Safe School Academic Affairs date to be Concerns determined by the Director 3 Oct-13 Feb-2014 Corporate Affairs Report that outlines a strategy that will Associate Director R - May-15 address housing those students that Academic Affairs R - Dec -15 represent over enrolment at Our Lady of Wisdom for the 2014 school year and look at providing possible caps/boundaries including French Immersion for over- subscribed schools when the Admissions Policy comes back for review.
Report regarding French Immersion Program: Recommendations for Oversubscribed FI Program Schools - that St. Cyril be referred back to staff as an oversubscribed French Immersion program school and possible solutions.
Report regarding the feasibility of establishing a French Immersion Program at St. Conrad Catholic School to be included in the report to come to Board
Page 153 of 161 4 Mar-14 Jun-2014 Corporate Affairs That the director initiate meetings with Associate Director, R - Jan 2015 community colleges and high schools that Academic Affairs R - Dec-15 provide culinary programs to pursue educational opportunities and report back to the Board 5 Dec-14 Deferred until Corporate Affairs Report regarding System-Wide Approach to Associate Director such time that Digital School Signage of Planning and deficit is under Facilities control 6 Jan-15 Corporate Affairs Plan to reduce under-utilized (small Associate Director schools) with less than a 65% utilization Planning and rate. *Update Long Term Accommodation Facilities Plan* 7 Feb-15 May-15 Corporate Affairs Report on Bill 8 into law, the impacts (short General Counsel and-long-term) and potential risks (financial, legal, operational, reputational) to both the Corporate Board and the Board 8 Apr-15 Ongoing Corporate Affairs Staff prepare a report comparing the TDSB Executive budget and identify any possible reductions Superintendent in expenditures to the TCDSB: Some of the Business Services areas include the following: Reduction in overtime in Facility Services, Facilities productivity savings, Non-school based staffing reductions through attrition, Transportation alignment of costs, Efficiencies in Permit Department, Attendance Management, Efficiencies in Payroll Services, Policy Review of mileage claims
Page 154 of 161 9 15-Sep To be included in Student Report regarding the feasibility of relocating LTAP and Achievement the French Immersion program and the LTAPP gifted program from Senator O'Connor to St. Patrick and from St. John Paul II to Blessed Mother Theresa 10 15-Sep Jan-16 Corporate Affairs Report regarding status of analysis of Associate Director small/undersized gyms, and options for Planning and funding upgrades Facilities 11 Oct-15 Corporate Affairs Staff to come back with a report regarding Executive public confidence: That all public funds Superintendent expensed by all TCDSB staff be posted Business Services online beside the Trustee expenses, including proper receipts, 12 Oct-15 Corporate Affairs Further report on a project by project basis Associate Director to approval final budget plus the rational Planning and between the two systems identifying where Facilities the cost savings can be found to fund any difference in cost. (A/C vs Displacement Heating) 13 Oct-15 Jan-16 Corporate Affairs Report regarding recovering costs of our Associate Director permits Planning and Facilities 14 Oct-15 Regular Board Report on over-subscribed schools that bus students in and whether there is a possibility of transferring programs to under- subscribed schools to releve the pressure of over-subscribed schools 15 Oct-15 Oct-16 Student Report on pilot Jump Math program Associate Director, Achievement inclusive of EQAO results for 2015-2016 Academic Affairs (Grade 3 - 6)
Page 155 of 161 16 Nov-15 Dec-15 Corporate Affairs Staff to come back with a draft Associate Director Parent/Guardian TCDSB School Entrance Planning and and Exit Surveys, along with costing before Facilities they are distributed to schools for implementation by end of January. 17 Nov-15 Dec-15 Corporate Affairs Staff to bring back data in an extended Associate Director report regarding students who were not able Planning and to be accommodated with the reasons by Facilities ward and by school. 18 Nov-15 December 2015 Regular Board Staff bring back a report identifying all Associate Director, R- February 2016 official board recognized charities and that Academic Affairs Sharelife (A.09) be brought back as part of the report. 19 Dec-15 Student Report regarding French Immersion School Associate Director Achievement consultations with the principal and the Academic Affairs Mar-16 parent council. 20 Dec-15 Corporate Services Business Plan that addresses the need for a Associate Director high school in Central Toronto Planning and Facilities 21 Jan -16 Corporate Services Request to the TTC to reduce transit rates Associate Director for our students. Planning and Facilities 22 Jan-16 Regular Board Report to come back which would include: 1. Statistics on the number of meetings CPIC have had with the school communities 2. The outcome of these meetings and the number of parents who came out to these meetings 3. The initiatives recommended to the school communities by CPIC to help them Associate Director Academic Affairs
Page 156 of 161 23 Jan-16 t Regular Board Report advising the Board on the Recommendation #30 of the Safe Schools Inquiry regarding the Official Spokesperson Associate Director during Crisis Situation Academic Affairs 24 Jan-16 Regular Board Report on the Impact of the MYRP on students, teachers and principals and the gap between P. Matthews funding received and salaries and benefits
Page 157 of 161 ANNUAL REPORTS
# Due Date Committee/Board Subject Responsibility of 1 January (A) Student Achievement Mental Health Report Associate Director Academic Affairs 2 January (A) Corporate Affairs Monthly Financial Report Executive Superintendent Business Services 3 February (A) Student Achievement External Research Report Associate Director Academic Affairs 4 February (A) Student Achievement Accountability Framework for Special Education Associate Director Academic Affairs 5 February (A) Corporate Affairs Planning Enrolment Projection Associate Director of Planning and Facilities 6 February (A) Corporate Affairs Legal Fees Report Executive Superintendent Business Services 7 February (A) Corporate Affairs Statement Reserves Accumulated Surplus Executive Superintendent Business Services 8 February (A) Corporate Affairs Monthly Financial Report Executive Superintendent Business Services 9 February (A) Regular Board Policy Budget Timeline and Public Consultation Executive Survey Superintendent Business Services 10 February (A) Regular Board Metrics for MYSP 6 Strategic Directions Director of Education 11 March (A) Corporate Affairs Monthly Financial Report Executive Superintendent Business Services
Page 158 of 161 12 March (A) Student Achievement Staffing Status Report for Next School Year Associate Director Academic Affairs 13 April (A) Student Achievement Conflict Resolution Department Report Associate Director Academic Affairs 14 April (A) Corporate Affairs Monthly Financial Report Executive Superintendent Business Services 15 April (A) Regular Board Non-Resident VISA Student Fees for September Associate Director 2013 Academic Affairs 16 April (A) Regular Board Education Development Charges Policy Review Associate Director of Planning and Facilities 17 May (A) Student Achievement Report regarding Updates on items referred to in Associate Director Ministry of Education Operational Review Academic Affairs
18 May (A) Student Achievement Staffing Status Report for Next School Year Executive Superintendent Business Services 19 May (A) Student Achievement Ratification of Student Trustee Nominees Associate Director Academic Affairs 20 May (A) Corporate Affairs Monthly Financial Report Associate Director Academic Affairs 21 June (A) Student Achievement 21st Century Learning Update Executive Superintendent Business Services 22 October (A) Student Achievement Student Trustees: Voices that Challenge Associate Director Academic Affairs 23 June (A) Regular Board Budget Estimates Associate Director Academic Affairs 24 September (A) Student Achievement Portuguese Speaking Associate Director Academic Affairs 25 September (A) Student Achievement Full Day Kindergarten Enrolment Report Associate Director Page 159 of 161 Academic Affairs 26 September (A) Corporate Affairs Enrolment for September Report Associate Director Academic Affairs 27 September (A) Corporate Affairs Trustee Honorarium Report Associate Director Academic Affairs 28 September (A) Corporate Affairs Monthly Financial Report Executive Superintendent Business Services 29 September (A) Regular Board Angel Foundation for Learning Year In Report Executive Superintendent Business Services 30 September (A) Student Achievement Community Engagement Director of Education 31 September (A) Student Achievement Portuguese Speaking Associate Director Academic Affairs 32 September (A) Student Achievement Elementary and Secondary School Enrolment Associate Director Report Academic Affairs 33 October (A) Student Achievement Annual Safe Schools Report Associate Director Academic Affairs 34 October (A) Student Achievement Information Report on the International Associate Director Languages Program to include dates, statistical Academic Affairs trends, surveys, results of previous assessments in changing demographics (city-wide population and home language dynamics) and immigration patterns in all wards. 35 October (A) Student Achievement Primary and Junior Division Assessments Of Associate Director Reading, Writing and Mathematics (EQAO) Academic Affairs ·Grade 9 Assessment of Mathematics (second semester and full-year students) and OSSLT Assessment (EQAO) 36 October (A) Special Board Director’s Performance Appraisal (over 3 Director of Education consecutive Special Board Meetings)
Page 160 of 161 37 October (A) Corporate Affairs Trustee Honorarium Report Executive Superintendent Business Services 38 November (A) Student Achievement Board Learning Improvement Plan (BLIP) Associate Director Academic Affairs 39 November (A) Student Achievement K-12 Professional Development Plan for Student Associate Director Achievement and Well-Being Academic Affairs 40 November (A) Student Achievement Religious Accommodation Report Associate Director Academic Affairs 41 November (A) Corporate Affairs Monthly Financial Report Executive Superintendent Business Services 42 November (A) Corporate Affairs Parent/Guardian and Student Transition Surveys
43 November (A) Regular Board Annual Calendar of Meetings Director of Education 44 November (A) Regular Board Audited Financial Statements Executive Superintendent Business Services November (A) Student Achievement Board Learning Improvement Plan Associate Director Academic Affairs 45 December (A) Corporate Affairs Revised Budget Estimate for Consideration Executive Superintendent Business Services 46 December (A) Regular Board Director’s Annual Report Director of Education
Page 161 of 161