Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Regular Meeting

April 13, 2011

A regular meeting was convened at 4:40 p.m. on Wednesday, April 13, 2011, in the Boardroom, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, with Chris Bolton, Chair of the Board, presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Chris Bolton, Sheila Cary- Meagher, Jerry Chadwick, Shaun Chen, Michael Coteau, Cathy Dandy, Gerri Gershon, Chris Glover, Howard Goodman, Pamela Gough, John Hastings, Howard Kaplan, Shelley Laskin, Elizabeth Moyer, Stephnie Payne, Maria Rodrigues, Mari Rutka, David Smith, Chris Tonks, Sheila Ward, Soo Wong and Student Trustees Zane Schwartz and Jenny Williams. Trustees Cary-Meagher and Ward participated by electronic means.

1. Resolution Into Committee of the Whole (Private Session)

At 4:41 p.m., on motion of Trustee Goodman, seconded by Trustee Chadwick the regular meeting resolved into Committee of the Whole (Private Session) to consider matters on the private agenda of the Committee of the Whole.

2. Reconvene

At 6:10 p.m., the regular meeting reconvened.

3. Committee of the Whole (Private), Report No. 32, April 13, 2011 (see page Error! Bookmark not defined.)

Trustee Atkinson, seconded by Trustee Goodman moved: That Items 1, 2 and 3 in Report No. 32 of the Committee of the Whole (Private), be adopted.

The motion was carried.

4. Recess and Reconvene

At 6:06 p.m., on motion of Trustee Chadwick, seconded by Trustee Kaplan, the meeting recessed for dinner and reconvened at 7:10 p.m.

5. Approval of the Agenda

Trustee Kaplan, seconded by Trustee Rodrigues, moved: That the agenda be approved.

With the permission of the meeting, Trustee Glover withdrew his notice of motion re the operation of the Rexdale Pupil Accommodation Review.

The motion to approve the agenda was carried.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 1 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

6. Declarations of Possible Conflict of Interest

Trustee Tonks declared a possible conflict of interest with regard to the matter of a contract as presented in the private agenda, as his wife works for in a related field. Trustee Tonks did not participate in the discussion or vote on the matter in private or the vote on the matter in public.

7. Memorials

Trustee Chen expressed sympathy on behalf of the Board to the family of Mei Mei Hsieh, a lunchroom supervisor at Agnes Macphail Public School who recently died.

The Chair expressed sympathy on behalf of the Board to the families of Andrew Malcolm, Mary Lynn Prior, Adriana Bertossi, Michael Curry, Umena Jasminez and Erika Kim, Board employees who recently died.

A moment’s silence was observed in memory of those who had passed away.

8. Gay-Straight Alliance

The Chair spoke about national Think Pink Day, its significance in creating awareness of bullying and homophobia and noted that in the Board it symbolized inclusiveness, non- discrimination and support for all people. Trustee Dandy, seconded by Trustee Goodman, moved:

Whereas, the Board is committed to the eradication of homophobia and the harmful effects that homophobia has on schools and society as well as individual students; and

Whereas, the Board is committed to establishing cultures of kindness in every school; and

Whereas, the Board has declared April 13, 2011 as Day of Pink to celebrate and encourage inclusiveness in its schools and the support that school communities provide to students who are targets of marginalization, harassment, and assault; and

Whereas, the Board encourages the establishment of Gay-Straight Alliances in schools as an effective way to help students learn to fully respect others and better understand that those who may seem at first glance to be different from them share their same basic humanity; and

Whereas, the Board believes that Gay-Straight Alliances in its schools improves school climates and thus increases the success and well-being of all students in the school; and

Whereas, there are Gay-Straight Alliances in 50 TDSB schools;

Therefore, be it resolved that the members of the Board declare themselves to be a Gay- Straight Alliance.

The motion was carried on a recorded vote. (See Recorded Vote 5, page 13)

2 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

9. Board and School News

(a) Student Trustee Zane Schwartz acknowledged the ten student trustee candidates who were observing the meeting.

(b) In celebration of Adult Education Week, staff introduced two adult learners, Yolanda Wei from Overland Adult Learning Centre, who spoke on the topic why Adult Education programs are important to her, and Nick Pasos from City Adult Learning Centre, who spoke about the importance of Adult Education and his experience.

(c) Trustee Dandy spoke abut Children’s Mental Health Week which will be observed from May 2-6, 2011with activities held throughout the Board. Trustee Dandy introduced Nancy Pereira, Communications and Event Coordinator, The New Mentality, a youth engagement project with Children’s Mental Health Ontario.

10. Chair’s Announcements

(a) The Chair reported that a motion regarding the staff allocation for alternative schools will be presented at the next meeting of the Program and School Services Committee.

(b) The Chair spoke about governance notes included in members’ folders, to address certain actions, and which will be discussed at a future meeting of the Planning and Priorities Committee.

(c) The Chair provided an update on the status of discussions with the Minister of Education.

11. Director’s Leadership Report

The Director presented information about a 1989 ABC News report which describes the Toronto District School Board school system as among the best in the world.

12. Matters Decided Without Discussion

Trustee Laskin, seconded by Trustee Moyer, moved: That the following matters presented as matters to be decided without discussion be approved or received, as appropriate:

(a) Confirmation of Minutes of Meeting Held on March 9, 2011

(b) Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 20, dated March 7, 2011 (see page 16) 1 Appointment of Member

(c) Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 21, March 23, 2011 (see page 19) 1 Contract Awards, Facility Services [1728]

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 3 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

2 2009-10 Accommodation Review Committee Receiving Schools Phase One and Phase Two Program and Sketch Plan Approval (Accommodation Review Committees 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9) [1730] 3 Surplus Declarations: Nelson Mandela Park Public School District Energy Equipment Easements [1731]

(d) Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 16, March 30, 2011 (see page 33) 2 Onestop Media Screens

(e) Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 18, April 6, 2011 (see page 37) 1 Onestop Media Screens 2 Video Screens Alternatives 3 Advertising Policy Review 4 Budget Development Timelines 5 Communications Plan Update and Next Steps

(f) Roma Students and Their Families (Trustee Kaplan) Whereas, 2011 is the 25th anniversary of Canada receiving the Nansen medal from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees--the first time an entire people were so honoured for the years of work by Canada and Canadians in support of refugees; and

Whereas, there is a disturbing anti-immigrant, anti-refugee spirit in both recent Federal Bills, C-11 and C-49, reflecting an effort to criminalize and stigmatize new Canadians and refugee asylum seekers in the mind’s eye of the Canadian public; and

Whereas, the Inner City Advisory Committee considered the matter at its meeting held on April 5, 2011 and the members agreed with following;

Therefore, be it resolved:

(i) That the Board advocate vigorously on behalf of Roma students and their families in TDSB schools; (ii) That the Chair send a communication on behalf of the Board to encourage the Federal Government to re-examine the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada’s decisions on the status of Roma refugee claimants in Canada and refute Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, Jason T. Kenney’s claim that Roma people are, “economic migrants jumping the queue who could easily move to 26

4 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

other Western democracies in the European Union,”1 a statement which has impacted the supposed neutrality of the Refugee Board in its decision making. (g) Task Force on Success of Students of Portuguese Heritage: Membership and Funding (Trustees Rodrigues and Kaplan) Whereas, on March 9, 2011 the Board approved the establishment of a Task Force on Success of Students of Portuguese Heritage that will present a report to the Board by the end of October 2011; and

Whereas, the Board also decided that the membership of the Task Force on Success of Students of Portuguese Heritage include “Leaders and role models in the community from all different sectors including education, business and community organizations”; and

Whereas, the Board continues to build teacher capacity to develop and sustain culturally responsive teaching;

Therefore, be it resolved:

(i) That the Task Force on Success of Students of Portuguese Heritage be convened by staff include the following:

• up to three trustees; • three students from universities, including one from each of the University of Toronto’s, Ryerson’s and York University’s Portuguese student associations; • two high school students of Portuguese heritage; • two parents of Portuguese heritage who are school council members; • up to two elementary teachers; • up to two secondary teachers; • one university professor; • two representatives from the Portuguese business community; • two representatives from Portuguese community associations; • role models from the community; • senior Board staff, as appointed by the Director; • research staff, as appointed by the Director.

(ii) That up to $25,000 be allocated for resources to support the Task Force on Portuguese Students’ Success to be broken down as follows: Regular Task Force Meetings Light Refreshments: (6 evening meetings starting @ 6:00 pm sandwiches and beverage required) $500 Literature Review: review of pertinent international studies and academic papers 3,800

1 Toronto Star, Monday, March 22, 2010

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 5 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Photocopying & Supplies 250 Preparation of Final Report 5,000 Graphic Layout and Printing 1,800 Printing 6,500

Two Community Consultation Meetings

Flyers/posters, communication materials 700 Speaker Honorariums 1,000 Light Refreshments 1,500 Child Minding 350

Total $21,400

The motion was carried.

13. Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 16, March 30, 2011 (see page 33)

Trustee Coteau, seconded by Trustee Rutka, moved: That Item 1, Feasibility Study for Elementary Programs of Choice, as presented in Report No. 16 of the Program and School Services Committee be adopted.

The motion to adopt Item 1 of Report No. 16 (see page 33) of the Program and School Services Committee was defeated.

14. Establishment of Ten Alternative Learning Programs of Choice

Trustee Wong, seconded by Trustee Tonks, moved:

Whereas, the Board currently has 19 elementary and 22 secondary alternative schools and a wide range of specialized programs; and

Whereas, the Board currently offers curricular options for students, including International Baccalaureate programs, CyberArts and High Performance Athletics programs; and

Whereas, the Programs of Choice provide increased opportunities to address the achievement gap; and

Whereas, the Programs of Choice offer additional learning opportunities for student success; and

Whereas, the Programs of Choice provide more learning options to accommodate different learning styles and interests; and

6 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Whereas, the Programs of Choice offer alternative learning environments and choice for parents and school communities to consider; and

Whereas, the Programs of Choice enable school communities recently completing accommodation reviews with opportunities to revitalize existing programs;

Therefore, be it resolved:

(a) That the Director commence the proposed ten alternative learning Programs of Choice by September 2011;

(b) That the Director report on the implementation plan for the proposed ten alternative learning Programs of Choice by May 2011;

(c) That the Director provide an update on the ten alternative learning Programs of Choice in January 2012;

(d) That the Director provide a full report on the ten alternative learning Programs of Choice by May 2012.

Trustee Glover, seconded by Trustee Rutka, moved in amendment: That the following be added:

(e) That a committee be established to consider alternative names to the term Programs of Choice and that Themed Schools be considered;

(f) That the following be added: “That the Vocal Music Academies be adopted under the neighhourhood school program rather than the proposed school within a school model.”

The amendment was carried on a recorded vote (see Recorded Vote 6, page 13).

Trustee Coteau, seconded by Trustee Chadwick, moved in amendment: That the following be added to Part (a):

(i) “Boys’ Leadership Academy (Grades 4-8), Calico Public School, The Elms Junior Middle School;

(ii) Girls’ Leadership Academy (Grades 4-8), Highland Heights Junior Public School;

(iii) Sports and Wellness Academy (all elementary grades), Carleton Village Junior/Senior Public School, James S. Bell Junior Middle School, Rene Gordon Elementary School, Donview Middle School and Shoreham Public School;

(iv) Vocal Music Academy (Grades 4-8), Heather Heights Junior Public School, Ryerson Community School;”

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 7 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

and that the following be added:

(g) “That the Board approve a budget of $285,200.00 for the Elementary Programs of Choice in addition to the following:

(i) Classroom start up costs which depend on enrolment at each Program of Choice site;

(ii) Minor facility upgrades or site renovations at Shoreham Public School, Donview Middle School, Highland Heights Junior Public School and Heather Heights Junior Public School;

(h) That staff identify a funding source for Programs of Choice as identified above within existing Board funds.”

The amendment was carried on a recorded vote (see Recorded Vote 7, page 13).

Trustee Gershon, seconded by Trustee Coteau, moved in amendment: That the following be added: “That the Director report back to the Board in January on the actual cost of implementing the programs and the implications to student enrolment and staffing in the sending schools.”

The amendment was carried

Trustee Tonks, seconded by Trustee Gough, moved in amendment: That the following be added: “That the Director immediately commence a Program Area Review with regard to the adopted amendment of Trustees Coteau and Chadwick (above) and report back to Board during the May cycle of meetings.”

Trustee Cary-Meagher, seconded by Trustee Rodrigues, moved in amendment to the amendment: That the following be added: “and that the report include staffing implications for the immediately affected and other schools.”

The amendment to the amendment was carried.

Trustee Rutka, seconded by Trustee Goodman, moved in amendment: That the amendment of Trustees Coteau and Chadwick be reconsidered and that Part (g) be amended by deletion and substituting the following: “That the specific and total cost implications be identified and reported to the Board in the May 2011 cycle of meetings with regard to start up costs, resources, staff and facilities for the proposed programs.”

The amendment was carried.

Trustee Laskin (on behalf of Student Trustee Williams), seconded by Trustee Tonks, moved in amendment: That the following be added: “That when the Program Area Review is established, that two student council members from each school involved in the review, where applicable, be included as a member of the Program Area Review team.”

8 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

The amendment was carried.

The Director then suggested implementation for 2012.

Trustee Kaplan, seconded by Trustee Laskin, moved: That the matter be referred to staff for a report back to the Board.

With the permission of the meeting, Trustees Kaplan and Laskin withdrew the motion to refer.

Following further discussion, Trustee Ward seconded by Trustee Laskin moved: That the matter be referred to staff for a report back to the Board.

Following discussion, Trustee Chadwick, seconded by Trustee Tonks, moved: That the debate be ended.

The motion to end the debate was carried.

The motion to refer was carried.

Therefore, the Board decided that the following be referred to staff for a report back to the Board:

Whereas, the Board currently has 19 elementary and 22 secondary alternative schools and a wide range of specialized programs; and

Whereas, the Board currently offers curricular options for students, including International Baccalaureate programs, CyberArts and High Performance Athletics programs; and

Whereas, the Programs of Choice provide increased opportunities to address the achievement gap; and

Whereas, the Programs of Choice offer additional learning opportunities for student success; and

Whereas, the Programs of Choice provide more learning options to accommodate different learning styles and interests; and

Whereas, the Programs of Choice offer alternative learning environments and choice for parents and school communities to consider; and

Whereas, the Programs of Choice enable school communities recently completing accommodation reviews with opportunities to revitalize existing programs;

Therefore, be it resolved:

(a) That the Director commence the following ten alternative learning Programs of Choice by September 2011;

(i) Boys’ Leadership Academy (Grades 4-8), Calico Public School, The Elms Junior Middle School;

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 9 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

(ii) Girls’ Leadership Academy (Grades 4-8), Highland Heights Junior Public School;

(iii) Sports and Wellness Academy (all elementary grades), Carleton Village Junior/Senior Public School, James S. Bell Junior Middle School, Rene Gordon Elementary School, Donview Middle School and Shoreham Public School;

(iv) Vocal Music Academy (Grades 4-8), Heather Heights Junior Public School, Ryerson Community School;

(b) That the Director immediately commence a Program Area Review and report back to Board during the May cycle of meetings and that the report include staffing implications for the immediately affected and other schools;

(c) That when the Program Area Review is established, that two student council members from each school involved in the review, where applicable, be included as a member of the Program Area Review team;

(d) That the Director report back to the Board in January on the actual cost of implementing the programs and the effect on student enrolment and staffing in the sending schools;

(e) That staff identify a funding source for Programs of Choice as identified above within existing Board funds;

(f) That the Director report on the implementation plan for the proposed ten alternative learning Programs of Choice by May 2011;

(g) That the specific and total cost implications be identified and reported to the Board in the May 2011 cycle of meetings with regard to start up costs, resources, staff and facilities for the proposed programs;

(h) That the Director provide an update on the ten alternative learning Programs of Choice in January 2012;

(i) That the Director provide a full report on the ten alternative learning Programs of Choice by May 2012;

(j) That a committee be established to consider alternative names to the term Programs of Choice and that Themed Schools be considered;

(k) That the Vocal Music Academies be adopted under the neighbourhood school program rather than the proposed school within a school model. During consideration of the above at 10:01 p.m. on motion of Trustee Goodman, seconded by Trustee Rutka, the meeting recessed for ten minutes.

10 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

15. Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 2), March 2, 2011 (see page 67)

Trustee Smith, seconded by Trustee Kaplan, moved: That Item 4, Establishment of Full-Day Kindergarten Implementation Workgroup, as presented in Report No. 17 (Part 2) of the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee be adopted.

Trustee Atkinson, seconded by Trustee Goodman, moved in amendment: That the following be substituted for the Committee’s recommendation: “That staff be authorized to enter into discussions with CUPE 4400 and Elementary Teachers of Toronto to consider the possibility of direct delivery of the extended day and extended year early learning program, and report back to the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee with their findings.”

The amendment was carried.

The main motion, as amended, was carried.

16. Extension of the Meeting

At appropriate times during the meeting, the Ending Time procedure was applied and the meeting was extended.

17. Resolution into Committee of the Whole

At 11:26 p.m., Trustee Chen, seconded by Trustee Rutka, moved: That the regular meeting resolve into Committee of the Whole (Private Session) to continue consideration of matters on the private agenda of the Committee of the Whole.

The motion was carried.

18. Reconvene

At 11:26 p.m., the regular meeting reconvened.

19. Committee of the Whole (Private), Report No. 32 April 13, 2011 (see page Error! Bookmark not defined.)

Trustee Goodman, seconded by Trustee Kaplan moved: That Items 4 to 10 in Report No. 32 of the Committee of the Whole (Private), be adopted.

The motion was carried.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 11 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

20. Adjournment

At 11:52 p.m. on motion of Trustee Chen, seconded by Trustee Kaplan, the meeting adjourned.

Chris Bolton Chair

12 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Summary of Recorded Votes

Recorded Recorded Recorded Trustee Vote 5 Vote 6 Vote 7 (see p. 2) (see p. 7) (see p. 8) Atkinson Y Y Y Bolton Y Y Y Cary-Meagher Y N Y Chadwick Y N Y Chen Y N Y Coteau Y Y Y Dandy Y Y Y Gershon Y Y Y Glover Y Y Y Goodman Y Y Y Gough Y N Y Hastings Y N Y Kaplan Y Y N Laskin Y Y Y Moyer Y Y A Payne Y N Y Rodrigues Y N Y Rutka Y Y Y Smith Y N Y Tonks Y Y Y Ward A Y A Wong Y N Y Total Y 21 13 19 Total N 0 9 1 Total A and C 1 0 2

Y Vote in favour N Vote against A Absent * No vote cast (the Chair). The Board’s Bylaws, Section 154 states: “The chair may vote once on each motion considered by the Board.” N* No vote cast. The Board’s Bylaws, Section 15.3 states: A member of the Board, except the chair, who is present and who fails to vote on a motion shall be deemed to have voted against the motion. C Absent due to declaration of a possible conflict of interest

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 13 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Committee of the Whole (Private), Report No. 32, April 13, 2011

Committee of the Whole (Private) Report No. 32, March April 13, 2011 A regular meeting of the Committee of the Whole (Private Session) was convened at 4:41 p.m., Wednesday, April 13, 2011, in the Boardroom at 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario with Cathy Dandy, Vice-Chair of the Board, presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Chris Bolton, Sheila Cary- Meagher, Jerry Chadwick, Shaun Chen, Michael Coteau, Cathy Dandy, Gerri Gershon, Chris Glover, Howard Goodman, Pamela Gough, John Hastings, Howard Kaplan, Shelley Laskin, Elizabeth Moyer, Stephnie Payne, Maria Rodrigues, Mari Rutka, David Smith, Chris Tonks, Sheila Ward, Soo Wong. Trustees Cary-Meagher and Ward participated by electronic means.

1. Administration, Finance, and Accountability Committee, Report No. 18 (Private), April 6, 2011

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that Report No. 18 (Private) of the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee (as shown in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole) be received.

2. Staff Changes

The Committee considered a report from staff presenting staff changes (as shown in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole).

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that the staff changes be approved.

3. Negotiations Steering Committee, Report No. 5 (Private), March 8, 2011

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that Report No. 5 (Private) of the Negotiations Steering Committee (as shown in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole) be adopted.

4. Surplus Declaration: Richview Public School

The Committee considered a staff report (as shown in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole) concerning a private property matter.

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that the private property matter (as contained in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole) be adopted, including that Richview Public School be declared surplus to the needs of the Board.

14 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Committee of the Whole (Private), Report No. 32, April 13, 2011

5. Contract Award for Telephone Services

The Committee considered a staff report (as shown in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole) concerning a contract for telephone services.

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that services supplied by Bell Canada at an estimated annual amount of $2,574,457 for the period March 2011 to January 14, 2016, be approved.

6. Stewardship of Fine Art Workgroup, Report No. 3 (Private), March 9, 2011

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that Report No. 3 (Private) of the Stewardship of Fine Art Workgroup (as shown in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole) be adopted.

7. Ad Hoc Information Technology Committee, Report No. 2 (Private), February 7, 2011

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that Report No. 2 (Private) of the Ad Hoc Information Technology Committee (as shown in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole) be adopted.

8. Negotiations Steering Committee, Report No. 4 (Private), February 9, 2011

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that Report No. 4 (Private) of the Negotiations Steering Committee (as shown in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole) be adopted.

9. Stewardship of Fine Art Workgroup, Report No. 1 (Private), January 5, 2011

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that Report No. 1 (Private) of the Stewardship of Fine Art Workgroup (as shown in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole) be received.

10. Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 20 (Private), February 28, 2011

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that Report No. 20 (Private) of the Planning and Priorities Committee (as shown in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole) be received.

Cathy Dandy Chair

Adopted April 13, 2011 (see pages 1 and 11)

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 15 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 20, March 7, 2011

Special Education Advisory Committee

Report No. 20, March 7, 2011

A meeting of the Special Education Advisory Committee was convened on Monday, March 7, 2011 at 7:11 to 9:25 p.m., in the Boardroom, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Paul Cross presiding. The following committee members were present: Diana Avon, Bonnie Buxton, Richard Carter, Paul Cross, Robert Gates, Clovis Grant, Steven Lynette, Anita Neilsen, Ginny Pearce and Trustees Chris Glover, John Hastings and Howard Kaplan. Regrets were received from Susan Musgrave, Gal Koren, and Andrea Boulden. The following committee alternates were present: Elaine Dodsworth-Lever, Sheelagh Hysenaj and Tina Shier.

Part A: Committee Recommendations

1. Appointment of Member

On motion of Trustee Hastings, seconded by Diana Avon, the Special Education Advisory Committee RECOMMENDS that Mary Goitom be appointed as the alternate for the Learning Disabilities Association of Toronto District Chapter for the term ending November 30, 2014.

Part B: Information Only

2. Presentations

(a) Budget Consultation

SEAC heard an update from staff on the Board’s budget consultation process.

(b) Presentation re the Board’s Funding Needs: Operating and Capital Funding Pressures

SEAC received a presentation from the Chair of the Budget Committee (see SEAC:012B, page 1) presenting the Board’s funding needs and the need for increased funding from the Ministry of Education. The budget presentation is available on the Board’s web site and Trustee Atkinson will make available a survey which can be used by member organizations. The web link to the presentation is http://www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/ViewItem.asp?siteid=177&menuid=694&pageid=557 On motion of Ginny Pearce, seconded by Richard Carter SEAC decided:

16 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 20, March 7, 2011

Whereas, the Toronto District School Board’s Special Education budget will face a deficit of $20M; and

Whereas, in an effort to balance the Special Education budget, funds will have to redirected from other departments;

Therefore, be it resolved that the Chair of SEAC send an open letter to the Ministry of Education to request increased funding for Special Education that reflects the actual cost of delivering these services. (c) School Services - Psychology

SEAC received a presentation from staff (see SEAC:012B, page 22) on the Psychological Services Department.

3. Scarborough Parent Conference, Contributions from Associations

Steven Lynette reported that the Scarborough Parent Conference will be held on April 30, 2011. Members should bring promotional material from their associations to the next SEAC meeting and he will ensure that the material will be displayed at the conference.

4. Special Equipment Amount Tracking Staff presented a list of schools to be tracked in the survey currently underway to review the Special Equipment Amount process and timelines.

5. SEAC Community Representative Selection Process Update Staff reported that the SEAC Community Representative vacancies have been advertised both internally and externally on the Board’s website and that several requests have been sent to school councils for distribution to their parents through the principals. Parents can put their names forward for consideration until March 11, 2011. It is anticipated that appointments to the positions will be made at the Board meeting in May 2011.

6. Response to the Facilitator Report SEAC heard that the facilitator report is scheduled to go the Human Resources and Professional Learning Committee in the next cycle of meetings. Staff will send members a revised presentation with streamlined language. 7. Correspondence Received by the Chair

• E-mail dated February 25, 2011 from Shirley Adderley re Presentation of TDSB Funding Needs, Operating and Capital Funding Pressures. • E-mail dated February 25, 2011from Toronto Family Network re correspondence regarding the accuracy of IPRC decision forms.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 17 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 20, March 7, 2011

• E-mail dated February 27, 2011 from Elaine Chu regarding SEAC Chair’s response to previous email on a private matter and the Board’s IPRC letter. • E-mail dated February 28, 2011 from Toronto Family Network re correspondence regarding the accuracy of IPRC decision forms. • E-mail dated March 2, 2011 from Toronto Family Network re Follow-Up regarding correspondence re the accuracy of IPRC decision forms. • E-mail dated March 2, 2011 from Elaine Chu regarding the Board’s IPRC letter.

8. Senior Superintendent’s Report

The senior superintendent presented a report (see SEAC:012B, page27) to the Committee.

9. Central Coordinating Principal’s Report

A report on behalf of the central coordinating principal (see SEAC:012B, page28) was distributed at the meeting.

10. Professional Support Services Report

The manager of Professional Support Services presented a report (see SEAC:012B, page29) to the Committee. A presentation on the Board’s Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy Services will be made at the May meeting of the Committee.

11. Local SEAC Associations’ Reports

(a) Epilepsy Toronto Epilepsy Toronto will host Purple Day on March 26, 2011, with a related event in Dundas Square on March 25, 2011. Packages of information were distributed to members. (b) Voice for Hearing Impaired Children VOICE for Hearing Impaired Children is presenting a professional development workshop on Friday May 6, 2011 in Guelph, with a keynote presentation, Auditory Brain Development: The Key to Listening, Language and Literacy. The presenter is Carol Flexer, PhD, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Audiology, University of Akron. VOICE is also offering the 2011 Conference Program "BRAIN POWER: Evidence-Based Practice in Listening, Language and Literacy", a conference for parents and professionals who support children with hearing loss. It includes a full day Teen Program and takes place Saturday May 7, 2011 at the University of Guelph.

Paul Cross Chair of the Committee Adopted April 13, 2011 (see page 3)

18 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 21, March 23, 2011

Operations and Facilities Management Committee

Report No. 21, March 23, 2011

A regular meeting of the Operations and Facilities Management Committee convened on Wednesday March 23, 2011, from 4:06 to 5:08 p.m., in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Soo Wong presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Soo Wong, Shaun Chen, Chris Glover and Pamela Gough. Regrets were received from Trustee John Hastings. Also present were Trustees Sheila Cary-Meagher, Howard Kaplan and Shelley Laskin. Trustee Glover participated by electronic means.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

1. Contract Awards, Facility Services [1728]

The Committee considered a staff report (see page 23) presenting contract awards. The Committee received the contracts in Appendix A and approved the contract in Appendix B.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

On a motion of Trustee Gough, the Operations and Facilities Management Committee RECOMMENDS that the contract on Appendix C, as presented in the report, be approved.

2. 2009-10 Accommodation Review Committee Receiving Schools Phase One and Phase Two Program and Sketch Plan Approval (Accommodation Review Committees 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9) [1730] The Committee considered a staff report (see page 28) presenting further actions related to facility upgrades to six ARC receiving schools approved as part of the Five-Year Capital Plan approved by the Board on June 23, 2010 and the sketch plans approved February 9, 2011.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 19 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 21, March 23, 2011

On a motion of Trustee Gough, the Operations and Facilities Management Committee RECOMMENDS:

(a) That the revised Program and Sketch Plans be approved for single phase projects for schools requiring upgrades to accommodate students from schools closing in June 2011 at a total cost of $18,502,635;

(b) That the Program and Sketch Plans be approved for Phase 1 and 2 of two phase projects required to accommodate students changing schools as a result of school closure in June 2011 (Phase 1) and June 2012 (Phase 2) as follows:

(i) Renovation of 8,804 SF and addition of 13,109 SF at John McCrae Senior Public School to accommodate 899 students at a cost of $7,853,797; (ii) Renovation of 7,416 SF and addition of 2,045 SF at JR Wilcox Community School to accommodate 448 students at a cost of $2,580,790; (iii) Addition of 10,387 SF at Charles E. Webster Junior Public School to accommodate 559 students at a cost of $3,931,392; (iv) Renovation of 6,448 SF and addition of 22,744 SF at Joseph Brant Senior Public School to accommodate 782 students at a cost of $7,916,138; (v) Renovation of 7,211 SF and addition of 5,210 SF at Eastview Junior Public School to accommodate 482 students at a cost of $3,048,960; (vi) Renovation of 7,051 SF and addition of 7,546 SF at William G. Miller Junior Public School to accommodate 548 students at a cost of $3,740,392; (vii) Renovation of 9,800 SF at Hodgson Senior Public School to accommodate 326 students at a cost of $1,188,004; (viii) Renovation of 3,400 SF and addition of 12,700 SF at Maurice Cody Junior Public School to accommodate 694 students at a cost of $ 5,553,036; (ix) Renovation of 5,250 SF and addition of 1,850 SF at Eglinton Junior Public School to accommodate 507 students at a cost of $1,455,530; (c) That Program and Sketch Plans be approved for additional facility framework elements as follows:

(i) Expand the gymnasium at J.R. Wilcox Community School at a cost of $2,385,714; (ii) Expand the gymnasium at Cedarvale Community School at a cost of $2,272,857; (iii) Expand the gymnasium at Brock Junior Public School at a cost of $1,531,429; (iv) Expand the gymnasium at Dovercourt Junior Public School at a cost of $1,300,000;

20 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 21, March 23, 2011

(v) Enlarge the floor area of the approved new gym at Charles E. Webster Junior Public School at a cost of $470,800; (vi) Expand gym at William G. Miller Junior Public School at a cost of $2,057,143; (d) That the overall projected budget, in the amount of $65,787,617, for the 2009-2010 accommodation reviews including all facility framework elements, full-day kindergarten rooms and gymnasium expansions or additions be approved;

(e) That capital funding for potential future expansion in the amount of $7,250,000 be considered in future Capital Building Program Plans as required.

On motion of Trustees Chen (on behalf of Trustee Laskin), the Operations and Facilities Management Committee RECOMMENDS:

Whereas, the future accommodation needs at Cedarvale Community School could be required as early as 2012 and that a gym addition, subject to approval by the Board, is planned for 2012;

Therefore, be it resolved that a capital allocation for the future accommodation needs at Cedarvale Community School be set aside as part of the 2011-2012 Capital Building Program.

On motion of Trustee Gough, the Operations and Facilities Management Committee RECOMMENDS:

Whereas, the Ministry of Education encourages school boards to maintain parenting centres in schools, and to some extent provides operating funding for those parenting centres; and

Whereas, parenting centres are recognized to be valuable community resources to schools and helpful in developing parenting skills for parents of preschool-aged children; and

Whereas, the Ministry does not recognize the capital costs of parenting centres in school capacity figures and the overall funding formula; and

Whereas, the capital costs of building and maintaining classrooms that operate as parenting centres far outweigh the costs of operating them;

Therefore, be it resolved that the Chair send a communication on behalf of the Board to the Ministry stating that the funding formula should recognize and address the capital expense of building and maintaining parenting centres.

3. Surplus Declarations: Nelson Mandela Park Public School District Energy Equipment Easements [1731] The Committee considered a staff report (see page 30) recommending that certain subsurface easements covering 1,237 square feet or 115 square meters of land at Nelson Mandela Park

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 21 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 21, March 23, 2011

Public School be declared surplus to the needs of the Board with specific parameters for disposition.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

On a motion of Trustee Chen, the Operations and Facilities Management Committee RECOMMENDS:

(a) That subsurface easements covering a total of 1237 square feet (115 m2) of land at Nelson Mandela Park Public School, as presented in the report, be declared surplus to the needs of the Board and made available to Toronto Community Housing Corporation and to the City of Toronto for District Energy equipment;

(b) That Regent Park Energy Inc. be afforded access rights for the installation, repair and maintenance of District Energy equipment on Board property.

Part B: Information Only

4. Five-Year Capital Building Program The Committee heard a staff presentation providing information regarding the background, current status and next steps with regard to the Board’s Five-Year Capital Building Program.

Information from staff was distributed at the meeting (see page 32).

Part C: Ongoing Matters

No matters to report

Trustee Wong Chair of the Committee

Adopted April 13, 2011 (see page 3)

22 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 21, March 23, 2011 Contract Awards, Facility Services [1728]

Contract Awards, Facility Services [1728]

As presented to the Operations and Facilities Management Committee on March 23, 2011 (see page 19). In accordance with the Board's policy P017, Purchasing, the attached charts present contracts for receipt or approval, as appropriate.

The recommended suppliers and the term of each contract are shown in the attached charts. Chart 1 outlines contract awards provided for information; Chart 2 outlines contracts requiring Operations and Facilities Management Committee approval; and Chart 3 outlines contracts requiring Board approval. The amounts shown are based on the estimated annual consumption unless indicated otherwise. Actual amounts depend on the volume of products/services actually used during the term of the contract.

Chart 4 is a summary of contract awards for selected Facility Service projects for the period September 2006 to date.

Funding sources are identified for each award listed.

The Process

Contractors bidding on Board construction/maintenance projects must be pre-qualified. Consideration is given to bonding ability, financial stability, depth of experience, references, on- site safety record, and proof of union affiliation (applies to projects less than $1.5 million or additions less than 500 square feet). Issuing a market call to pre-qualify is periodically advertised in Daily Commercial News and two electronic bulletin boards (Merx and BiddinGo) to facilitate broader public access.

The lowest cost bid is accepted where quality, functional, safety, environmental and other requirements are met. Every effort is made to include input from the users in the development of specifications and the evaluation process. Copies of all bids received and detailed information regarding all recommended awards are available in the Purchasing and Distribution Services department.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 23 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 21, March 23, 2011 Contract Awards, Facility Services [1728]

Chart 1: Facilities Contract Awards Provided for Information (over $50,000 and up to $250,000)

User/Budget Lo No. of Estimated Holder Recommended Objection Projected Start/End Customer Funding Products/Services Details Ward w Bids Annual School/Departme Supplier s Date of Contract Involvement Source Bid Rec’d Amount nt SWIMMING POOLS Replacement of Swimming Pool Filters at Victoria Park SS. CN11- February, 2011/ Strategic Strategic Building Royal Good Places 1 081T. Pool filters severely 17 Yes No 10 $122,800 April 29, 2011 Building and and Renewal Mechanical to Learn corroded beyond repair and Renewal leaking sand into pool. OTHER Askarel Transformer Replacement at Pierre Laporte Middle School Strategic Good Places Strategic Building STM11-086T The existing askarel Black and February 22, 2011/ Building and to Learn 2 5 Yes No 7 $171,624 and Renewal transformer needs to be replaced McDonald Ltd. August 15, 2011 Renewal in order to meet Ministry of Environment requirements Central Etobicoke - Barrier Free Revitalizatio Washroom. Barrier free Orlando Strategic Strategic Building August, 2010/ n Program 3 alterations of exiting washrooms 2 Marchese Yes No 3 $109,700 Building and and Renewal February 14, 2011 (SFRMP- to meet the needs of increased Contracting Renewal Capital) number of students. Skylight Replacement at Hughes Leased PS. Existing original skylight Centrum November 15, Strategic Premises Strategic Building 4 (19” x 23”) has past its service, 9 Renovations & Yes No 4 $79,600 2010/ Building and Renewal and Renewal leaking and unsound. Repair Inc. March 22, 2011 Renewal Revenue (HSLP) Askarel Transformer Replacement at George Harvey CI CN11- 087T. The existing askarel February, 2011/ Strategic Strategic Building Gridd Electrical Good Places 5 transformer needs to be replaced 6 Yes No 7 $192,286 August 15, 2011 Building and and Renewal Services Inc. to Learn in order to meet Ministry of Renewal Environment requirements.

Culinary Arts Program Phase 1 at Classic Strategic Strategic Building February 2011/ 6 Earl Haig SS. CN11-089Q. 12 Construction Yes No 11 $71,800 Building and Site-Funded and Renewal April 29, 2011 Program Upgrade. Company Renewal

24 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 21, March 23, 2011 Contract Awards, Facility Services [1728]

User/Budget Lo No. of Estimated Holder Recommended Objection Projected Start/End Customer Funding Products/Services Details Ward w Bids Annual School/Departme Supplier s Date of Contract Involvement Source Bid Rec’d Amount nt PA System Replacement (supply November 23, Strategic Strategic Building Baldwin Sound Good Places 7 only) at Queen Alexandra School. 15 N/A No 11 $58,725 2010/ March 11, Building and and Renewal System Ltd. to Learn 4 Replacement of old PA System. 2011 Renewal PA System Replacement (supply Strategic Strategic Building only) at Emery C. I. Upgrade the Baldwin Sound October 12, 2010/ Good Places 8 4 N/A No 11 $81,866 Building and and Renewal PA System since it was not System Ltd November 28, 2010 to Learn 4 Renewal functioning properly. Askarel Transformer Replacement at Yorkdale S.S. RB11-095T The Strategic Good Places Strategic Building existing askarel transformer needs Black and February 22, 2011/ Building and to Learn 9 8 Yes No 7 $142,249 and Renewal to be replaced in order to meet McDonald Ltd. August 19, 2011 Renewal Ministry of Environment requirements Askarel Transformer Replacement At Oakdale Park MS - CN11- Strategic Good Places Strategic Building Ainsworth February , 2011/ 10 097T PCB transformer needs to 5 Yes No 8 $125,973 Building and to Learn and Renewal Electric August 19, 2011 be upgraded to meet Ministry of Renewal Environment Guidelines.

1 Sole sourced due to required compatibility with existing components; Baldwin Sound is exclusive dealer of Bogen PA systems.

Chart 2: Facilities Contracts Requiring Operations and Facilities Management Committee Approval (over $250,000 and up to $500,000)

User/Budget No. of Estimated Projected Holder Recommended Low Customer Funding Products/Services Details Ward Objections Bids Annual Start/End Date of School/Departme Supplier Bid Involvement Source Rec’d Amount Contract nt BOILERS Boiler Plant Replacement at Pierre Laporte Public School STM11- Bomben Strategic Energy Strategic Building April, 2011 1 094T Boilers are extremely 5 Plumbing & Yes No 10 $352,000 Building and Efficient and Renewal August 31, 2011 deteriorated and need immediate Heating Ltd. Renewal School (EES) replacement

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 25 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 21, March 23, 2011 Contract Awards, Facility Services [1728]

Chart 3: Facilities Contracts Requiring Board Approval (over $500,000 and Consulting Services over $50,000)

User/Budget No. of Estimated Projected Holder Recommended Low Objection Customer Funding Products/Services Details Ward Bids Annual Start/End Date of School/Departmen Supplier Bid s Involvement Source Rec’d Amount Contract t BOILERS Replacement of Boiler Plant at Newtonbrook S.S. April, 2011/ Strategic Energy Strategic Building STM11-067T Existing M. Schultz 1 12 Yes No 7 $502,000 August 26, 2011 Building and Efficient and Renewal boilers are leaking, exceeded Mechanical Renewal School (EES) life expectancy and due for replacement

Chart 4: Summary of Select Facilities Contracts: (September 1, 2010 to Present)

Total Total 2010/11 Total Total Number of Number of Contract Total Number Total 2009/10 Project Classification Expenditures Projects for this Projects Awards of Projects Contract For this Report Report 2010/11 to Reported to 2009/10 Awards date Date Boilers $854,000 2 2 $854,000 2 $669,900

Roofing $0 0 8 $1,044,304 18 $2,418,604

Building Automation $0 0 4 $474,955 8 $1,432,720 Systems (BAS) Heating Ventilation Air $0 0 4 $397,790 2 $330,000 Conditioning (HVAC)

26 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 21, March 23, 2011 Contract Awards, Facility Services [1728]

Swimming Pools – Ministry Funded 2010- $122,800 1 9 $2,789,428 28 $8,442,356 2011 $7.6M Total Ministry Grant – Primary $0 0 0 $0 0 $0 Class Size Cap

TOTAL $3,766,228 3 27 $5,560,477 58 $13,293,580

For the Board’s decision see page 19.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 27 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 21, March 23, 2011 2009-10 Accommodation Review Committee Receiving Schools Phase One and Phase Two Program and Sketch Plan Approval (Accommodation Review Committees 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9) [1730]

2009-10 Accommodation Review Committee Receiving Schools Phase One and Phase Two Program and Sketch Plan Approval (Accommodation Review Committees 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9) [1730]

As presented to the Operations and Facilities Management Committee on March 23, 2011 (see page 19). In June, 2010, the Board approved a Five-Year Capital Building Program that included funding for facility upgrades at 2009/10 ARC receiving schools for the ten ARCs, including ARCs 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 considered in the report.

In the absence of Ministry approval of a funding strategy to support the full Five-Year Capital Building Program, the Ministry provided approval to proceed with the design phase of upgrades at schools in these six ARCs because of the need to receive students resulting from September 2011 closures approved by the Board.

On February 9, 2011, the Board approved Phase 1 Program and Sketch Plan of 2009/10 Receiving Schools (Accommodation Review Committees 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9).

Project Milestones

As of February 28, 2011, all Local School Community Design Team’s (LSCDT) for projects to be constructed by September 2012 had unanimously approved the Phase 1 and 2 preliminary design concepts; and

Program and Sketch Plan Approval for projects, as described in this report, is required to ensure that the projects can be completed to receive students in September 2011, in September 2012 and September 2013 (John McCrae Sr. PS).

Resources Potential Funding

The proceeds from the sale of the surplus properties approved for closure in the six ARCs considered in this report has been updated to $43.3 M. The revised amount of potential funding is as follows:

Sales of Surplus Properties $43.3M

Full Day Kindergarten Grants (Ministry) $11.1M

One Time Capital Grant (Ministry) $20.0M

Total Amount of Potential Funding $74.4 M

28 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 21, March 23, 2011 2009-10 Accommodation Review Committee Receiving Schools Phase One and Phase Two Program and Sketch Plan Approval (Accommodation Review Committees 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9) [1730]

Project Costs

Summary of Estimated Cost for 2009/2010 ARCs

Total Facility Framework $55.77M

Gym Expansion/Addition $10.02M*

Total Estimated Project Costs $65.79M

Potential Future Expansion $ 7.25M**

(to be considered in future Capital Building Programs)

* Additional Resources For Gym Expansion: Through the (LSCDT) Process and on-site meetings, parents consistently requested that adequate gym size for Grades 7 and 8 students be added to the Facility Framework for Receiving Schools. Staff has assessed the implications of adding to gyms for Grades 7 and 8 Physical and Health Education and the costs to include this new element in the Facility Framework for Receiving Schools. As the costs are supportable within the available funding envelope, staff recommends that Board approve the addition of this element within the Facility Framework and the funding to implement it.

** Additional Resources For Potential Future Expansion (2013-2017): The Planning Department has projected future accommodation requirements in schools considered in this report. These requirements may result in additional capital pressures and staff will report back to Board at such time as these requirements become actual. An estimated cost for these potential future student accommodation needs is in the order of $7,250,000. The projected future capital needs will be considered in light of actual enrolment in future Capital Building Programs.

The appendices to the report will be maintained in Board Services for a limited time.

For the Board’s decision see page 19.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 29 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 21, March 23, 2011 Surplus Declarations: Nelson Mandela Park Public School District Energy Equipment Easements [1731]

Surplus Declarations: Nelson Mandela Park Public School District Energy Equipment Easements [1731]

As presented to the Operations and Facilities Management Committee on March 23, 2011 (see page 21). On February 9, 2011, the Board approved the tender results for the deep retrofit of Nelson Mandela Park PS. The renovated school building and adjacent Regent Park Community Centre will be supplied with energy from Regent Park Community Energy System (RPCES) owned by Regent Park Energy Inc (RPEI). RPCES is a hot and chilled water system designed to provide heating, cooling and domestic hot water to residents of the Regent Park Revitalization and surrounding areas in a safe, efficient, cost-effective and environmentally friendly manner. RPCES incorporates a long-term sustainability program to promote the progressive incorporation of “greener” fuels and technologies.

Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) and the City of Toronto have requested that Board accommodate a buried pipe trench on its property to feed an adjacent residential property known as 14 Blevins Place and the Community Centre. The Community Centre will be serviced by a main buried pipeline shared with Nelson Mandela Park PS/Child Care Centre running southward from St. David Street across the school yard, to a common energy transfer station (ETS) located in the school.

It is proposed to service an adjacent residential property at 14 Blevins Place via a buried branch line that takes off eastward from the main pipeline north of the school, across Board lands for approximately 21 m to the property line. This routing makes use of an existing utility corridor, and is the most efficient and effective way to bring the thermal services to 14 Blevins Pl. RPEI has studied alternative routes and found them to be costly and technically difficult, for the following reasons:

Significant level of construction activity of Phase 2 of the Revitalization;

Utility congestion in the nearby roads;

Timing of new road and building construction. The eastern portion of St. David’s Street, the closest alternative route for 14 Blevins, will not be constructed until later in redevelopment after the school project is complete.

Resources

RPEI has offered consideration to the Board for the easements of $27,191, based on the following calculation:

Parcel 1 (Main Pipeline)

Appraised Fair Market Land Value = $7,000,000 / ac

30 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 21, March 23, 2011 Surplus Declarations: Nelson Mandela Park Public School District Energy Equipment Easements [1731]

Discount Factor = 30%

Area of Easement = 0.0232 ac. (93.9 m2)

Cost Share = 0.33

Consideration = $7 M x 0.0232 x 30% x 0.33 = $16,078

Parcel 2 (Branch Line)

Appraised Fair Market Land Value = $7,000,000 / ac

Discount Factor = 30%

Area of Easement = 0.00521 ac (21.1 m2 )

Cost Share = 1.0

Consideration = $7 M x 0.00521 x 30% x 1.0 = $10,941

Total Consideration = $27,019.

The Board’s Legal costs and Committee of Adjustment application fees will be paid by RPEI.

Implementation and Review

The City of Toronto will require an easement from the Board that covers the ETS room and main pipeline from St. David Street that brings flow to the school’s mechanical room. The easement agreement would provide RPEI access rights relating to the installation, repair and maintenance of the RPEI equipment on school property. For this easement no Planning Act consent will be required.

TCHC will require an easement from the Board that covers the branch line which runs east from the main Nelson Mandela Park PS pipeline to the 14 Blevins property line as well as the portion of the main pipeline running from St. David Street to the connection point of the branch line. For this easement an application for consent under the Planning Act will be required at Committee of Adjustment.

For the Board’s decision see page 21.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 31 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 21, March 23, 2011 Five-Year Capital Building Program

Five-Year Capital Building Program

As received by the Operations and Facilities Management Committee on March 23, 2011 (see page 22). June 23, 2010 Board approved the 5 Year Capital Building Program, conditional on Ministry approval of the funding strategy to support the project list

Board deferred 7 surplus declarations required to complete funding strategy

February 2011 Board approved 6 of the 7 deferred surplus declarationsMarch 9, 2011 Director received Ministry Correspondence which:

• Acknowledged receipt of Board’s Capital Recovery Plan

• Notified Board that the Ministry review of the plan will take several weeks

• Advised individual project approval is required for specific capital projects within the Board’s approved plan

• Commended the Board on “its reasonable approach to reducing its capital deficit”

Current Status

Ministry is reviewing Board’s Capital Recovery Plan

Staff have submitted individual project approvals for those projects requiring tender approval for construction this summer including:

Projects required by TLC to implement approved property sales

Phase One ARC Receiving School Projects

2010 -2011 SFRMP IV Projects

Staff have also submitted space templates for the two major capital building projects including:

• A new school for Meadowvale Sheppard as approved by Board.

• A new school for the consolidation of Bendale Thompson as approved by BoardStaff expect a Ministry response to the Capital Recovery Plan & individual project approval to proceed requests by mid April

Staff will present an updated 5 Year Capital Building Program to OFMC in May 2011.

32 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 16, March 30, 2011 Feasibility Study for Secondary Africentric School

Program and School Services Committee

Report No. 16, March 30, 2011

A meeting of the Program and School Services Committee convened on Wednesday March 30, 2011, from 5:37 to 8:42 p.m., in the Boardroom, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Mari Rutka, Vice-chair, presiding. Shelley Laskin presided from time to time during the meeting.

The following members were present: Trustees Mari Rutka (Chair), Chris Bolton (ex officio), Howard Kaplan, Shelley Laskin, Maria Rodrigues, and Student Trustees Zane Schwartz and Jenny Williams. Regrets were received from Trustee Michael Coteau. Also present were Trustees Sheila Cary-Meagher, Cathy Dandy, Gerri Gershon, Chris Glover, Howard Goodman, Pamela Gough, David Smith and Soo Wong.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

1. Feasibility Study for Elementary Programs of Choice [1721] (not adopted)

The Committee considered a staff report1 presenting recommendations resulting from a feasibility study for elementary programs of choice, specifically the establishment, in September 2011, of a Boys Leadership Academy (Grades 4-8) at two school sites, a Girls Leadership Academy (Grades 4-8) at one school site, a Sports and Wellness Academy (all elementary grades) at five school sites, and a Vocal Music Academy (Grades 4-8) at two school sites,.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

On motion of Trustee Rutka, the Program and School Services Committee recommended the following, which was not adopted by the Board (see page 6):

(a) That a workgroup be established, in consultation with trustees, to develop the next steps necessary, in consultation with all stakeholders, and that a report be presented to the Program and School Services Committee in the June 2011 cycle of meetings;

(b) That no implementation of the Elementary Programs of Choice occur before the report is considered.

1 The report will be maintained in Board Services for a limited time.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 33 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 16, March 30, 2011

Minority Report Trustee Rodrigues disagreed with the majority of the members and recommends instead that the recommendations of staff be approved.

Staff recommended:

(a) That the Elementary Programs of Choice be approved to open September 2011 in the following schools:

(i) Boys’ Leadership Academy (Grades 4-8), Calico Public School, The Elms Junior Middle School; (ii) Girls’ Leadership Academy (Grades 4-8), Highland Heights Junior Public School; (iii) Sports and Wellness Academy (all elementary grades), Carleton Village Junior/Senior Public School, James S. Bell Junior Middle School, Rene Gordon Elementary School, Donview Middle School and Shoreham Public School; (iv) Vocal Music Academy (Grades 4-8), Heather Heights Junior Public School, Ryerson Community School; (b) That the Board approve a budget of $285,200.00 for the Elementary Programs of Choice in addition to the following:

(i) Classroom start up costs which depend on enrolment at each Program of Choice site; (ii) Minor facility upgrades or site renovations at Shoreham Public School, Donview Middle School, Highland Heights Junior Public School and Heather Heights Junior Public School; (c) That staff identify a funding source for Programs of Choice as identified above within existing Board funds.

Note: The Board considered a related matter, Establishment of Ten Alternative Learning Programs of Choice (see page 6).

2. Onestop Media Screens On motion of Trustee Kaplan, the Program and School Services Committee RECOMMENDS that the following be referred to the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee:

Whereas, the evaluation of the Onestop Media Group’s pilot project, which brought real-time, digital communications network to students in four schools in Ward 10 was overwhelmingly positive; and

Whereas, trustees are supportive of providing local schools with the option of considering this opportunity upon its relative merits;

Therefore, be it resolved that following consultation with parents, students and the local community, schools in wards, 1, 11, 13, 14, and 18 be allowed to showcase

34 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 16, March 30, 2011 Feasibility Study for Secondary Africentric School

Onestop media screens in their schools, as part of an extension of the program originally established in Ward 10.

Part B: Information Only

3. Delegations The Committee heard the following oral delegations in accordance with the Board’s procedure for hearing delegations. re Secondary Africentric School

• Dr. Grace-Edward Galabuzi • Victor Beausoleil • Beth Davey • Winston LaRose • Angela Wilson • Louis March (written submission only) • Donna Harrow re Programs of Choice

• Faraz Chaudery

4. Parent Involvement Advisory Committee The Committee heard an update from representatives of the Parent Involvement Advisory Committee. 5. Children and Youth Mental Health Committee, Report No. 1, January 17, 2011 On motion of Trustee Kaplan, the Committee received Children and Youth Mental Health Committee, Report No. 1, January 17, 2011. 6. Feasibility Study for Secondary Africentric School With the agreement of the meeting, the Director withdrew the item from the agenda. The Director provided some remarks (see page 36). Part C: Ongoing Matters

No matters to report Trustee Rutka Chair, pro tem Adopted, as amended, April 13, 2011 (see pages 4 and 6)

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 35 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 16, March 30, 2011

Feasibility Study for Secondary Africentric School

Oral report of the Director as presented to the Program and School Services Committee on March 30, 2011 (see page 35). Madame Chair may I take a moment to publicly apologize for the way the Africentric Secondary Report has unfolded. I take full responsibility for the process being flawed from the start.

Given what I have heard over the last few days I would respectfully ask to withdraw the report and work with staff to bring back a feasibility study to the Program and School Services Committee. I would ask, Madame Chair, that greater clarity be provided on the parameters of the feasibility study.

If and when you approve the feasibility study we would bring back recommendations about implementation including site selection under consideration and consultation.

I personally remain deeply committed to exploring the concept of an Africentric Secondary School for the Board.

36 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 18, April 6, 2011

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee

Report No. 18, April 6, 2011

A meeting of the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee convened on Wednesday, April 6, 2011, from 5:05 to 7:29 p.m., in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with David Smith presiding. From time to time during the meeting, Sheila Cary-Meagher presided.

The following members were present: Trustees David Smith (Chair), Irene Atkinson, Sheila Cary-Meagher, Gerri Gershon, Chris Tonks and Student Trustees Zane Schwartz and Jenny Williams. Also present were Trustees Cathy Dandy, Chris Glover, Howard Goodman, Pamela Gough and Howard Kaplan. Trustee Gough participated by electronic means.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

1. Onestop Media Screens

On motion of Trustee Atkinson, the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee RECOMMENDS that the following be referred to staff for a report back to the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee in June 2011:

Whereas, the evaluation of the Onestop Media Group’s pilot project, which brought real- time, digital communications network to students in four schools in Ward 10 was overwhelmingly positive; and

Whereas, trustees are supportive of providing local schools with the option of considering this opportunity upon its relative merits;

Therefore, be it resolved that following consultation with parents, students and the local community, schools in wards 1, 11, 13, 14 and 18 be allowed to showcase Onestop media screens in their schools, as part of an extension of the program originally established in Ward 10.

2. Video Screens Alternatives On motion of Trustee Cary-Meagher, amended by Trustee Tonks, the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee RECOMMENDS that staff investigate and report back in the June 2011 cycle of meetings on other low-cost opportunities currently in place for students to develop and generate video content.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 37 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 18, April 6, 2011

At the Committee meeting, on amendment of Trustee Tonks, “on the financial impact of the sale of Onestop Media Group to Pattison Outdoor Advertising and” was removed, and, “in the June 2011 cycle of meetings” was added.

At the Committee meeting, a motion of Trustee Atkinson to refer the matter to staff for a report back to the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee in June 2011 was defeated.

3. Establishment of Advertising Policy Review Workgroup On a motion of Trustee Cary-Meagher, amended by Trustees Atkinson and Dandy, the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee RECOMMENDS:

(a) That the Director convene a work group with staff, trustee, student, Board Advisory Committee representatives and external experts to review and propose revisions, if necessary, to the Advertising policy and procedures based on current research and best practice;

(b) That the workgroup develop a comprehensive database of all advertising, partnership and sponsorship contracts including those that are linked to Board programs in schools to ensure our students are in learning environments that are safe, nurturing, positive, and respectful in keeping with the Board’s Mission Statement by October 2011.

On amendment of Trustee Atkinson, Part (c) which stated “[That no further contracts be signed until the Director reports back to the Board through the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee in order to ensure our students are in learning environments that are safe, nurturing, positive, and respectful in keeping with the Board’s Mission Statement” was deleted . On amendment of Trustee Dandy, Part (a) was amended by replacing “revise” with “propose revisions” and Part (b) was amended by adding “ensure our students are in learning environments that are safe, nurturing, positive, and respectful in keeping with the Board’s Mission Statement by October 2011”.

At the Committee meeting, a motion of Trustee Atkinson to refer the matter to staff for a report back to the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee in June 2011 was defeated.

4. Budget Development Timelines The Committee considered Report No. 17 of the Budget Committee (see page 41) and on motion of Trustee Atkinson the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee RECOMMENDS:

(a) That public consultation on the proposed budget for 2011-2012 be held during the period May 5-16, 2011;

38 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 18, April 6, 2011

(b) That following a review of feedback from the consultations and development of recommendations to balance the budget, a special meeting of the Board be convened on May 25, 2011 to consider the 2011-12 budget.

5. Communications Plan Update and Next Steps The Committee considered Report No. 17 of the Budget Committee (see page 41) and on motion of Trustee Atkinson the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee RECOMMENDS:

(a) That in light of the potential federal election, the letter concerning federal settlement funding approved at the March 2011 Board be sent also to all federal parties, with a request for a statement on the party’s position on the matter and that a reply be provided by April 28, 2011;

(b) That in light of the potential federal election, letters be sent to all federal parties re- questing their position on providing federal infrastructure funding to school boards, and that a reply be provided by April 28, 2011.

Part B: Information Only

6. Delegations re Screenscape Software Pilot at Scarlett Heights Entrepreneurial Academy

• Sang Ah Han and Joseph Totera, Scarlett Heights Entrepreneurial Academy re Student Video Production

• Ashleigh Hart, Student and John Ginther, Teacher, Kipling Collegiate Institute re Literacy and Basic Skills Class Closures

• Graham Hollings, CUPE 4400

7. Second Quarter Interim Financial Report for 2010-11 and Projection for Fiscal Year 2010-11 On motion of Trustee Atkinson, the Committee received a staff report (see page 43) outlining the financial position of the Board as of the second quarter of the Board’s fiscal year relative to the approved budget.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 39 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 18, April 6, 2011

8. Committee Reports for Receipt On motion of Trustee Atkinson, the Committee received the following Budget Committee reports:

• Budget Committee Report No. 12, January 17, 2011 (see page 48) • Budget Committee Report No. 13, January 24, 2011 (see page 55) • Budget Committee Report No. 14, February 10, 2011 (see page 59) • Budget Committee Report No. 15, February 24, 2011 (see page 60) • Budget Committee Report No. 16, March 10, 2011 (see page 62) • Audit Committee Report No. 8, March 24, 2011 (see page 65)

Part C: Ongoing Matters

No matters to report

Trustee David Smith Chair of the Committee

Adopted April 13, 2011 (see page 4).

40 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 18, April 6, 2011 Budget Committee, Report No. 17, March 24, 2011

Budget Committee, Report No. 17, March 24, 2011

As presented to the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee on April 6, 2011 (see pages 38 and 39). A meeting of the Budget Committee was convened on Thursday, March 24, 2011, from 4:10 to 5:30 p.m., including a five-minute recess, in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Irene Atkinson presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Shaun Chen, Howard Kaplan and Mari Rutka. Regrets were received from Trustee Howard Goodman. Also present were Trustees Sheila Cary-Meagher, Chris Glover and Student Trustee Zane Schwartz.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

1. Budget Development Timelines

The Committee discussed proposed timelines for the development of the 2011-12 budget.

On motion of Trustee Chen, the Budget Committee recommended:

(a) That public consultation on the proposed budget for 2011-12 be held during the period May 5 -16, 2011;

(b) That following a review of feedback from the consultations on May 16 and 19, 2011, a special meeting of the Board be convened on May 25, 2011 to consider the 2011-12 budget.

For the Board’s decision see page 38. 2. Communications Plan Update and Next Steps

The Committee heard an update from staff on the communications strategy for presenting the Board’s operating and funding pressures and the budget planning process for the 2011-12 school year.

On motion of Trustee Rutka, the Budget Committee recommended:

(a) That in light of the potential federal election, the letter concerning federal settlement funding approved at the March 2011 Board be sent also to all federal parties, with a request for a statement on the party’s position on the matter and that a reply be provided by April 28, 2011.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 41 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 18, April 6, 2011 Budget Committee, Report No. 17, March 24, 2011

(b) That in light of the potential federal election, letters be sent to all federal parties requesting their position on providing federal infrastructure funding to school boards, and that a reply be provided by April 28, 2011.

For the Board’s decision see page 39.

Part B: Information Only

3. Community Forum Updates

The Committee heard an update on the number of presentations done at ward forums. The presentation will also be shared via distribution lists and several trustees are yet to present at their ward forums.

A list will be provided to indicate the ward, the date and the staff person assigned to make the presentation. A report will also be done on input and comments received.

4. 1990 ABC News Report Summary

On motion of Trustee Chen, the Committee received information from staff1 providing quotes from a news clip which provided a favourable comparison of the Board’s schools with those in the United States.

5. 2010-11 Grants for Student Needs

On motion of Trustee Rutka, the Committee received an analysis from staff2 on the 2010-11 Grants for Student Needs.

Part C: Ongoing Matters

No matters to report

Irene Atkinson Chair of the Committee

For the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee’s consideration of the report (see pages 38 and 39).

1 The information will be maintained in Board Services for a limited time. 2 The information will be maintained in Board Services for a limited time.

42 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 18, April 6, 2011 Budget Committee, Report No. 17, March 24, 2011

Second Quarter Interim Financial Report for 2010-11 and Projection for Fiscal Year 2010-11

As received by the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee on April 6, 2011 (see page 39). The following is the Second Quarter report outlining the financial position of the Board relative to the approved budget. Provided in this report are several appendices that provide summary information on results of operations for the second quarter.

The information summarizes the financial position of the Board as of February 28, 2011. Notes are provided on significant variances within each report.

Staff has updated projections to year end to take into account the activities since the first quarter. Based on that analysis there has been no overall change in the projection of the Board’s financial position.

Updated Financial Projection to August 31, 2011

Description Amount

Accumulated Working Fund Reserve as at August 31, 2010 $22.0M

Original in-year budget operating deficit ($8.7M)

Additional in-year projected cost pressures reported in 1st quarter ($6.8M)

Revised in-year projected operating deficit ($15.5M)

Projected balance of Working Fund Reserve as at August 31, 2011 $6.5M

Projected accumulated Working Fund Reserve surplus is to address cost pressure identified in 2011-2012 budget process.

The chart on the next page provides summary information of the Financial, Enrolment and Staffing categories with accompanying explanations. The chart provides very high level financial information on changes to both revenue and expenditures since the original budget was approved. Also, in the second section of the report, enrolment changes are highlighted based on October 31 actual enrolments. The last section of the report provides information on changes to Board staffing during the same time frame.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 43 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 18, April 6, 2011 Second Quarter Interim Financial Report for 2010-11 and Projection for Fiscal Year 2010-11

44 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 18, April 6, 2011 Second Quarter Interim Financial Report for 2010-11 and Projection for Fiscal Year 2010-11

The following chart provides information on the distribution of grants and amount per grant. It provides updated information on the revenues of the board. The first section of this report provides information on the Grants for Student Needs (GSN) changes since the initial approval of the budget and as presented in the first quarter report. The lower section of the report provides information on the other revenues of the Board.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 45 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 18, April 6, 2011 Second Quarter Interim Financial Report for 2010-11 and Projection for Fiscal Year 2010-11

The chart below provides information on our expenditures to date versus budget by categories such as Teacher, Educational Assistant, Library, etc. It provides an update on the expenditures of the Board, based on Ministry of Education classifications, since the original budget was approved.

46 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 18, April 6, 2011 Second Quarter Interim Financial Report for 2010-11 and Projection for Fiscal Year 2010-11

Appendix D1 provides individual department summary information and comments on significant variances and second quarter results at a departmental level. The following chart provides second quarter results for capital spending by providing both expenses and revenues and gives project details.

1 The appendices mentioned in the report will be maintained in Board Services for a limited time.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 47 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Budget Committee, Report No. 12, January 17, 2011

Budget Committee Report No. 12, January 17, 2011

As received by the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee on April 6, 2011 (see page 40). A meeting of the Budget Committee was convened on Monday, January 17, 2011, from 4:05 to 7:13 p.m., in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Irene Atkinson presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Shaun Chen, Howard Goodman, Howard Kaplan, Mari Rutka and Student Trustee Zane Schwartz. Also present were Trustees Sheila Cary-Meagher, Chris Glover, Shelley Laskin and David Smith.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

1. Capital Funding Alternatives

The Committee received a slide presentation from staff (see BC:013A, page3) presenting options for funding school capital and school renewal.

On motion of Trustee Rutka, the Budget Committee RECOMMENDS:

(a) That a summary of the various sources of capital funding explored, as well as the amount of funding each source would generate, be included in the presentation on capital funding alternatives;

(b) That the Ministry be approached to provide a $500 million debenture annually, for the next fifteen years as the primary and most reasonable way to address the enormous capital infrastructure needs.

2. State of Our Schools Presentation - TDSB Capital Needs: Rebuilding our Schools Sustainably

The Committee received a presentation from staff (see BC:013D) presenting school renewal needs.

On motion of Trustee Rutka, the Budget Committee RECOMMENDS that the presentation, TDSB Capital Needs: Rebuilding our Schools Sustainably be summarized and included as part of the presentation on capital needs to the Ministry of Education and members of the public.

48 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Budget Committee, Report No. 12, January 17, 2011

Part B: Information Only

3. Budget Committee Mandate

The Committee reviewed the following expanded mandate of the Committee and decided that it should be placed on the agenda of future committee meetings.

On September 23, 2009, Trustees Atkinson, Davis and Goodman were appointed, and on October 28, 2009, Trustee Cary-Meagher was appointed.

4. Board Submission to the Ministry of Education re Grants for Student Needs

The Committee gave a preliminary review to a submission from staff (see page 51) prepared in response to a request for submissions by the Ministry of Education regarding the 2011-12 Grants for Student Needs funding.

Staff undertook to make revisions based on Committee input for presentation at the next meeting.

5. School-by-School Case Study

The Committee gave a preliminary review to correspondence from staff1 presenting case studies that show where operating shortfalls exist.

Staff undertook to make revisions based on Committee input for presentation at the next meeting.

6. Proposed Future Meeting Dates

On motion of Trustee Rutka, the Committee received the meeting schedule for the Committee.

1 The staff report will be maintained in Board Services for a limited time.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 49 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Budget Committee, Report No. 12, January 17, 2011

Part C: Ongoing Matters

7. Postponed Agenda Item

The Committee postponed consideration of the following to the next meeting:

• Budget Strategy Outline

Irene Atkinson Chair of the Committee

For the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee’s consideration of the report (see page 40).

50 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Budget Committee, Report No. 12, January 17, 2011 Board Submission to the Ministry of Education re Grants for Student Needs

Board Submission to the Ministry of Education re Grants for Student Needs

As received by the Budget Committee on January 17, 2011 (see page 49) and the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee on April 6, 2011. In response to the Minister of Education’s request for submissions regarding the 2011-12 GSN, the Toronto District School Board submits the following:

Introduction

The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) is the largest school board in Ontario and has nearly 600 schools and serves more than 250,000 students each year. TDSB serves an incredibly diverse community with over 75 different languages and 24% of our students were born outside of Canada, in one of more than 175 countries. Approximately 35,000 of our students (about 12% of our enrolment) receive some Special Education support. Student achievement is reflected in that more than 40% of our graduates annually rank as Ontario Scholars by achieving an average of at least 80% in their top six courses and better than 80% of our graduates apply for university or college admission.

Funding Model Review

In 2010 the Ministry sought consultation regarding Special Education Funding and Board Administration & Governance Funding and Declining Enrolment Grant and is poised to begin consultations around School Operation Grants. The TDSB would like to participate in the upcoming School Operation Grant review. The best practice approach to the Ministry consultations, while providing some insight to other Boards’ operations, does not address the needs of the TDSB.

Urban Board Factor

Historically, the Ministry’s funding formula has attempted to address the needs of small and rural boards but not the needs or cost structures of a large urban board such as the TDSB. The TDSB is the largest school board in Canada. The demographic of its student base are in many ways different from those of most other school boards in Ontario. The TDSB is responsible for about one-seventh of the Ontario-funded school board population (Rosen, 2002, p.2) and serves a diverse population - linguistically, socio-economically, racially, and ethnically. This diversity presents both benefits and challenges. The delivery of all social services, including education, in these large urban centres is a complex process. The Education Improvement Commission agreed that the issues facing large urban centres, particularly Toronto, deserve special attention. (Education Improvement Commission).

An estimated 267,900 recent immigrants settled in the City of Toronto, according to the 2006 census. The City of Toronto still attracts the largest share of all recent arrivals to the metropolitan area. More than two-thirds (68.5%) of newcomers in 2006 to the City of Toronto were born in Asian countries. Among newcomers to the City of Toronto, 1 in 10 reported that

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 51 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Budget Committee, Report No. 12, January 17, 2011 Board Submission to the Ministry of Education re Grants for Student Needs

they did not have knowledge of either English or French. Children aged 14 and under account for one in five recent immigrants to Canada, and youth aged 15 to 24 for 15.1%. In addition, 47,400 school-aged newcomers settled in the City of Toronto between 2001 and 2006. They accounted for 14.3% of all school-aged children in the city. These students require additional supports in our schools.

The TDSB (and its pre-amalgamation boroughs) has always reflected this diversity and the needs of an urban centre. As a result, many programs and supports were needed to support this diversity. They were put in place while there was a municipal tax base to support them and prior to the provincial funding formula. Provincial benchmarks do not fit the amalgamated City of Toronto. The Ministry needs to recognize this fact.

Additionally, the Ministry needs to address the inadequacy of funding to support settlement service programs in school boards. The TDSB currently has 350 Roma students in its Parkdale area schools. The settlement cost incurred to support these students is approximately $2M annually. The TDSB urges the Ministry to recognize the Board’s unique needs in supporting these students.

1. English as a Second Language/English Skills Development Funding and Learning Opportunities funding is crucial to allow the TDSB to continue supporting its diverse population. Learning Opportunities funding needs to be increased and an urban factor has to be developed to recognize the unique needs of large urban boards.

School Facilities/Renewal Funding/Capital The TDSB holds the largest inventory of schools in the province. Many of these schools were constructed to respond to post World War II population growth and are of a similar age and condition. The need for renewal dollars to support the existing spaces where TDSB students learn cannot be ignored. The TDSB renewal backlog continues to grow and has reached $3 Billion for facility and structural needs. This does not reflect any program upgrades. And while the Good Places to Learn funding gave the Board a way to begin addressing its renewal needs, our school buildings still require major repairs and program upgrades. Increasing our pressures is whereas other municipalities in the province own and operate swimming pools; this is a joint undertaking in the City of Toronto and comes at an additional cost to the TDSB.

As well, Boards who are building or renovating on green space have cost efficiencies unavailable to the TDSB. Some Boards have 2 or 4 school building plans that are expanded or contracted to accommodate the appropriate number of students. For the TDSB, every school site and community is unique, built out by different municipalities to meet different needs. TDSB school building projects require individual consideration for site plans and temporary accommodations because of each site’s specificity and uniqueness.

2. The Ministry, Provincial Government and the Federal Government need to provide infrastructure grants to support the schools in the City of Toronto.

52 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Budget Committee, Report No. 12, January 17, 2011 Board Submission to the Ministry of Education re Grants for Student Needs

Special Education Educating our students with high needs is a responsibility which extends beyond the Ministry of Education. We have previously proposed that the government consider a Ministry of the Child where education, health, mental health and social services are available and provided for children in need in a holistic, child centered way. The exceptionalities currently recognized by the Ministry do not reflect the current reality of medical and mental health issues.

There continues to be support to determine a proxy rate for the funding structure. This measure needs to have sensitivity over time, appreciative of changing demands in complex health needs, and changing costs of resources, technology requirements and staff development.

The premise that declining enrolment and demographic shifts results in declining needs and demands does not reflect the TDSB reality. Certainly any provincial incidence rates would not apply to this Board. The experience in Toronto is that proximity to regional and provincial health centres impacts the nature and volume of families needing assistance.

The TDSB is underfunded in special education by $20M. Any notion of stable funding in light of growing student needs is in reality a reduction to funding.

3. The Ministry must recognize that the needs of students are increasing and now include medical needs, such as diabetes and mental health, and that the funding formula needs to reflect the additional costs of servicing all our students’ needs.

Foundation Grants The Ministry’s foundation grants need to be updated to generate more school secretarial, vice- principal and library/guidance staffing as well as more funding to support computers and learning materials. The diversity and demographics of the TDSB’s population require more school office staffing than the current model provides. Because of the urban and diverse nature of our Board as well as safe schools legislations, the needs of our school communities and our learners would be better served by each school having a principal and vice-principal. In order to support student transitions, more guidance counsellors would be beneficial to the system. The TDSB’s technology needs continue to grow as we struggle with an aging technology infrastructure and computers.

OMERS (Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System) have approved an increase in pension contribution rates over the next three years for employees and employers. Provincially, the impact of a 1% increase is $27M. For the TDSB, the impact is $3.3M, slightly over 10% of the entire provincial impact. The Ministry has not provided additional funding to offset this increased cost which has placed in year pressure on the TDSB’s operating budget.

An aging workforce coupled with emerging health crises has placed pressure on occasional staffing across all employee groups. In particular, occasional costs for teachers and custodians

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 53 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Budget Committee, Report No. 12, January 17, 2011 Board Submission to the Ministry of Education re Grants for Student Needs

have escalated. The funding benchmarks need to be increased to reflect the cost of replacement staff.

4. The Ministry needs to increase its funding benchmarks.

Full-Day Early Learning Kindergarten (FDELK) TDSB supports the full-day early learning kindergarten program. The Ministry’s funding of this initiative through Education Program Other Grants prevents the TDSB from receiving the full grant allocation for these students. As a result the program costs exceed the funding by over $1 M due to shortfalls in funding for lunchroom supervisors, occasional staffing costs, and start up costs). This requires the TDSB to redirect resources from other areas of operations.

5. The Ministry must recognize the incremental cost of this initiative and provide the full funding to support the implementation and continuation of Full Day Early Learning.

54 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Budget Committee, Report No. 13, January 24, 2011

Budget Committee Report No. 13, January 24, 2011

As received by the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee on April 6, 2011 (see page 40). A meeting of the Budget Committee was convened on Monday, January 24, 2011, from 4:02 to 7:01 p.m., in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Irene Atkinson presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Shaun Chen, Howard Kaplan and Mari Rutka. Regrets were received from Trustee Howard Goodman and Student Trustee Zane Schwartz. Also present were Trustees Sheila Cary-Meagher, Jerry Chadwick, Gerri Gershon and Shelley Laskin.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

1. Capital Funding Alternatives

The Committee received a revised presentation from staff (see BC:014A, page 3 and BC:014C) presenting findings that would arise on the implementation of suggested options for funding school capital and school renewal.

On motion of Trustee Rutka, the Budget Committee recommended that the issue of an annual provincial debenture for the next fifteen years be presented, as the Board’s primary request to the Ministry of Education for consideration during its 2011 budget process; that presentation to include a summary of all the alternative funding sources considered, and noting that the proposed option was the only alternative funding source that would significantly address the Board’s enormous financial need.

2. Submission to the Ministry of Education re Grants for Student Needs xxx

The Committee considered a staff report (see BC:014A, page 5) presenting the Board’s unique needs for inclusion in its submission to the Ministry of Education.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

On motion of Trustee Chen, the Budget Committee recommended that the brief, as presented in the staff report, be included in the submission to the Ministry of Education for consideration during its 2011 budget process.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 55 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Budget Committee, Report No. 13, January 24, 2011

Part B: Information Only

3. State of Our Schools Presentation: Rebuilding Our Schools For Health, Safety and Cutting Edge 21st Century Learning

The Committee received a presentation from staff presenting a proposal for the deep retrofits of schools.

4. Analysis of Impact of Funding Shortfalls on Schools

The Committee received a report (see page 57) providing an analysis of the funding shortfalls on schools.

Part C: Ongoing Matters

No matters to report

Irene Atkinson Chair of the Committee

For the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee’s consideration of the report (see page 40).

56 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Budget Committee, Report No. 13, January 24, 2011 Analysis of Impact of Funding Shortfalls on Schools

Analysis of Impact of Funding Shortfalls on Schools

As received by the Budget Committee on January 24, 2011 (see page 56). At the November 1, 2010 meeting of the Budget Committee, the operating shortfall funding analysis provided in Appendix 1, and provided by the Chair of the Committee, was presented for discussion. It was proposed that school by school case studies be prepared to show the impact of the funding shortfalls at the local level. These are presented below.

School boards are required to submit balanced budgets to the Ministry of Education. In the absence of a previous year’s surplus, when a Board spends more in one area it must make up the shortfall by spending less in another or by redirecting funding which was generated for other purposes. For the Board, this means spending less on information technology and school facilities and redirecting funding from its learning opportunities funding, program enhancement grant, and language grants to support school based expenditures.

The school by school analysis show the enrolments used for the calculation of the Ministry grants. Enrolment variations impact staffing levels. The analysis also uses 2010/2011 school based staffing which were allocated to schools based on formula and/or programming needs. Therefore, there are differences in staffing levels from school to school. The block of information at the bottom of Appendix 2 shows the funding issues at a system level.

The staffing categories being examined are those that are generated through the Pupil Foundation Grant and the School Foundation Grant. Special purpose grants which support system-wide program areas, such as Special Education, have been removed from the analysis as they are not strictly generated on a per-pupil basis.

Staff compared the dollar amounts generated based on each schools’ enrolment through the funding formula to the Board’s expenditures for the same category of staffing. A comparison of the variance on both a full time equivalent as well as a dollar value is presented in Appendix 2.

Total school staffing for the Board and the associated variances are also presented at the bottom of the chart below.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 57 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Budget Committee, Report No. 13, January 24, 2011 Analysis of Impact of Funding Shortfalls on Schools

Appendix 1 Analysis of Grants versus Operating Expenditures Based on 2010 ‐ 2011 Budget (excludes Capital and Renewal expenditures) Grants Reallocated Shortfall Grants with Shortfall School Foundation (Note 1) Principals $ (5,076,700) Vice‐Principals ($3.4M funded by LOG) (9,795,747) School Office Clerical ($4.7M funded by LOG) (14,929,594) School Office Supplies ($1.9M funded by LOG) (7,129,848) Educational Assistants (Funded by LOG) (17,110,925) Library & Guidance Teachers (funded by Pupil Foundation) (12,045,807) Textbooks/Supplies (funded by Pupil Foundation) (4,786,319) Computers (funded by Pupil Foundation) (17,037,828) Special Education (20,782,237) Safe Schools (6,380,066) Adult Ed., Continuing Education and Summer School (3,273,919) Administration and Governance (13,726,941) School Operations ‐ Estimated Utility Funding Shortfall (Note 3) (15,700,000)

Grants Reallocated Pupil Foundation and Other Classroom Grants (Note 2) $ 45,862,587 (surplus used to support Library, Guidance, Textbooks, Computers) Language French as a Second Language 2,598,685 English as a Second Language 15,055,361 Learning Opportunity 27,425,475 (surplus used to support Ed. Assistants, VPs and School Offices) Transportation 418,824 School Operations ‐ Caretaking and Maintenance excluding Utilities (Note 3) 23,800,543 Community Use of Schools ‐ Declining Enrolment Adjustment 3,711,267 Program Enhancement 5,404,000 Totals $ 124,276,742 $ (147,775,931) Net Surplus/Deficit (23,499,189) Projected Working Funds Reserve 5,769,538 Projected Net Surplus/(Deficit) $ (17,729,651)

Notes: 1) School Foundation Allocation includes funding for: principals, vice‐principals, school office clerical and office supplies. 2) Pupil Foundation Allocation includes funding for: teachers, supply teachers, library & guidance, educational assistants, textbooks & supplies, computers, professionals & paraprofessionals, staff development and curriculum coordinators & consultants.

3) School Operations Allocation includes funding for caretakers, maintenance, supplies and utilties, but does not include renewal or capital expenditures. This is after a reduction of $30M in operating maintenance from the budget to offset 58 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Budget Committee, Report No. 13, January 24, 2011 Analysis of Impact of Funding Shortfalls on Schools

Budget Committee Report No. 14, February 10, 2011

As received by the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee on April 6, 2011 (see page 40). A meeting of the Budget Committee was convened on Thursday, February 10, 2011, from 4:05 to 6:30 p.m., in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Irene Atkinson presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Shaun Chen, Howard Kaplan and Mari Rutka. Regrets were received from Trustee Howard Goodman and Student Trustee Zane Schwartz. Also present were Trustees Chris Bolton, Sheila Cary-Meagher, Chris Glover, Pamela Gough and Shelley Laskin. Trustee Chen participated by electronic means.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

No matters to report.

Part B: Information Only

1. Template for Ward Council Presentation

The Committee discussed a proposed presentation for use at ward council forums presenting the Board’s funding needs.

2. Communications Plan

The Committee heard a presentation from staff outlining a communications plan for presenting the Board’s funding needs.

Suggested changes to the plan would be presented at the next meeting.

Part C: Ongoing Matters

No matters to report

Irene Atkinson Chair of the Committee For the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee’s consideration of the report (see page 40).

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 59 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Budget Committee, Report No. 15, February 24, 2011

Budget Committee Report No. 15, February 24, 2011

As received by the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee on April 6, 2011 (see page 40). A meeting of the Budget Committee was convened on Thursday, February 24, 2011, from 4:01 to 6:55 p.m., including a five-minute recess, in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Irene Atkinson presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Shaun Chen and Howard Goodman. Regrets were received from Trustees Howard Kaplan, Mari Rutka and Student Trustee Zane Schwartz. Also present were Trustees Chris Bolton, Sheila Cary-Meagher, Jerry Chadwick, Gerri Gershon, Pamela Gough and Shelley Laskin. Trustee Goodman participated for part of the meeting by electronic means and for part in person.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

No matters to report.

Part B: Information Only

1. Template for Ward Council Presentation

The Committee discussed a proposed presentation for use at ward council forums to present the environment in which the Board is currently operating and its funding needs.

During the discussion, revisions were identified for inclusion in the final presentation, which will be finalized for use at upcoming ward council meetings.

2. Dates for Ward Council Forums for Presentation

Trustees were invited to forward the dates on which their ward council forums will be held, so that staff support for the presentation to the meetings could be arranged.

3. Communications Plan

The Committee heard a presentation from staff outlining a communications plan for presenting the Board’s funding needs.

Trustees were invited to provide comments to staff, following which suggested changes to the plan would be presented at the next meeting.

60 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Budget Committee, Report No. 15, February 24, 2011

4. Education Amendment Act (Renewal and Maintenance of School Facilities), 2011

The Committee discussed a Bill introduced by a private member of the Legislature1, seeking to amend the Education Act to allow boards to determine, levy and collect rates for the renewal and maintenance of school facilities.

Following discussion, it was decided that a communication from the Chair would be sent the media on the matter.

5. Timelines re Presentation to Stakeholders

The Committee discussed possible dates for a strategy session with stakeholders to present the ward presentation. It was suggested that the presentation be made at the March 10, 2011 meeting.

Following discussion, it was decided that the arrangements would be made to make presentations to the following committees: French as a Second Language Advisory Committee, Parent Involvement Advisory Committee and Special Education Advisory Committee.

Part C: Ongoing Matters

No matters to report

Irene Atkinson Chair of the Committee

For the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee’s consideration of the report (see page 40).

1 The document will be maintained in Board Services for a limited time.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 61 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Budget Committee, Report No. 16, March 10, 2011

Budget Committee Report No. 16, March 10, 2011

As received by the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee on April 6, 2011 (see page 40). A meeting of the Budget Committee was convened on Thursday, March 10, 2011, from 4:10 to 6:35 p.m., including a ten-minute recess, in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Irene Atkinson presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Shaun Chen, Howard Goodman, Howard Kaplan and Mari Rutka. Also present were Trustee Shelley Laskin and Student Trustee Zane Schwartz.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

No matters to report.

Part B: Information Only

1. Budget Presentation to Stakeholders

Trustee Atkinson welcomed stakeholders to the meeting and presented the ward council presentation as posted on the trustees’ website providing an overview of the Board’s financial environment.

Discussion took place regarding what stakeholders can do to obtain a positive response from the government.

During the discussion, items were identified for consideration, including:

(a) With an impending Federal election, direct political contact should be made with, and the presentation submitted to, those in the Federal parties with responsibility for developing platforms. The parties should be asked to make the matter a part of their platform.

(b) Involve the Student SuperCouncil, the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association and the Canadian School Boards’ Association.

(c) Seek to present the matter to editorial boards.

(d) Provide current information on the Budget on the Board’s web site.

62 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Budget Committee, Report No. 16, March 10, 2011

Staff undertook to provide a list of grants for which the Board applied and was refused.

2. Timelines for Grants for Student Needs Announcement [1729]

On motion of Trustee Rutka, the Committee received a briefing note from staff (see page 64) presenting timelines for the announcement of the Grants for Student Needs by the Provincial government.

The Committee also decided to cancel its meeting scheduled for April 7, 2011 to allow staff to prepare an analysis of the Grants for Student Needs for presentation at the April meeting.

3. Report on Ward Council Presentations

The Committee heard a report on budget presentation made to ward councils.

Trustee Rutka undertook to contact those trustees who had not yet held ward council meeting sto present the material.

Part C: Ongoing Matters

4. Review of the 2010-11 Grants for Student Needs in Preparation for the 2011-12 Grants for Student Needs Announcement

An analysis of the 2010-11 Grants for Student Needs was distributed at the meeting and will be discussed in detail at the next meeting.

Irene Atkinson Chair of the Committee

For the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee’s consideration of the report (see page 40).

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 63 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Budget Committee, Report No. 16, March 10, 2011

Timelines for Grants for Student Needs Announcement [1729]

As received by the Budget Committee on March 10, 2010 (see page 63). The Federal budget will be delivered on 22 March 2011, according to an announcement made on 3 March 2011.

The delivery of the Federal budget precedes both the announcement of the Provincial budget and the announcement of the Grants for Student Needs (GSN’s). The Provincial budget typically follows within the two week period after the Federal budget. This would indicate an anticipated GSN announcement by 12 April 2011.

Should the GSN announcement be received in early April, staff intend to complete a preliminary analysis of the GSN’s for the 20 April 2011 Budget Committee meeting.

Currently, Budget Committee meeting dates have been set as follows:

• March 24, 2011

• April 7, 2011

• April 20, 2011

It is proposed that the 7 April 2011 Budget Committee meeting be cancelled to allow staff to prepare an analysis of the GSNs for presentation at the 20 April Budget Committee meeting.

64 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Audit Committee, Report No. 8, March 24, 2011

Audit Committee Report No. 8, March 24, 2011

As received by the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee on April 6, 2011 (see page 40). A meeting of the Audit Committee was convened on Thursday, March 10, 2011, from 7:11 p.m. to 8:02 p.m., in the Committee Room B, Main Floor, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Trustee Sheila Ward presiding.

The following committee members were present: Trustees Elizabeth Moyer` and Sheila Ward. Regrets were received from Trustees Gerri Gershon and John Hastings. The following external members were also present: Rozanne Reszel, Lynn Greenwood, Michelle Beveridge.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

No matters to report

Part B: Information Only

1. Election of the Chair

The Committee elected Trustee Sheila Ward to the position of Chair of the Committee.

2. Management Letter for Financial Statements for the Year Ended August 31, 2010 [1733]

On motion of Trustee Moyer, the Audit Committee received a staff report presenting the Management Letter for Financial Statements for the Year Ended August 31, 20101.

3. Mandate of the Committee

The committee received a report from the Regional Internal Audit Manager re the Board’s internal audit mandate and heard a brief presentation about the mandate of the Committee. A discussion followed around the definition, scope and processes outlined in the mandate.

1 The report will be maintained in Board Services for a limited time.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 65 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Audit Committee, Report No. 8, March 24, 2011

Part C: Ongoing Matters

No matters to report

Sheila Ward Chair of the Committee

For the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee’s consideration of the report (see page 40).

66 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 2), March 2, 2011

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee

Report No. 17 (Part 2), March 2, 2011

A regular meeting of the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee convened on Wednesday March 2, 2011, from 5:01 to 8:01 p.m., in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Trustee Smith presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees David Smith (Chair), Irene Atkinson, Chris Bolton (ex officio), Sheila Cary-Meagher, Gerri Gershon Chris Tonks and Student Trustees Zane Schwartz and Jenny Williams. Also present were Trustees Michael Coteau and Chris Glover. Trustees Tonks and Glover participated by electronic means.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

1. Contract Awards [1715]

The matter was considered on March 9, 2011.

2. Annual Long-Term Financing for Capital Projects [1724] The matter was considered on March 9, 2011.

3. Onestop Media Digital Program, Phase Two [1702] The matter was considered on March 9, 2011.

4. Establishment of Full-Day Kindergarten Implementation Workgroup (amended by the Board) The Committee considered a staff report (see page 69) presenting an update on the implementation of full-day Kindergarten.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

On motion of Trustee Cary-Meagher, the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee RECOMMENDS (as amended by the Board, see page 11) that staff be authorized to enter into

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 67 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 2), March 2, 2011

discussions with CUPE 4400 and Elementary Teachers of Toronto to consider the possibility of direct delivery of the extended day and extended year early learning program, and report back to the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee with their findings.

The Committee recommended that a workgroup be established at which Board and CUPE 4400 and representation from Elementary Teachers Toronto can jointly work toward implementing direct delivery of the extended day and extended year Early Learning Program.

Part B: Information Only

Part B matters were received on March 9, 2011.

Part C: Ongoing Matters

No matters to report

Trustee David Smith Chair of the Committee

Adopted, as amended, April 13, 2011 (see page 11).

68 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 2), March 2, 2011 Establishment of Full-Day Kindergarten Implementation Workgroup

Establishment of Full-Day Kindergarten Implementation Workgroup

As presented to the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee on March 2, 2011 (see page 67). Registration for Full-Day Kindergarten in 90 schools begins in February 2011. In September 2011, 19 schools will start implementation of FDK in addition to the 71 schools entering their second year of FDK (Appendix A).

In December 2010, the Ministry of Education outlined amendments to implementation and setting of fees for FDK extended day programs also known as Before and After School programs.

The amendments include:

• flexibility for Boards to directly operate the extended day program or enter into an agreement with a qualifying third-party provider to operate a before and/or after-school program on site;

• a revised template for determining rates for Before and After School Programs for Full-Day Kindergarten students.

The Kindergarten registration process for full-day programs is the same as for half-day programs with the addition of a parent survey. To determine the level of interest in a cost recovery parent fee Before and After School Program, Principals are asked to survey parents of incoming junior Kindergarten (JK) students and students moving from JK to senior Kindergarten (SK) regarding their interest in participation.

School boards are responsible for setting fees on a boardwide basis in accord with provincial policies, guidelines and requirements. Fees are intended to recover costs associated with the extended day program. Based on the survey results, a school specific and systemwide level of interest will be determined. A program will be made available only at those FDK schools where sufficient interest (20 students) in confirmed to make a program viable.

Specific guidelines on fee setting for FDK Before and After School Programs have been provided to school boards by the MOE. While this rate may change based on survey results, the rate has been projected at $29 per day or $11.50 for before school only and $17.50 for after school only. These projected rates will be shared when surveying parents during the Kindergarten registration process. A sample letter is provided as Appendix B.

Next Steps

• Staff will continue to work with the MOE, City of Toronto, and coterminous boards in forecasting the potential impact of these amendments on child care centres and school communities on a site by site basis;

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\G04\01\110413 Min Final.doc)sec.1530 69 Toronto District School Board April 13, 2011

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 2), March 2, 2011 Establishment of Full-Day Kindergarten Implementation Workgroup

• Schools will survey families for interest in a FDK Before and After School Program during Kindergarten registration month (February 2011);

• Staff will update Trustees following Kindergarten registration.

The appendices mentioned in the report will be maintained in Board Services for a limited time.

For the Board’s decision see page 67.

70