Interim Report

Long Range Planning Committee on Boarding and Residential Life

Version February 25, 2009

Presented to the Board of Governors

200 Lonsdale Road , M4V 1W6

Long Range Planning Committee on Boarding and Residential Life

In September 2008, the Board of Governors appointed the following individuals to a sub‐committee charged with overseeing the development of a long‐range plan to revitalize the College’s Boarding Program. The Committee is chaired by Board Vice‐ Chair Stuart Lazier ’70, who was also a member of the original LRP Boarding Review Committee; a former boarder in Wedd’s and parent of Michael ’98, Adam ’96 and Sanders ’06.

Other members:

Lincoln Caylor ’87: Partner in the law firm of Bennett Jones, LLP, he is President of the Barbara Barrow Foundation, member of the 2007 Boarding Task Force, parent of current students Jack 2014 and Sam 2012, and former boarder in Seaton’s.

David Hadden ’71: CEO of the Lakefield College Foundation, former Principal of Lakefield College School, former UCC faculty member and boarding housemaster.

Fred Singer ‘ 81: former Governor, President & CEO of U.S.‐based Anystream, Inc; past member of the 2001 Communications Task Force and the Information Technology Advisory Group.

Adam Markwell ’92: Investment Advisor, CIBC Wood Gundy Securities. Currently ’92 Class President; former Seaton’s’ boarder.

Ryerson Symons ’85: Partner in New York law firm of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett based in London, England; was Head Steward and Herbert Mason Medal winner; former Seaton's boarder.

J. P. Mackay 2002: Asset Manager, RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust; Trustee of the Barbara Barrow Foundation, former Wedd’s boarder.

Simon Leung: parent of current boarder Ryan Leung and Aaron Leung, Class of 2005. Chairman and CEO of Microsoft Inc, (Greater China Region) and current Board member.

Patricia Gouinlock: Current UCC Governor, served on the Communications Task Force, parent of Gordon ’05 and William ’08.

Steve Griffin, Head of Upper School

Innes van Nostrand ‘82, Vice Principal, parent of Jack 2016 and Alec 2019

2 Also supporting the work of the LRP Committee:

Jim Power, Principal Andrew Turner, Director of Residential Life Steve Thuringer, Director of Facilities Suzanne Heft, Executive Director, Office of Advancement Ellen McDonald, Administrative Assistant to the Head of School Struan Robertson, Executive Director of Recruitment & Enrolment Management

The LRP Committee provides oversight on behalf of the Board of Governors. Administrative and Volunteer Operational Teams:

The following chart illustrates the administrative operational teams whose work in plan development relates to the LRP. These are the areas of program development, student recruitment, fundraising and facility development.

Board LRP Committee on Residential Life & Boarding PRINCIPAL LRP (Stuart Lazier, Chair)

Property Committee

LONG-TERM Campaign BOARDING REVITALIZATION PLAN Steering (Project Lead: Innes van Nostrand) Committee

A. D. Student B. C. Recruitment Boarding Facility Boarding Boarding Redevelopment (Developing a Fundraising Program robust, (Developing a plan to Campaign Development proactive and renovate or retrofit (Raising funds needed to (Creating a aggressive Seaton’s and Wedd’s to support new program, residential life marketing and meet future program capital and scholarship program that meets recruiting developed in C. endowment) needs of all effort) boarders)

3 According to the terms of reference for this LRP committee, it is the role of the LRP to establish:

“A comprehensive oversight of programmatic and policy changes as they relate to boarding programming, specifically during the period of revitalization (2‐3 years) and to oversee boarding renewal plan development.”

The future long‐range plan for boarding includes several key, inter‐related components and the committee is tasked with providing oversight on behalf of the Board in each of these:

1. Residential life program improvement, which includes a focus on: ‐ Day/boarder integration ‐ Enhanced weekend and extracurricular program development ‐ Academic enrichment and student support programs

2. Student recruitment and boarding marketing, which will focus on national, international, new and emerging target markets.

3. Fundraising, for three key priority areas: capital improvements, endowment (for student scholarships and bursaries) and programmatic enhancements.

4. Facilities renovation and redevelopment, in order to create a first‐class, up‐to‐ date physical plant that meets new boarding programmatic needs and is in keeping with the high caliber facilities of the rest of campus.

We are pleased to present this interim report to the Board in February and anticipate completion of a final report by the April Board of Governors meeting.

Introduction

What should boarding at UCC become?

Informed by the report of the 2007 Boarding Task Force and the operating principles set out by the Principal and the Board of Governors in the June 2008 Strategic Plan, the LRP committee has been challenged to answer this question definitively.

• We firmly believe UCC can and should have a world‐class all‐boys boarding program. This is primarily achievable, in our view, because of the UCC context itself, our strong national and international reputation, as well as our outstanding track record with regard to educational excellence and university

4 placement, our brand equity in the marketplace, and the unique international niche that our boarding program can occupy: • an outstanding residential life experience; • in a challenging yet supportive all‐boy learning environment; • in a school with 180 years of tradition and achievement in leadership and service; • on a beautiful and safe urban campus; • in the heart of one of the world’s most multicultural cities.

There are three key drivers to achieving this objective:

1. UCC’s overall reputation as an outstanding boys’ school.

The best lever to achieving a world‐class boarding program is the strength of the overall program UCC offers its students, both academically and in terms of the broader UCC experience. Boarding students choose UCC for the holistic all‐round education the school offers, not just to be a boarder at UCC. Building on that, we need to create a boarding program that is distinct to UCC, unique and ‘our own’; we feel we can do this by claiming our market niche and targeting the best students to whom that niche appeals, and in so doing, we can achieve the greatest expression of what UCC boarding can be.

2. Delivering extraordinary individual attention to boarding students.

A large body of evidence, including data gathered during the Boarding Task Force process ₁ and the consultations undertaken by the LRP, suggests that individual attention to boarders – the degree to which one‐to‐one pastoral care is delivered to each boy – is a prime lever to an outstanding boarding experience. This idea correlates with the Strategic Plan imperative that UCC should be a school that, despite its size, offers ‘a small school feel’. This imperative is implicit in the boarding program where size of enrolment creates a distinct sub‐community and offers tremendous opportunity for the fullest expression of affinity among boarding faculty, staff and students. We are therefore convinced that enhanced and increased adult supervision and greater engagement with students through the operation of an enhanced on‐campus boarding faculty and staff model is central to the future success of UCC boarding.

3. Attracting diverse national and international students whose presence strengthens the school.

Great boarding schools thrive on great faculty and great students; human capital is the number one asset of any great program. If UCC can become known as the boys’ where the very best students want to come, we will have developed a foundation for every other element of optimal success in the years to come. In a

5 program that enrols between 80‐120 students, in a day school population of over 1,000, the calibre of each student we admit is of paramount importance. If these students are engaged, committed, well‐rounded high‐achievers, diverse in talent and background – and drawn from across and every corner of the globe – we will have a boarding program that will enrich the UCC experience for all our students. Clearly, financial aid resources, as well as a robust recruitment effort are central to achieving this goal.

We believe these three factors are fundamentally essential to creating a 21st century world‐class boarding experience at UCC.

Other key elements include: facilities, program, financial aid, supervisory care, international experiences, leadership opportunity, university guidance and counselling.

What are the elements of this vision for boarding “future”?

The successful long‐term renewal of boarding at UCC will require reconfiguration and reinvestment. Many aspects of current practice demand attention, short and long‐ term. These include but are not limited to: staffing, supervisory care, physical plant, weekend programming (both at UCC and with other schools including local girls’ schools), academic enrichment, academic support, student and faculty recruitment, day student/boarder integration and a variety of safety and wellness initiatives.

Our long‐term vision for boarding at UCC includes the following key elements:

1. An excellent, robust set of activities and opportunities (weeknight, weekend, athletic, extracurricular and including co‐ed) specifically designed to engage and support boarding students.

2. Enthusiastic and experienced faculty and staff working, living and leading our students in a shared community where relationships are vibrant and peer groups are cohesive and united, and a strong commitment to individual attention for each boy.

3. An ongoing worldwide effort to attract a high calibre, diverse student body with a total enrolment of between 80‐120 students with a balanced national and international representation.

4. A move from two large groups of boarders and boarding faculty into a series of smaller ‘family‐like’ units, enabling better supervisory ratios, more individual attention to every boarder and enhanced esprit de corps.

6 5. A renovated residential facility with improved infrastructure and mechanical systems, better common areas and study spaces, enhanced faculty housing and more modern furnishings.

6. A reconfiguration of the UCC house system to integrate day students into the present boarding houses of Seaton’s and Wedd’s so that across the school, all houses contain a mix of day students and boarders. We see this as an integral shift towards better integration of boarding students into the life of day boys but we are equally committed to the fostering of a cohesive fraternal boarding community.

Our recommendations focus on:

i. Program (the overall experience a student has in residence) ii. People (the ‘human factor’, i.e. all who are involved in or participate in boarding life) iii. Culture (the landscape or backdrop against which boarders live and learn) iv. Space (the physical environment).

i. Program

We define boarding ‘program’ as follows: the sum of all experiences a student has beyond the confines of daily life in class, i.e. the experience after 5:00 pm and on weekends, and all the elements of his experience which are not shared by day boys.

We believe we can – and must – significantly amplify and enhance what we do now, in order to achieve a renaissance in our boarding program. Fortunately, great potential exists, and a significant heritage at UCC offers a great foundation upon which to build. The Boarding Task Force report of May 2007 ₂ challenged the College’s leadership and Board to ‘aim high’ with regard to boarding renewal. The LRP Committee is firmly dedicated to this objective also, and in particular the notion of an outstanding holistic experience in residence that revolves around strong relationships, both boarder‐to‐ boarder and faculty‐to‐student, as well as a proactive, intentional approach to day/boarder integration.

Boarding can be a backdrop against which boys experience independence from home life, camaraderie and fraternity, the exhilaration of new endeavour and risks in a safe, secure environment, and the fortification and support that can come from living among great friends at all times. We aim to renew boarding at UCC such that all this is rendered even more possible, and, where occurring, even more successful.

A strong residential life program, led by an equally strong and dedicated team of educators and support staff, is a critical backdrop for boarding life success. We have already made some improvements in this area, and will further renew and expand our weeknight and weekend programming to this end.

7 This will mean that boys are exposed to a variety of social and recreational activities on weekends (some optional, some mandatory) where they can experience some of the cultural offerings Toronto provides. We will identify co‐ed experiences, academic enrichment opportunities and seasonal programming that expose boarders to new challenges or fun. Developing a year‐long series of events will also enable more day student participation in boarding weekend activity, strengthening ties between these two student groups.

Boarding staff will be charged with coordinating and monitoring this expanded activity and the ongoing communication required between school and parents to achieve success in what is a shared commitment to each boy’s fullest possible immersion in residential community.

ii. People

If a driver of boarding renewal is the calibre of people involved, then investment in the ‘right people’ (students and faculty/staff) and the right staffing model is imperative.

1. Faculty/Staff:

The present model of supervisory care is not what we would like to see for UCC, compared to leading boarding schools in Canada, the U.K. and the U.S. Today’s parents expect a higher degree of knowledge and attention to their child in boarding than ever before. Many competitor schools deliver supervision with more individual contact, greater and more regular interaction and a notion of pastoral care for boarding students that is essentially vocational at its core.

The quality of the personnel in boarding is of paramount importance. Moving forward, job expectations for the boarding personnel team must place a high premium on diligence, attention to detail, empathy and leadership, as well as a genuine desire to build a great boarding community with an ethos of care, consideration (for self, others and space), as well as individual attention to students. When new employees are hired, these values must continue be sought and more emphasis placed on them.

Many fine boarding schools (like Groton School, Rugby School and Lakefield College) seek to develop boarding community that revolve around principles of shared responsibility, teamwork, independence and kinship. We support this approach.

Innately, boarding esprit de corps must be a common enterprise shared among teachers and students; each person in the community must be expected to contribute and participate enthusiastically. This enterprise is driven both by the personality of the leaders involved and by ‘lifestyle design’, with attention to hierarchy, teamwork

8 (among staff and students both) and strong support of junior students by senior students as well as faculty. We propose a model that drops the ratio of adult to student; that intensifies the primary care relationship and creates more interaction between faculty/staff and student based on a smaller residence unit affiliation. This combination of elements offers optimal consideration for individual boys’ needs as well as the need for new operational model that puts two adults in charge of monitoring the progress of a smaller number of students, with intensification of that pastoral care model.

Following is a chart that illustrates the proposed reconfiguration of our enrolment from two residence units of 40 – 50 boys each, into a series of smaller residential ‘units’ of 15‐ 20 boys each, supervised by two adults, one ‘residence head’ and one residential assistant .

Our view is that overall enrolment should be a minimum of 80 – 100 in the medium term (4‐5 units) but scaleable longer‐term to 120 if/when demand warrants. Current enrolment is at 85.

Director of Residence Life

Residence Residence Residence Residence Residence Residence Head Head Head Head Head Head

RA RA RA RA RA RA

15-20 15-20 15-20 15-20 15-20 15-20 boys boys boys boys boys boys

These units will effectively form ‘family like’ groups, and residential staff adults in each unit will live among students in shared housing (the configuration of the facility has not been fully determined yet but concept designs will be presented in our final report). We envisage that these housing ‘units’ are interconnected, allowing full freedom of students to move within the various configurations of space, and encouraging relationship and interaction, so boys are not limited to interacting with the group of 15‐ 20.

9 The small residence units will have activities together (some meals, end‐of‐day discussions, etc.) but will also participate in activities with all other b0arding students/faculty, so as to provide a strong sense of affinity across the entire boarding community.

This model is predicated on the idea that the two adults in the ‘unit’ have greater access and a sharper focus of attention on the smaller complement of boys ‘under their watch’. We believe this ‘small unit’ concept is at the core of an enriched boarding experience, offering better and more individual attention to each boarding student. The ‘Head of Residence’ will be the primary contact reporting to parents of each boy. All Heads of Residence and residential assistants will report to the Director of Residential Life, who will serve as operations manager for the entire staff team.

With respect to the profile of the Heads of Residence, we envision a variety of backgrounds – some with families, some younger faculty, some with grown children. Variety is of value. However, it is essential that each Head of Residence has the skills and commitment to provide a high degree of personal attention and support for all of their boys whenever it is required. The role of a residential faculty member can be intense and unpredictable. These appointments are critical to the success of UCC boarding. We have explored issues around compensation and have concluded that the most important factors are quality of housing and time availability (through teaching load reductions.) Training of both faculty and residential assistants is a necessary annual aspect of faculty preparation.

The role of residential assistants has become an important one for UCC boarding, and one which will continue to play a critical role. UCC has been fortunate to consistently attract several talented university graduates into these roles in recent years. They provide important parts of the pastoral care model in terms of ability to relate to students. In addition, their role in organizing activities and assisting in other duties (e.g. tutoring and supervision) is essential. They are a critical part of our vision for the future.

In addition, we believe that other on‐campus faculty will continue to play roles in assisting with supervision and providing additional help with academic counselling, extra help and running programs for the boys. They will not, however, be responsible for delivering individual care and oversight.

In addition, the Heads of Residence will work closely with each of their boys’ ‘integrated’ House Advisors to ensure that the boys are engaged and having a fulfilling experience at UCC – both in boarding and overall. This model requires ongoing communication between these roles and coordination in dealing with boys and their parents, particularly when issues arise. It brings a clear focus on individual attention, especially for those most in need of adult interaction: our boarding students.

10 In the present staff model at UCC, the Director of Residential Life (DRL) has primary responsibility for individual students. This will change so that the role of DRL becomes focussed on quality control, managing the adults in boarding, serving as the strategic catalyst for continual improvement, and dealing with major issues. The Director becomes the architect of annual program plan development, staff management, program director and daily operations manager. S/he is the prime driver of the entire residential life program. S/he will hire, oversee and manage all residential life faculty/staff and ultimately act as the advocate and ambassador for boarding within the College administrative team.

2. Student Body:

As important as the quality of care received by boarders is the quality of the boarding student body itself. Continuing to admit well‐qualified boys who meet the rigors of the academic program but also possess enthusiasm and commitment to participating in the UCC community is vital. The goal must be to attract a strong cohort of new boarders each year, socially and academically, to optimally enable the cohesion of the boarding community and the overall enhancement of the boarders’ reputation more broadly in the Upper School.

The appointment of Struan Robertson as UCC’s first Executive Director of Recruitment is an important step in this new goal. The final report of this committee will outline strategic objectives and goals for this element of boarding renewal which he and his team will now develop and implement. We recognize that this is a vital investment in the strengthening of the boarding experience for every student and we also recognize that it will take time.

In principle, we recommend the highest premium is paid on attracting and recruiting the best candidates from around the world to the boarding house; the impact of these diverse, bright, capable boys is potentially transformative, not just within boarding, but at the school overall.

Many reports have established the challenges in the North American marketplace with respect to recruiting students to boarding schools. ₃ Competition can be intense, and the market is softening due to several factors. ₄

We believe two weapons in our arsenal are the following: the unique nature of our offering in the marketplace and the potential for our own worldwide network of overseas alumni, parents and friends to be of assistance not just in generating interest in UCC through admissions inquiry generation but also helping promote and persuade targeted applicants to accept offers.

We propose a total enrolment of 80‐120 students. 80 must be the minimum, in keeping with the Board of Governors’ commitment to the program in June 2008. Ideally, an

11 enrolment of 120 is optimal but this is a long‐term goal ( 10‐year horizon). We envisage Grade 9 as the primary entry level grade – this offers two years of adjustment to prepare for IB1 and IB2 (Grade 11 and 12) which is imperative for those coming from non‐IB schools. We will, however, be receptive to accommodating select outstanding Grade 8 students on a discretionary basis, if desirable.

We propose that the optimal boarding student body is composed of strong students of many backgrounds, skills and interests, who are engaged in boarding life, who demonstrate the potential for leadership and independence as well as teamwork.

Key attributes include:

1. Solid academic track record – equal to that of day students. 2. Must be able to succeed in the IB Diploma. 3. Co‐curricular contributions – both potential and past achievements 4. Indicators of positive character: good citizenship, leadership potential, integrity, compassion, etc. 5. Ability/enthusiasm to engage in community life and integrate with other boys 6. Enthusiasm for boarding itself (must be there because he wants to be)

Enrolment should be balanced equally among North American and international populations. However, it is as important to have geographical diversity within each of the national and international pools as it is to have a split between them. To that end, we will place a heavy emphasis on recruiting Canadians across all regions, since we believe a national representation is a great asset for both boarding and UCC overall. We will recruit from a broader range of regions globally to ensure that boarding brings to the College a truly diverse mosaic of global citizens.

Diversity of student body is a critical operating principle as well as a lever to achieving our vision of boarding ‘future’. It is also an important marketing tool; we recognize that parents send their sons to boarding school to achieve a more diverse set of experiences, including being among students from around the world.

We recognize this is a longer term goal; short‐term flexibility must emphasize quality of applicant overall. It is imperative, above all, to admit only the most suitable students, regardless of nationality.

The importance of available financial aid for bursaries and scholarships to attract some students to UCC cannot be over‐stated. We propose 25‐35% of boarders overall should receive financial aid. The vast majority of these awards (although not necessarily all) will be to Canadian students. A more balanced spread of ‘full‐ride’ to smaller awards is important. We are in favour of a balance between 5% merit/95% needs‐based aid. The 5% merit is an essential lever to attracting prestigious applicants and driving greater selectivity overall. Experts in the field demonstrate the importance of high‐profile well‐

12 marketed and prestigious awards programs can be influential drivers or incentives in admissions decisions. ₅ We want the option to combine needs‐based and merit‐based aid vehicles so as to maximize available recruitment potential. All merit‐based awards should be distributed across the quality criteria set out for incoming students.

3. The Boarding Community as a collective:

We also recognize that a complement to individual attention is strong unity among the boarding community, so activity designed to foster and build on boarding tradition must continue and increase. A strong cohesive culture in the boarding community correlates to the UCC Strategic Plan imperative that advocates ‘a small school feel’, i.e. groups of affinity within the broader school structures (like grade years) that enable adults to better build relationships with students and for students themselves to have deeper, more enriched connection to teachers and other students. Boarding can be one such ‘small group’ overall, within the Upper School landscape.

Building on the traditional camaraderie and ‘spirit’ of Seaton’s and Wedd’s today, we recognize that the affinity of a boarder to his residential life community is important and should be fostered as much as possible as a driver to better experience for all. We are therefore in favour of a year‐round program of intra‐residence and all‐boarder activity at night and on weekends that is designed to foster boarder pride of association. This may include specific ritual around mealtimes, or some subset of mealtimes, as well as recreational social activity, sporting events and other entertainment as a group. Holiday and birthday celebrations are important, as are key milestones in the school year. Tradition is fundamental to boarding life – both old and new. It should be cherished and celebrated. It will be the responsibility of the DRL to develop these plans and the Heads of Residence and residential assistants (together with students) will implement accordingly.

When new boarders arrive, orientation to boarding life and the values expressed by the boarding community must be made explicit and, as much as possible, an expectation should be set that each student contributes both to his residence ‘unit’, as well as to the boarding community overall.

iii. Culture

Boarding culture develops around points of affinity. A friendship with a roommate, a strong relationship with a faculty member, the ability to access day student homes on weekends and connect with local Toronto families, feeling connected to the fraternity within boarding overall; these are points of affinity that, in sum, create boarding culture for each boy.

Building a boarding culture that balances the needs of the individual with the desire for collective identity and cohesion is essential. This is not an easy task. Every boy’s needs

13 are different, and change over time, developmentally, and with age. Responsibilities among boarders can be differentiated by age; IB2 students are natural leaders in the house, for example, and should engage in mentoring and helping new students.

If we recognize that a boy’s boarding experience is made up of the sum of his interactions and relationships with other individuals in the boarding houses, then maximizing the organic occurrence of those interactions is imperative. Pairing roommates strategically, selecting boys for each ‘unit’ of 15 or 20 so that age/grade, geographic and cultural diversity are balanced, and ensuring good ‘fit’ between a student and his Head of Residence are deliberate choices that directly affect the daily dynamics of relationships within residences.

The imperative towards a fuller and more intentional integration of boarders and day students was both a recommendation of the Boarding Task Force and an operating principle for boarding renewal that the Board of Governors endorsed. It is an important driver in ensuring improved understanding across the school of how having a boarding program makes UCC a better school for all students. To this end, we recommend a reconfiguration of the house system that puts boarders in every house and creates two new ‘integrated’ day/boarder houses.

We are committed to a thoughtful approach to integration including the perpetuation of the legacy of Seaton’s and Wedd’s as houses within the UCC house system which it is advantageous to preserve.

Key Principles:

i. Supervisory Care Model a. First priority is high quality delivery of care so individual needs are met. Small units, rather than the current model of two houses of 40 boys each, are a preferred means of achieving this. b. The calibre of our faculty and having them housed on site are important drivers of quality. Boarding is a 24‐7 proposition. c. The well‐being of each boarding student will be the responsibility of his Head of Residence.

ii. Community a. The model for boarding future must foster unity and fraternity so that each boarder has a strong experience of the boarding culture against the UCC landscape. Beyond the confines of one’s immediate circle of friends and beyond the residential unit to which a boy is assigned, there should also be a connection to a larger ‘boarding group’. b. Ideally a boarder should have a range of opportunities for connectivity to groups outside UCC that enrich and expand his experience as a boarder: co‐ed social activity, service and students exchange programs with other

14 IB schools, clubs and academic enrichment opportunities, etc. The goal is an expanded ‘world horizon’. c. Boarders will have the opportunity annually to ask to live in a specified residence unit and request a specific room‐mate. iii. Integration Optimizing the degree to which boarders and day students interact and form relationships is imperative for two reasons: doing this effectively makes the boarding experience better for every boarder (through a better social network, more opportunity for international students to build friendships with boys from Toronto) and it also ensures that the positive impact of having an international cadre of students from all around the world can be experienced more broadly by all Upper School students.

If we firmly believe – and we do – in the intrinsic value of the boarding program as a lever to a full expression of what UCC has to offer every student, then we must be intentional and deliberate about the creation of integration opportunities.

The means to achieve this lies in several tactics: a. First, we propose the re‐assignment of all Upper School students, both boarders and day students across all houses in the Upper School so that every house, including Seaton’s and Wedd’s, is populated with a balanced cohort of day/boarders. This effectively makes Seaton’s and Wedds’ into equivalent ‘paper houses’ just like all the other present day‐student houses. This increases the quality and quantity of day student/boarder interaction and relationship‐ building. We propose that boarders will have locker space in the Upper School along with the rest of the school. b. Second, all boarders will become members of our existing school‐ wide model of regular advising groups, (a system of house‐based small discussion group support implemented in 2001‐2002) which meet semi‐weekly and through which much of the broader non‐ academic curriculum is delivered to day boys at present. Each of these groups (and the houses themselves) will be about 85% day and 15% boarding. We believe this is a fundamental step to ensuring a more egalitarian experience for boarders, as well as improved relationship potential for day/boarders, and, most important, for the benefit of each boarder’s presence at UCC to be experienced more broadly throughout the school. c. Additionally, we propose other tactics to foster connectivity like day‐ boarder exchanges (preferably within grades); day students spending weekends in boarding throughout the school for a week at a time; assigning boarders locker space in the Upper School main building;

15

iv. Space

The boarding residence buildings, built in the early 1930’s, have been neglected for many years. Indeed, they have not been significantly renovated or updated since they were built. The need to address their state of disrepair has been identified by many external and internal assessment reports in the last 5‐10 years ₆ , and was a focal point of the Boarding Task Force report.

While we do not see facility quality as a vital driver of overall boarding excellence, we believe that renovations are imperative immediately. This involves some reconfiguration as well as updates to the mechanical systems, roofing, furnishings and greater attention to overall security.

We believe the boarding residences should be comfortable, clean, well‐appointed and modern, i.e. up to date. We favour maintaining the historical façade of the brick buildings but recognize that the present floor plan is outdated and the heating, plumbing and ventilation systems are old and inefficient.

We also recognize that our proposed model – small ‘family style’ residential units of 15‐ 20 boys with a residence head and a residential assistant – will work optimally if the residence facility design enables these small groups to live together closely. We therefore prefer a facility model that enables this by the configuration of rooms and common spaces, with units connected vertically or horizontally.

Our final report in April will contain schematics for proposed renovation of the boarding facility and cost estimates associated with this. We recognize that the College’s ability to achieve facility renewal is directly tied to our ability to secure private funding from key stakeholders and partners in the community.

We also recognize that an excellent facility, while a secondary driver to a high‐calibre boarding experience, can be a powerful recruitment tool and we know we need to improve our facility in order to be competitive in the marketplace internationally.

We therefore propose the following:

16 i. Reconfigure the interior of the current boarding facility to accomplish the ‘small residence unit’ notion of student/teacher groups. ii. Improve and increase the number and quality of apartment homes for faculty and residential assistants in the two main residence halls. This would result in having 2 x 4 bedroom homes, 2 x 2 bedroom homes, and 4 x 1 bedroom apartments in the current boarding space. iii. Each small unit should have a modest, comfortable common space for recreation (including hosting guests) and with a kitchenette (small fridge, sink, microwave, coffee maker etc and storage) and an adjoining small office. iv. Improvements must be made to washroom facilities: showers, stalls, sinks, toilets. v. Improve building infrastructure with new windows, ventilation, plumbing, electrical and heat where needed, in as much as possible, in an environmentally sustainable manner. vi. Include common study spaces with internet access, appropriate furnishings. vii. Ensure security and safety but also make sure access points are readily available to enter and exit broader school. viii. It is important that the ‘small unit’ spaces be connected to each other wherever possible, for freedom of movement between residential units for all students and faculty. ix. To the greatest degree possible, bedrooms should be doubles or singles and should have appropriate study and storage space as well as flexible furnishings (desks, beds, and shelving) so that students have options with regard to room set‐up and optimal space planning can be achieved while accommodating personal preferences. Wherever possible, we favour a model that enables senior students to have single rooms. x. Overall interior design must create a warm, welcoming, comfortable environment with simple but well‐appointed furnishings. xi. In order to maintain the capacity of the boarding residences while achieving these changes (particularly (i) (ii) and (iii)), and allowing for program expansion, we recommend constructing an addition to the current boarding ‘U’. It would house an additional residence unit with the aforementioned elements, a 3 bedroom faculty home, a one bedroom residential assistant apartment and adaptable washroom facilities.

Other Elements of Boarding Renewal:

The model on page 3 shows four internal working teams or groups: residential life program, fundraising, recruitment advisory committee and facility renewal committee. The work of the facility renewal has been slowest to progress because fundamentally the LRP has been committed to ensuring decisions about program drove facility functionality. The nature of the ‘future’ program has already been articulated in this report.

17 Now we have a clear sense of what that looks like our facility design team is working on options and costs. These will be included in the final LRP report to the Board in April. The other two working groups are related to fundraising and recruitment.

Fundraising

There will be three key priorities for private funding of boarding renewal:

1. Student financial aid (endowed and expendable) 2. Program enhancement (operating and salary costs) 3. Facility renewal (capital costs)

Of these, we recognize that the latter will be the highest overall cost.

Since September 2008, the Advancement office and Principal have concluded between 30‐45 consultative 1:1 meetings to cultivate and engage alumni and parents who the College believes have a high degree of inclination to support boarding revitalization at a leadership level, and also have the philanthropic capacity to make gifts in the range of $50,000 to $1 million+.

We continue to identify and research prospects (over 70 individuals to date), cultivate relationships and assess candidates for the leadership gift component of what will be a public campaign for boarding in 2009‐’10 targeted primarily to UCC alumni, boarding parents and past parents and other boarding advocates.

Once the final plan is approved by the Board, the Advancement office will develop a campaign ‘case for support’ and an itemized list of naming opportunities related to the facilities plans. We may also have a short‐term goal of expendable student financial aid, in light of the current economy and related difficulty with endowment fundraising. Our major gift fundraising will be conducted across multiple markets, but primarily, Toronto, New York, Montreal and key Asian cities. The broader campaign will target individuals on a world‐wide basis through direct mail and other select activities.

As well, we have enlisted the nucleus of a Boarding Campaign Cabinet, including 12‐15 individuals who are passionate advocates for boarding revitalization. The primary mandate of this group will be to act as public ambassadors for the Boarding Campaign, assist with fundraising activity and help development staff with meeting presentations and other related activity.

In the April report, we will propose a campaign goal based on the final cost of overall boarding revitalization.

18 Student Recruitment

In fall 2008, the College’s Advancement office began identifying individuals to join a new Recruitment Advisory Committee which met for the first time in October. This committee now has 15 members, from Eastern and Western Canada, Quebec, Hong Kong, New York, Toronto and the United Kingdom.

We also began tracking individuals who self‐identified an interest in helping with boarding recruiting and a database of these people is presently being formed. In January 2009, UCC hired Struan Robertson to be our first Executive Director of Student Recruitment and he now oversees both a new worldwide recruitment effort for boarding, as well as the daily operation of our Toronto‐based admissions team. He will Chair the Recruitment Advisory Committee.

In the near to medium term, it will be the aim of the recruitment staff to assess the current boarding student body and, moreover, to assess each leaving class according to our proposed quality model criteria. Every new boarder we admit and/or recruit must be a strong, well‐rounded candidate who will add a dimension to the boarding community.

Short‐term recruitment strategy and a long‐term plan will be developed over the next two months, with continued effort in existing markets and new focus on the following:

i. Effective use of Old Boy and parent volunteers ii. Building an effective network of the above iii. Full‐fee paying Canadian boarders iv. Addressing the issue of whether we can successfully recruit in Canada v. Analyzing and identifying emerging markets like the Middle East, Russia, South American and India. vi. A developed program of financial aid ‘tools’, including marketing tactics for scholarships which can leverage attractive applicants and raise the profile of UCC as a boarding destination for boys Grade 9‐12.

What has changed in boarding life this school year?

Incremental improvements have been made to the boarding program beginning in September 2008 that continues from the fall to winter term. These are listed below:

Fall Term (September – December 2008)

i. Weekend Programming: An augmented program offering included community service activity, co‐ed dinner dances with Havergal and BSS, excursions to Norval with outdoor education and themed extracurricular activity and field

19 trips. While there are social options every weekend, boys are required to participate in only a subset throughout any given term. ii. Parent Communication: Monthly meetings with overseas parents began in October using Skype ™ technology. These sessions address successes, challenges, news and goals, as well as answer questions, and complement the e‐ newsletter to boarder families Boarding Life that gives news and views from Seaton’s and Wedd’s and helps families get a sense of what’s happening in their sons’ daily lives. We increased the distribution of this e‐newsletter from 2 to 6 issues this year. iii. Staff Support: Last year we introduced an augmented residential advising staff with a doubling of dons. We now have four dons for both houses, in addition to the two Heads, Brent MacKay (Seaton’s) and Andrew Turner (Wedd’s). This means there is now adult supervision on every floor. iv. Duty and Care: New house rules were introduced around respect for common space, personal space and study habits related to technology and computers. v. Day/Boarder Integration: In September we carved out dedicated “free space” for day boys to do short‐term stints with the boarders and assigned an IB2 student as an official Boarder/Day Boy Exchange Coordinator. (Since September Seaton’s and Wedd’s hosted 8 day students for a full week in boarding.) vi. Student Workload Review: We began a process of reviewing boarder workloads at each grade level to increase sensitivity to transitional change and adjustment to new living circumstances, especially for new boarders. Additional academic coaching and other support is being provided to those who need it. The Wernham & West Centre for Learning is actively involved assisting almost half of the boarding community as they transition to UCC. vii. Community Involvement: We invited members of the UCC community to give feedback on boarding or self‐identify willingness to be involved as a volunteer through a new email address called [email protected]. Over 50 people have participated in that communication since September. We also sent a communication to all boarding alumni, current boarding parents and parents of boarding alumni in November that shared a preliminary draft of a new blueprint for boarding renewal and asked for feedback and comment.

Winter Term (January – present)

In addition to the continued enhancement of weekend programs for boarders, many of which are also being promoted to day students, boarding faculty have committed to increasing their focus on the boys by having regular individual meetings, group meetings, and meals with the students for whom they are responsible. In addition, they will have regular communications to all of their advisees’ parents. These steps, a significant change from past practice, are a transition step towards the new model of smaller units.

20 Conclusion

The directions and goals expressed in this interim report were agreed by the Long Range Planning Committee and represent the work of management sub‐committees listed earlier over the last five months. While there are varied views among members of the committee related to each of these areas of boarding renewal, the members have come together to support this vision for UCC boarding.

It is the goal of this committee to have a full report for the Board of Governors that includes marketing/recruiting plans and proposed residential life facility redesign, including architectural plans and costs. From this, management will develop a 5‐year operational plan that will address all elements of transformation including transitional approaches for new program introduction, staffing changes and facility construction.

We look forward to completing this work by April 2009 and submitting it in time for the April Board of Governors meeting.

21 Endnotes:

1. During the period December 2007 to May 2008, the Boarding Task Force conducted research into best practice among boarding schools in Canada and overseas. A list of those consulted follows: Lakefield College, Branksome Hall, St. John’s Ravenscourt, Anglican Grammar School (Brisbane), Brisbane Grammar School, Christchurch Grammar School (Perth), Shore School (Sydney), Dulwich College (London, U.K.), St. John’s College (Johannesburg) Also, the LRP Committee conducted site visits to Groton School (Massachusetts, USA), Woodbury College, Lakefield College, St. Andrew’s College, Fay Academy and Rugby School (UK).

2. Boarding Task Force Report (May 2008) page 8.

3. “Both the demand for boarding schools and the overall quality of the applicants has been in decline for many years. According to the data we gleaned from Peterson’s Private Secondary Schools – data that was self‐reported by each school – there was an 11 percent drop in boarding students between 1987 and 1998 – a decline that occurred despite a robust economy. Schools running counter to these trends are those perceived as truly excellent, such as Andover, Exeter, Groton, etc.; schools that have included in their programs support for students with learning issues or other special needs; and those with niche programs in the arts, athletics, etc. Some institutions that do not fall into the aforementioned categories – Northfield Mount Hermon, for example – are downsizing in order to maintain the quality of the student body. Many schools are expanding the proportion of day students they admit. Even the most prestigious schools have seen the outstanding day schools siphon off many of their talented applicants. The real competition for boarding schools these days is not peer boarding schools, but the high‐quality independent day and public schools that have flourished in affluent areas around the country.” from “Creating the Future: New Challenges for Boarding Schools by Jim Wickenden, Wickenden and Associates (www.wickenden.com)

4. Trends in Admissions, Finances, Affordability and Marketing by Patrick Bassett, President, National Association of Independent Schools, 2005. Also, from “Boarding Schools Face New Hurdle: Mom and Dad” [Wall Street Journal, July 2006] “While enrolment at private day schools is booming, boarding schools are seeing little or no growth. Boarding school enrolment stands at 39,000 for the 2004‐5 school year, and has barely budged in five years according to NAIS. Enrolment grew 2.7% over the last 10 years vs. 15% for private day schools.”

5. From “UCC Enrolment and Marketing: A Way Forward” by Philip J. Jarvis, Educational Marketing Consultant, December 2001.

6. Site Visit Report – Carol Hotchkiss (February 2001) and Perspectives on the Future of Boarding at UCC by James W. Wickenden (October 2006)

22 Appendix A FAQ for Community (February 2009)

Q: What is the rationale behind the reconfiguration of the staffing/student care model in boarding?

• The current boarding model is based on the way British boarding schools were organized in the 1950s with a housemaster overseeing students in large dorm‐ style residences. In today’s market, and in the UCC context (a small boarding program within a large urban high school), this care delivery model is less than effective. • Today’s boarding parents, like all parents, expect a high degree of care and attention to students through 1:1 relationships and a high adult: student ratio of supervision on a regular basis. Changing our staffing model to achieve a ‘family style’ series of smaller advising units within the overall boarding community maximizes this type of engagement between faculty advisor and each boy. • The move to smaller advising units correlates strongly to an overall commitment to greater individual attention to each boy at UCC, which is mission‐driven and also aligned with the long term Strategic Plan objective to be a school where we balance the outstanding range of experiences that a large school offers with a ‘small school feel’. This ‘small school feel’ must be evidenced in boarding culture and program structure.

Q: Why is day student/boarder integration an issue?

• Every report on boarding in the last 5‐10 years as well as student surveys indicated that the lack of integration between day and boarding students posed issues, operationally and experientially, and was a detractor in the current model. • All three past Principals of UCC who were interviewed by the Boarding Task Force during 2007‐8 cited day/boarder integration as a challenge that needed to be addressed. It was also a key recommendation of the Task Force Report in 2008. • Current boarding students have flagged this issue in the past as one which could, if addressed, improve the boarding experience. • If one believes that boarding is a benefit to the College beyond the experience of the boarders themselves, then ensuring that there is a high degree of ‘surface interaction’ between boarder and day student brings that benefit – i.e. the exposure to a diverse range of talents and nationalities – to the maximum number of overall UCC students.

23 • The more intensively boarders ‘integrate’ into the Upper School, the greater their opportunity to make local, Toronto‐based friendships and associations – which ought to be an outcome/benefit of their own UCC experience. • Integration across all aspects of the program increases the points of affinity boarders have with adults and students beyond the confines of boarding – and this extends to day families, day parents, and day faculty. This leverages boarding’s value school‐wide and intensifies the value of boarding in our community for a greater number of individuals.

Q: What is the rationale for the move to change Seaton’s and Wedd’s from a residence house to an integrated ‘paper house’ like the day houses?

• With a strong consensus that full integration with day boy population should be a pillar for the revitalized program, the LRP committee weighed two options: a) Maintain Seaton’s and Wedd’s as residence houses facility space names and integrate boarders into current day house system (making day houses bigger or creating two new houses) or b) Keep Seaton’s and Wedd’s as equal houses that will henceforth have day and boarding student members. We opted for B. • Houses are a means by which students develop affinity and relationship within the Upper School community of 700 students. A house name and identity have more to do with culture, camaraderie, tradition and spirit than any physical space. • Long‐term, recasting Seaton’s and Wedd’s into ‘paper’ houses offers the greater way of preserving the heritage of those houses and the importance of the names of William Wedd (head boy in 1843 and classics master 1850‐91) and Lord Seaton (the College’s founder). It also means that the legacy of Seaton’s and Wedd’s, though different through time, can be preserved across generations. This is not the case were Seaton’s and Wedd’s to become mere ‘place names’ without affinity/association attached. • In this model, legacy day students could potentially have the opportunity to join their Seaton’s or Wedd’s father or grandfather’s house.

Q: What is the rationale for increased financial aid to boarding students?

• The domestic market in particular, offers challenges to recruitment. Available merit based and needs based scholarships and bursaries are an important recruitment tool for UCC to be competitive with inquiries and applications and selective with offers of admission. We want to enhance our pool of applicants as we believe firmly that the calibre of the student body in boarding is a significant driver to excellent boarding program quality overall.

24 • Increased financial aid is a component of the College’s long term Strategic Plan and the desirability for increased boarding financial aid dovetails with its objectives.

Q: How will you know if these operational changes to boarding will be successful? How will you measure success over time?

• We will measure success differently over time but goals will be set for enrolment and recruitment, quality of student experience and staff performance which we will track over the transitional phase to the new model, as well as ongoing. Inputs will come from our admissions efforts, success in securing private funding, the number of parents and alumni involved in boarding renewal (through recruitment, fundraising and other activity) as well as parent and student satisfaction survey data and our yield of inquiries to applications for enrolment.

Q: We’ve heard about the College’s plans to develop dedicated physical space for a Middle School for Grade 7, 8, 9’s. Will the boarding houses be affected by this?

• No. The boarding facility will remain a dedicated space for boarding students and the accommodation for an ‘intermediate division’ space will happen in the main Upper School building.

25