Minutes (Yy-Mm-Dd) 07-11-28 & 30

Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Regular Meeting

November 28 and 30, 2007

A regular meeting was convened at 4:40 p.m. on Wednesday, November 28, 2007, in the Board- room, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, with Sheila Ward, Chair of the Board, presiding. Chris Bol- ton, Vice-Chair, presided from time to time throughout the meeting.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Nadia Bello, Chris Bolton, John Campbell, Sheila Cary-Meagher, Shaun Chen, Michael Coteau, Gary Crawford, Cathy Dandy, Bruce Davis, Gerri Gershon, Howard Goodman, Scott Harrison, John Hastings, Josh Matlow, James Pasternak, Stephnie Payne, Maria Rodrigues, Mari Rutka, Chris Tonks, Sheila Ward, Soo Wong, and Student Trustees Aurelija Jusyte and Gerald Mak. Trustees Bolton, Cary-Meagher, Chen, Coteau, Crawford, Davis, Gershon, Pasternak, Payne and Wong participated for part of the meeting by electronic means.

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

At 4:40 p.m., on a motion by Trustee Harrison, seconded by Trustee Rutka, the regular meeting resolved into Committee of the Whole (Private Session) to consider matters on the private agenda of the Committee of the Whole. 261. Reconvene At 6:55 p.m., the regular meeting reconvened. 262. Committee of the Whole (Private), Report No. 15, November 28 and 30, 2007 (see page 1161) Trustee Goodman, seconded by Trustee Rutka, moved: That Report No. 15 of the Committee of the Whole (Private) be adopted. The motion was carried. 263. Recess and Reconvene

At 6:55 p.m., on a motion of Trustee Payne, seconded by Trustee Atkinson, the meeting recessed and reconvened at 7:50 p.m.

264. Possible Conflicts of Interest

Trustees Atkinson, Cary-Meagher, Pasternak and Payne declared possible conflicts of interest re negotiations matters on Report No. 15 of the Committee of the Whole (Private) as:

(a) Trustees Atkinson and Cary-Meagher have daughters who are members of OSSTF;

(b) Trustee Payne has a daughter who is a member of CUPE, Local 4400;

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1153 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Trustees Atkinson, Cary-Meagher, Pasternak and Payne were not present during the private discussion on the matters for which they declared possible conflicts of interest and did not participate in the discussion or voting on these matters in public.

Trustee Davis declared a possible conflict of interest re Item 2 (William Lyon Mackenzie C.I. Renewable Energy Project) of Report No. 8 of the Operations and Facilities Management Com- mittee as has a client in the energy conservation business. Trustee Davis did not participate in the discussion or vote on the matter.

265. Elementary Arts-based Curriculum School at Crestwood

During discussion the of approval of the agenda (below), Trustee Harrison, seconded by Trustee Pasternak, moved in amendment: That reconsideration of the Board’s decision of October 30, 2007, re elementary art-based curriculum school at the Crestwood site in the Southwest 1 area be determined immediately. The amendment was carried.

Therefore, Trustee Harrison, seconded by Trustee Pasternak, moved: That the Board’s decision of October 30, 2007, re elementary art-based curriculum school at the Crestwood site in the Southwest 1 area be reconsidered. The motion was defeated on a recorded vote (see Recorded Vote 57, page 1160). 266. Deferral of Agenda Item

During discussion the of approval of the agenda (below), Trustee Matlow, seconded by Trustee Goodman, moved: That consideration of Item 7 (Providing Equality and Student Choice Within the Public Education System) of Report No. 7 (Part 2) of the Program and School Services Committee, be postponed to January 2008. The motion was carried. 267. Approval of the Agenda

Trustee Atkinson, seconded by Trustee Rutka, moved: That the agenda be approved.

Trustee Bolton, seconded by Trustee Harrison, moved in amendment: That the activity report on the trip to China be postponed to the next regular meeting. The amendment was carried.

Trustee Harrison, seconded by Trustee Pasternak, moved in amendment: That Report No. 8 of the Operations and Facilities Management Committee be considered after Reports From the Board’s Representatives on Other Organizations. The amendment was carried.

1154 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Trustee Rutka, seconded by Trustee Goodman, moved in amendment: That an item of new business be added concerning priorities among staff reports that have been requested by the Board and considered after the staff reports. The amendment was carried by a majority of the Board (12 or more votes) in accordance with Bylaw 10.7.

Trustee Atkinson, seconded by Trustee Rodrigues, moved in amendment: That Report No. 8 of the Program and School Services Committee be considered after the matter of new business. The amendment was defeated. Approval of the agenda was completed upon reconvening the meeting on November 30, 2007. 268. Recess and Reconvene

At 8 p.m., during discussion of approval of the agenda (above), on a motion of Payne, seconded by Trustee Atkinson, the meeting recessed and reconvened at 9:10 p.m.

269. Africentric Alternative School

With the permission of the meeting, staff gave an oral report on the process being undertaken to bring forward a proposal for an Africentric alternative school and undertook to present the report to the Board in January 2008.

Trustee Atkinson, seconded by Trustee Cary-Meagher, moved: That a special meeting be held in January 2008 for the purpose of considering the matter of an Africentric alternative school.

The motion was carried.

Trustee Atkinson, seconded by Trustee Rodrigues, moved: That Trustee Payne work with staff who are preparing the staff report re an Africentric alternative school.

The motion was carried.

270. Recess and Reconvene

At 9:20 p.m., on Wednesday, November 28, 2007, on a motion of Atkinson, seconded by Trustee Campbell, the meeting recessed and reconvened at 11:40 a.m. on Friday, November 30, 2007.

271. Approval of the Agenda (continued)

Upon reconvening, the Chair presented a plan for approval of the agenda and for consideration of the remainder of the items.

Trustee Rutka, seconded by Trustee Crawford, moved: That the revised agenda as presented by the Chair be approved.

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1155 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

The motion was carried.

272. Consent Agenda

Trustee Rutka, seconded by Trustee Crawford, moved:

(a) That the following items be approved or received as appropriate;

(i) Confirmation of the Minutes for the Meeting Held on October 24 and 30, 2007

(ii) Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 7, October 24, 2007 (see page 1163)

2 Safe Drinking Water 3 Planning for Possible All-day Kindergarten and Grades 4-8 Class Size Cap 4 Community and College Satellite Campuses in Ward 5, York Centre

(iii) Communication From the Toronto Pedestrian Committee, dated October 16, 2007, re Appointment of a Board Representative

Note: Later in the meeting, the Board appointed Trustees Matlow to serve on the City of Toronto’s Toronto Pedestrian Committee.

(iv) Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 8, November 12, 2007 (see page 1167)

1 Membership (page 25)

(v) Human Resources Committee, Report No. 8, November 7, 2007 (see page 1177)

1 Learning Opportunities Index Review [1176]

(vi) Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, No- vember 7, 2007 (see page 1187)

1 Contract Awards (10-07-1179) 2 English as a Second Language Increased Expenditures (10-07-1177) 3 Musical Instrument Inventory Update (10-07-1166) 4 Revision of Purchasing Policy (P. 017) to Include Green and Eco-friendly Considerations

(vii) Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 8, November 14, 2007 (see page 1226)

3 Program Area Review Team (PART): Timothy Eaton BTI [1183]

1156 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

4 Program Area Review Team (PART): Samuel Hearne Senior Public School [1184] 5 Program Area Review Team (PART): Seneca School [1187] 6 French Immersion and Extended French Annual Reports

(viii) Audit Committee, Report No. 6, November 7, 2007 (For receipt) (see page 1233)

(ix) Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 8, November 21, 2007 (see page 1234)

1 Facilities Contract Awards (11-07-1185) 2 William Lyon Mackenzie C. I., Renewable Energy Project (11-07-1186)1 3 Pupil Accommodation Review Process: Bendale BTI-David and Mary Thomson CI (11-07-1197) 4 Architect Selection: Kennedy Public School and Highfield Junior School Additions (11-07-1190) 5 Boyne River Outdoor Education Centre Feasibility Study, R.R. 4, Shel- bourne (10-07-1171)

Note: Later in the meeting, the Board appointed Trustees Bolton and Gershon to work with Artscape through the feasibility process.

6 Community and Organic Gardens (Trustee Rutka)

(x) Priorities Among Staff Reports

Whereas, the Board needs to be able to make well-informed decisions regarding both its short-term annual budget goals and its long-term system goals; and

Whereas, all other decisions will be affected by these two matters; and

Whereas, it is critically important that trustees have the data and information necessary for discussions that will shape the short-term annual budget goals and the long-term system goals,

Therefore, be it resolved:

1. That staff be directed to consider the provision of data and information related to budget and system priorities to be of the highest priority and that with the exception of time-sensitive urgent matters all other staff report that are being prepared be considered of secondary importance

1 Adopted on a separate vote. Trustee Davis did not participate in the vote on the matter.

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1157 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

2. That no additional requests for staff reports be requested until January 30, 2008, with the exception of time-sensitive and/or urgent matters.

(b) That a trustee be appointed to serve on the City of Toronto’s Pedestrian Committee;

(c) That the item listed for consideration on December 3, 2007, be deferred to the organizational meeting scheduled for December 3, 2007;

(d) That the items listed for consideration on December 12, 2007, be deferred to the regular meeting scheduled for December 12, 2007;

Trustee Gershon, seconded by Trustee Atkinson, moved in amendment: That consideration of part of Report No. 8 of the Special Education Advisory Committee related to the impacts of Bills 52 and 212 on Support Services be postponed to December 12, 2007.

The amendment was carried.

The main motion, as amended, was carried.

273. Written Notices of Bylaw Revisions

The following written notices of bylaw revisions were presented:

• Standing Committees and System Planning and Integration Committee (Trustee Rutka) • Executive Committee (Trustee Hastings)

274.

275. Written Notices of Motion

The following written notices of motion for consideration at a future meeting were given:

• Supports for Safe Schools (Trustee Rutka) • Informal Discussions at Standing and Permanent Committee Meetings (Trustee Rutka) • Submission to Provincial Government re Budget (Trustee Gershon)

276. Deferred Agenda Items

Trustee Rutka, seconded by Trustee Crawford, moved: That consideration of the balance of the agenda be postponed as follows:

(a) Consideration of the following item was deferred to the organizational meeting scheduled for December 3, 2007 Schedule of Meetings for Regular Board and Standing Committees, 2008

(b) Consideration of the following items was deferred to the regular meeting scheduled for December 12, 2007

1158 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

(i) Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 7 (Part 2), October 17, 2007 8 Youth Gambling 9 Establishment of Special Health Committee 10 All-day Kindergarten

(ii) Initial Results From Student Census

(iii) Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10 (Part 2), November 7, 2007 5 Communications and Public Affairs Plan

(iv) Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 8 (Part 2), Novem- ber 14, 2007

1 System Review: Continuing Education [1178] 2 Placement in Senior Kindergarten French Immersion [1182]

(v) Written Notices of Motion

Improving Communications Between Trustees and the Public (Trus- tee Pasternak) Hiring Practices (Trustee Hastings) Safe Schools Partners (Trustee Hastings)

The motion was carried.

277. Adjournment

At 12:10 a.m., Friday, November 30, 2007, on a motion of Trustee Cary-Meagher, seconded by Trustee Gershon, the meeting adjourned.

Sheila Ward Chair

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1159 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Recorded Votes Summary

TRUSTEE TOTALS

Absent (A) Con-

s Yeas Nays flict

nk (Y) (N) (C) o Recorded Vote Number Minute Page Atkinson Bello Bolton Campbell Cary-Meagher Chen Coteau Crawford Dandy Davis Gershon Goodman Harrison Hastings Matlow Pasternak Payne Rodrigues Rutka T Ward Wong 57 1154 N A Y N N N N N N N N N Y A N A N N N N N N 2 17 3

1160 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Committee of the Whole (Private), Report No. 15, November 28 and 30, 2007

Committee of the Whole (Private) Report No. 15

November 28 and 30, 2007 A regular meeting of the Committee of the Whole (Private Session) was convened at 4:40 p.m., Wednesday, November 28 and 30, 2007, in the Boardroom at 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, On- tario with Chris Bolton, Vice-Chair, presiding.

1. Toronto Lands Corporation: Appointments of Citizen, Non-trustee Members

The Committee considered a memorandum from the Stewardship of Capital Assets Working Group.

The Committee of the Whole (Private) RECOMMENDS that the following people be appointed to serve as citizen, non-trustee members of the Toronto Lands Corporation’s Board of Directors:

Hugh Heron Annie Kidder Jane Marshall Jane Pepino

2. Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10 (Part 1) (Private), November 7, 2007

The Committee of the Whole (Private) RECOMMENDS that Report No.10 (Private) of the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee (as attached to the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole) be adopted.

3. Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 8 (Private), No- vember 21, 2007

The Committee of the Whole (Private) RECOMMENDS that Report No. 8 (Private) of the Op- erations and Facilities Management Committee (as attached to the private minutes of the Com- mittee of the Whole) be adopted, including:

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1161 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Committee of the Whole (Private), Report No. 15, November 28 and 30, 2007

Disposition Of Surplus Real Property: Carleton Village South, 2054 Davenport Road, Ward 9 [1192]

That recommendations concerning the disposition of surplus property at Carleton Village South (as attached to the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole) be approved.

4. Negotiations Steering Committee, Report No. 2 (Private), November 14, 2007

The Committee of the Whole (Private) RECOMMENDS that Report No.2 (Private) of the Ne- gotiations Steering Committee (as attached to the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole) be received.

5. Supervisory Officer Selection Process, 2007-08

The Committee considered a staff report (on file in the Director’s office) concerning the supervisory officer selection process for 2006-07.

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that the following candidates to be added to the qualified applicant pool of supervisory officers:

• Ian Allison • Anne Marie Appleby • Glenford Duffus • Colleen Russell • Jim Spyropoulos

Chris Bolton Chair of the Committee

Adopted November 28 and 30, 2007

1162 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 7 (Part 2), October 24, 2007

Operations and Facilities Management Committee

Report No. 7 (Part 2)

October 24, 2007

A regular meeting of the Operations and Facilities Management Committee convened on Wednesday, October 24, 2007, from 4:40 to 7:45 p.m., in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Trustee Mari Rutka presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Mari Rutka (Chair), Sheila Cary-Meagher, Cathy Dandy, Scott Harrison, and Soo Wong. Also present were Trustee Irene Atkinson, John Campbell, Josh Matlow, James Pasternak, Sheila Ward and Student Trustee Gerald Mak. Trus- tee Harrison participated by electronic means.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

1. Contract Awards, Facility Services [1170]

The matter was considered on October 30, 2007.

2. Safe Drinking Water The Committee considered a staff report (see page 1166) providing information on the issue of safe drinking water in schools and the applicable legislation and Ministry memoranda.

On a motion of Trustee Harrison, amended by Trustees Dandy and Wong, the Operations and Facilities Management Committee RECOMMENDS:

Whereas, there has been significant public attention on the issue of lead levels found in the Board’s school buildings; and

Whereas, in almost every reported case of elevated lead levels, the secondary test result reported acceptable levels; and

Whereas, unnecessary public alarm and panic on the safety of school buildings should be mini- mized when there is not a just cause for concern; and

O. Reg. 243/07, Schools, Private Schools and Day Nurseries, (of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 requires samplings taken from schools be conducted between June 15 and August 15, when schools are unoccupied resulting in wildly inaccurate assessments of the water supply condition in the Board’s buildings and has unnecessarily garnered adverse public attention;

Therefore, be it resolved:

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1163 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 7 (Part 2), October 24, 2007

(a) That joint communication from the Chair of the Board and the Chair of the Operations and Facilities Management Committee be sent to the Minister of the Environment:

(i) requesting that a review of O. Reg. 243/07, Schools, Private Schools and Day Nurs- eries, (of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002) be completed by the end of June 2008;

(ii) requesting that the Toronto District School Board be engaged at the review table;

(iii) outlining concerns that samples are being taken from schools between June 15 and August 15 when schools are unoccupied which is not based on scientific methodology and could result in inaccurate assessments of water conditions during school usage;

(b) That a communications strategy be developed to inform the public.

Trustee Dandy added Part (b) on amendment. Trustee Wong amended Part (iii) by adding “which is not based on scientific methodology.

3. Planning for Possible All-day Kindergarten and Grades 4-8 Class Size Cap On a motion of Trustee Harrison, the Operations and Facilities Management Committee REC- OMMENDS:

Whereas, the Board as one of the largest land-owners in the city of Toronto has a responsibility to ensure its capital assets are managed and utilized always with the best interest of its constitu- ents as a primary focus; and

Whereas, the actions of the provincial government have a direct impact on the operation of public school boards; and

Whereas, the current and recently re-elected provincial Liberal government has made a commitment to explore the implementation of all-day Kindergarten; and

Whereas, on June 27, 2007, the Board received a staff report titled “Capital Inventory Projec- tions and Analysis” and decided to submit a document prepared to Watson and Associates to the Ministry of Education;

Therefore, be it resolved that staff reassess the document prepared by Watson and Associates that was considered by the Board in June 2007, obtain the most recent information on the plans of the Ministry of Education, and present a report in January 2008 evaluating the potential impact of the following with regards to the recommendations outlined in the Watson and Associates report:

(i) all-day Kindergarten;

(ii) class size cap for Grades 4 to 8.

1164 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 7 (Part 2), October 24, 2007

4. Community and College Satellite Campuses in Ward 5, York Centre On a motion of Trustee Pasternak, amended by Trustee Cary-Meagher, the Operations and Fa- cilities Management Committee RECOMMENDS:

Whereas, community colleges and universities across Ontario are actively seeking locations to establish satellite campuses; and

Whereas, secondary schools in Ward 5 and surrounding wards are graduating students who are looking for a local post-secondary education solution; and

Whereas, Ward 5 is facing increasing challenges encouraging post-secondary education participation in its priority areas; and

Whereas, opportunities exist for such an initiative on existing Board properties in Ward 5, nota- bly in the Bathurst-Finch area; and

Whereas, harmonizing the curriculum of a local high school with a local post-secondary satellite campus can increase post-secondary participation rates;

Therefore, be it resolved:

That the following be considered by the planning, budgeting, program revitalization, capital planning, and asset management workgroup (the System Integration Working Group) that was established on August 29, 2007:

That staff present a report in January 2008 including recommendations on how best to draft and distribute a Request for Proposal to interested community colleges and universities that might wish to establish satellite campuses in a Board facility, after:

(i) reviewing the current literature provided by Trustee Pasternak;

(ii) identifying sites for potential community college or university satellite campuses;

(iii) taking into consideration the locations of Continuing Education programs;

(iv) sending letters of interest to Ontario’s colleges and universities. B: Information Only No matters to report Part C: Ongoing Matters No matters to report Mari Rutka Chair of the Committee Adopted November 28 and 30, 2007

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1165 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 7 (Part 2), October 24, 2007 Safe Drinking Water

Safe Drinking Water

As presented to the Operations and Facilities Management Committee on November 21, 2007 (see page 1163).

To date results from 458 of the Board’s schools has been received. From this there were five schools on bottled water. As of October 15, 2007 the five schools received a second successful set of test results indicating that their drinking water had acceptable levels of lead below the Ministry of Environment’s standards. Results for the remaining 94 schools should be received this week or early next week. No more than a couple more cases of schools requiring bottled water are expected. T he first few schools that were put on bottled water were retested quickly and were cleared. Additional testing is now required that will prolong the use of bottled water in some locations.

Of the schools that were on bottled water, four were elementary schools, and one was secondary.

The Ministry will reimburse boards for the full cost of the bottled water. The Board’s account- ing staff will be tracking this expenditure information and billing the Ministry quarterly. The cost for two schools that have submitted invoices so far are fairly minimal.

The Ministry has not acknowledged reimbursement for any other cost associated with this requirement. For the Board, the other costs include:

• Water Analysis – estimated cost of $50,000 • Consultant Fees - $10,000 • Caretaker Time for sample collection of samples (30 min / day / school) • Cost of Flushed Water = cost of water and cost of sewage usage (utilities) • Health and Safety Staff time on issue

For the Board’s decision see page 1163.

1166 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 8, November 12, 2007

Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 8

November 12, 2007

A meeting of the Special Education Advisory Committee was convened on Monday, November 12, 2007 at 7:00 p.m., in the Boardroom, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Christina Buczek presiding.

The following committee members were present: Loris Bennett, Scott Bridges, Christina Buc- zek, Richard Carter, Merle Fedirchuk, Dr. Norm Forman, Clovis Grant, Cheryl Hampson, Mar- garita Isakov, Susan Musgrave, Krystyna Ross, Rebecca Rycroft, Ann Szabo and Trustees Scott Harrison, John Hastings and James Pasternak.

Regrets were received from Elizabeth Fisher, Paula Surdin and Ann Martindale.

1. Presentation

Minister’s Advisory Council on Special Education (MACSE)

SEAC heard a presentation from Robert Stones, Chair of the Minister’s Advisory Council on Special Education, and member representing Ontario Principals. Mr. Stones reported that MACSE:

• comprises of provincial parent associations, professions, trustees and educator groups, students/youth, aboriginal, catholic and francophone communities and non-voting ministry representatives; • seeks to advise the Minister of Education on the provision of special education programs and services and the identification and provision of early intervention programs. It re- sponds to Ministry policy proposals or positions, raises concerns and promotes successful practices. MACSE also prepares an annual report and recommendations for the Minister; • members are responsible for providing feedback from various associations/stakeholders in their constituencies. • priorities and areas of focus for 2007-08 include: student performance management, knowledge transfer, secondary school policy, coordinated service delivery and special education funding MACSE is interested in receiving information about successful practices, issues or challenges reported by members’ constituencies. Member organizations and SEAC were invited to complete and return the Collaborating with the Community forms to Robert Stones at [email protected]. He will then present submissions at the next MACSE meeting November 2007. Christina Buczek undertook to compile, for SEAC’s information, all the forms submitted by member organizations.

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1167 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 8, November 12, 2007

2. Approval of the Agenda The following items of new business were added to the agenda. • Letter from VIEWS for the Visually Impaired re nomination of Tammy Simon • Letter of resignation from Trustee Harrison Richard Carter, seconded by Clovis Grant moved: That the agenda be approved. The motion was carried. 3. Confirmation of the Minutes The report from Tim Myrden, Coordinator, Deaf/Hard of Hearing providing an update on TOILS/Towards Optimizing Independence and Life Skills and presentation related to a Ministry memorandum to Directors, July 4, 2007re new ASL/LQ Regulation were added to the minutes and will be sent out to trustees in their information package. Susan Musgrave, seconded by Trustee Hastings moved: That the minutes of the SEAC meeting held on October 15, 2007 be confirmed as amended. The motion was carried. 4. Business Arising from the Minutes of October 15, 2007 (a) Alternative Gifted Congregated Program

System Superintendent Christopher Usih was unable to attend the meeting to present the policy and procedures to do with alternative school proposals.

(b) Nomination of VOICE Representatives The Board approved the appointments of Rebecca Rycroft and Diane Westgate as representative and alternate for VOICE for Hearing Impaired Children on the committee. Christina Buczek welcomed them to the table.

(c) Local SEAC Association Reports Discussion took place around the acquisition of a display board. Merle Fedirchuk undertook to bring to the next meeting, the display board currently used at workshops for SEAC displays.

(d) Informal Dispute Resolution and Mediation Processes for Special Education Programs and Services Members received copies of the resource guide, Shared Solutions: A Guide to Preventing and Resolving Conflicts regarding Programs and Services for Students with Special Education Needs.

(e) Request for the Establishment of a Subcommittee Dr. Norm Forman, seconded by Clovis Grant moved: That a subcommittee be struck to explore ways and means of raising the image and awareness of SEAC for parent groups and others, including special needs groups and organizations. The motion was carried.

Members interested in serving on the subcommittee should contact Dr. Forman by email and copy Christina Buczek.

1168 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 8, November 12, 2007

(f) Submission of Draft Dates for 2008 SEAC Meetings [Page 8], Item 12 (d) Trustee Hastings, seconded by Scott Bridges moved: That SEAC meetings for 2008 be scheduled as follows:

Monday, January 14, 2008 Monday, February 11, 2008 Monday, March 3, 2008 Monday, April 14, 2008 Monday, May 12, 2008 Monday, June 9, 2008 Monday, September 15, 2008 Monday, October 20, 2008 Monday, November 10, 2008 Monday, December 8, 2008

The motion was carried.

5. Correspondence received by the Chair (a) Janis Jaffe-White, Toronto Family Network (b) Request for delegation re Deaf and Hard of Hearing Program (c) Email re a private matter, November 13, 2007 (d) Director, VIEWS for the Blind and Visually Impaired, October 30, 2007 nominating Tammy Simon as the VIEWS representative on SEAC. Rebecca Rycroft, seconded by Scott Bridges, moved that Tammy Simon be accepted as the representative for VIEWS for the Blind and Visually Impaired on SEAC. The motion was carried.

Recommendation 1: Membership The Special Education Advisory Committee RECOMMENDS that Tammy Simon be appointed to serve on the Special Education Advisory Committee representing VIEWS for Blind and Visu- ally Impaired.

6. Executive Superintendent’s Report (a) Department Planning/Conference Next Steps

Staff met on October 19, 2007 to review the department plan and to review feasible next steps. Karen Gravitis met with Supervisory Officers on November 12, 2007 to examine programs to be initiated. Information about the projects, including lists of schools involved will be provided in January 2008.

(b) CODE Projects Update

Karen Gravitis spoke to the Attuning program, the implementation of which is funded by CODE.

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1169 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 8, November 12, 2007

The audit of the Special Education and Support Services Department is moving quickly, even as the requirements are huge and comprehensive. Staff is gathering information as requested by the audit team and this will be shared with SEAC. As part of the audit exercise, the team will visit two schools – one elementary and one secondary – to examine records and interview staff.

(d) Future of Developmentally Delayed Pathway in the North West

Karen spoke to the issue of the pathway for Seneca School graduates and others with high needs in the North West quadrant. Interim solutions put in place at Seneca School have proved inade- quate. To address the issues, the Program and School Services Committee (PSSC) will consider a staff report recommending the establishment of a Program Area Review Team (PART) for Se- neca School. Our report will be included in the minutes from PSSC to be presented to Board for approval on November 28, 2007.

(e) Demands for Special Education and Support Services from other Departments

Karen spoke to the challenges and demands on staff in meeting the needs of the system, including staff and students, in light of new regulations (Bill 212 and Bill 52) and in terms of reduced funding. Staff will examine actual needs based on IPRC and IEP information on a school-by- school basis. Resources will be assigned based on need and the requirements of new regulations like Bill 212 and Learning to 18. A committee of staff and trustees has also been established to examine the implications of new legislation as contained in Bills 212 and 52.

On a motion of Krystyna Ross, seconded by Richard Carter, SEAC moved: That SEAC send a letter to the Minister of Education, the Minister’s Advisory Council on Special Education (MACSE) and to the board of trustees requesting that funding be increased in Special Education to neutralize the financial impact of implementing Bill 52 and 212 by the Special Education and Support Services Department. Krystyna Ross undertook to draft the letter on behalf of SEAC.

(f) Year-end Holiday Celebration

Karen invited members to join staff on December 10, 2007 at 6 p.m. for the traditional holiday celebration. This will take place prior to the next committee meeting.

(g) Circulation File

Autism Videos The Autism Speaks web site will feature video clips of autistic versus normal behaviour as a guide for worried parents. The link can be found at http://www.autismspeaks.org.

Solaris Autism Services A flyer outlining services provided by Solaris Autism Services was circulated. Visit www.solarisautism.com for more information.

1170 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 8, November 12, 2007

Putting Inclusion into Action A conference for people who care about inclusion in school and community with guest speaker, Kathie Snow will be held on November 17, 2007 at the Harbourfront Community Centre, To- ronto. For more information call 519-433-7636.

Parent Involvement Makes A Difference A one-day conference for all Toronto District School Board parents and school council members will be held on November 17, 2007 from 8 a.m. at the North York Memorial Hall and Civic Cen- tre, 5110 Yonge Street. Register at www.tdsb.on.ca/parentconference.

International Day of People with Disabilities The International Day of People with Disabilities will be celebrated on Monday, December 3, 2007 from 10 a.m. at Variety Village, 3701 Danforth Avenue. RSVP [email protected] or call 416-338-4756 or TTY:416-338-0889.

Concerned Parents of Toronto is hosting a Family Education Session on November 14, 2007 from 7 p.m. at Griffin Centre, 24 Silverview Drive, Willowdale, Ontario. RSVP: 416-492-1468.

7. System Superintendent’s Report Ministry of Education Documents

Karen Forbes spoke to two documents. The first is “Effective Educational Practices for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders.” In September, members were given the web site address for this manual, which was then in draft form, the final document was provided at the meeting. A copy of the final document has now been sent to every school with instructions as to how to order more free publications. The document has been used throughout the fall and it has been introduced to MARTS. There will be extensive in-service with MARTS, curriculum leaders and assistant curriculum leaders, as well as with principals. The PDD/ASD team will be ordering additional copies and will refer to the manual and provide the manual when doing school visits.

The second document, “Shared Solutions: A Guide to Preventing and Resolving Conflicts Re- garding Programs and Services for Students with Special Needs”. On November 2, 2007, a board team consisting of Christina Buczek, Richard Carter, Dr. Norm Forman, Krista Shay, Sharon Ross (Community Living), Deborah Horner (PIAC), Shirley Chan and Karen Forbes joined other boards around the GTA for an in-service presented by the Ministry of Education on the document. The day was very good and the manual is excellent and can be used in any situation where staff is intent on avoiding and resolving conflicts. Krista Shay has agreed to be the lead on implementing this manual, which will be distributed to schools shortly. In-servicing for MARTS, curriculum leaders and assistant curriculum leaders will be arranged. The implementation plan will be developed by the team that attended the Ministry’s in-service.

Parent Information Meeting

The fifth semi-annual Special Education information meeting was held on October 23, 2007. The response was very positive and turnout was excellent as in previous years, with sixty parents

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1171 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 8, November 12, 2007

attending in the west and one hundred and ten parents attending in the East. The session focused on the IPRC and IEP process and parents were provided with information on transitions and the way in which the ABA should be incorporated into the IEP process. As always, parents remained after the meeting to talk with consultants and coordinators about their personal situations.

Special Education Appeal Board

In September 2007, a Special Education Appeal Board was held for a student regarding placement. The SEAB decided in favour of the parent and the Board has upheld the SEAB decision and recommendations.

8. Senior Manager, Professional Support Services Report (a) OPA-EDU Student Assessment Project: Phase III

The recently submitted (October 12) Project Update required the inclusion of a summary of the TDSB’s Student Assessment Project. This summary will appear as part of an OPA Student As- sessment Project website which will post the trends and results of the Student Assessment Pro- jects in the Boards across Ontario:

Building Capacity Through School Support Teams

The Toronto District School Board’s approach to reducing the wait time for professional assessments has addressed several identified factors which contribute to delay. Each stage of the process has been reviewed from referral, through assessment, to reporting, in an attempt to ensure that each is as efficient and effective as possible. As well, additional staff (in Psychology, Speech-Language Pathology, Occupational Therapy, along with clerical staff) have been hired.

In terms of referral, we are improving our School Support Team (SST) process. One recommendation from the extensive review of the SST process currently underway involves improving the quality of the educational assessment information provided to the SST. An educational assessment protocol, employing both standardized tools and in-house developed tools, will enhance the student information brought to team. This information, along with other improvements to the SST process, will ensure that students being referred are those most appropriate for further professional assessment.

Assessment practices and procedures have been reviewed and new testing instruments have been purchased to improve the efficiency and efficacy of assessment. Professional development concerning assessment with these students has also been provided to teachers. With tests more readily available, improved testing instruments and improved knowledge, both special education and professional support services staff are better trained and more readily able to assess students from Junior Kindergarten to grade 4.

Finally, assessment reporting has been reviewed and a report format that is both teacher and parent friendly has been developed. This reporting format is efficient for the asses- sor to complete, and provides information in a format for parents and teachers that is both cogent and understandable. Additional clerical services, funded by this project, have also contributed to speed the availability of the reports to teachers and parents.

1172 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 8, November 12, 2007

(b) Psychological Services Gifted Assessments

The weeks of November 19 to the 30 are being set aside for the assessment of students referred for possible consideration of Gifted identification and placement. During those two weeks, a small pilot project is being pursued to evaluate the effectiveness of the group administered Cana- dian Conceptual Abilities Test (CCAT), a test used by a number of Boards to identify Gifted students. The parents of a set of randomly selected students will be asked to permit the administration of the CCAT, in addition to the WISC-IV. The results will indicate how well CCAT performance correlates with WISC-IV performance. If the correlation is high, consideration could be given to screening potential applicants with the CCAT, as is done within the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board.

Teaching “Positive Psychology and Resiliency” in classrooms was the featured topic of Dr. Karen Reivich, who provided an outstanding presentation on October 26th. Two TDSB Psychol- ogy staff, Dr. Afroze Anjum and Dr. Tayyab Rashid, have been trained by Dr. Reivich in the delivery of positive psychology and resiliency programs. Currently, Dr. Rashid is working with teachers at Nelson Mandela to offer a program and the preliminary results are excellent. The topic of positive psychology and resiliency training in classrooms is timely in the context of the Board’s focus on Character Education.

“Is it Sensory or Is it Behaviour” was a two-day presentation (October 29/30) led by Carolyn Murray-Slutsky, O.T. and Betty Paris, P.T. which focused on the behaviour of students with Austism, Developmental Delay, learning disorders and emotional disorders. The speakers de- scribed a framework for understanding how sensory issues can trigger behavioural difficulties and then offered a variety of intervention strategies to address those triggers. Occupational & Physiotherapy Services and Special Education staff were in attendance and agree that these ideas and strategies need to be provided to all staff working with students with behavioural difficulties. Currently they ware developing a plan to provide professional development to teachers across the TDSB.

Parent workshops, supported by Trustee Soo Wong, were offered on two dates – October 25th and November 3rd, in two Families of Schools in the North East. Dr. Ruth Baumal (Chief of Psychological Services) and Frank Orlando (Chief of Social Work & Attendance) presented on topics such as connections between home and school, bullying and violence prevention, the role of the Social Worker and Psychologist in the school and resources in the school and community.

(d) Bills 52 and 212: Impacts on Support Services

The Board postponed consideration of the matter to December 12, 2007.

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1173 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 8, November 12, 2007

(e) Service Statistics for September 2007

Psychology Soc. Work Attendance SLP OT/PT

Referrals 2632 1144 263 2100 433

Completed 432 20 127 741 20

Wait List 1689 65 12 716 199

(f) Service Statistics for October 2007

Psychology Soc. Work Attendance SLP OT/PT

Referrals 3679 2720 822 2648 599 Change since last month +1047 +1576 +559 +578 +166 (Sept. 07)

Completed 854 69 147 994 64 Change since last month +422 +49 +20 +253 +44 (Sept. 07)

Wait List 2068 167 97 799 225 Change since last +379 +102 +85 +83 +26 month (Sept. 2007)

Staff undertook to look into providing a graphic representation of the statistics.

9. Local SEAC Association Reports VOICE for Hearing Impaired Children Rebecca Rycroft provided information on the annual VOICE for Hearing Impaired Children SEAC workshop for all VOICE representatives on Ontario school boards.

1174 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 8, November 12, 2007

Order forms for the New Parent Guide 2007 for the IEP for Students who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing was also shared with SEAC.

Down Syndrome Association of Toronto Richard Carter reported that Down Syndrome Awareness Week took place November 1-7, 2007. There was increased media attention on the topic as well as public awareness advertising. As part of the week’s events, Richard made a presentation on Down syndrome to a grade 6 class at his child’s school. During the presentation, he spoke about the many challenges faced by those with Down syndrome and involved the students in activities to enable them to better understand how the challenges affect some individuals with Down syndrome. The students asked a lot of good questions. Christina Buczek expressed SEAC’s appreciation to Cheryl Hampson for her services to SEAC. 10. Reports/Updates from Representatives on TDSB and Other Committees Web Site Committee Richard Carter reported that the web site committee met prior to the start of the meeting. Dis- cussion took place around what could be done to further enhance the site. Suggestions included the posting of a glossary of terms and a summary of frequently asked questions. The committee will look to staff for help as to what that might include. The committee examined the calendar of events and it was suggested that it be reorganized to show event details. A sheet to incorporate suggestions for the web site will be developed and presented at the next meeting. The committee will continue to meet prior to every meeting to discuss issues. 11. Trustees’ Report Trustee Pasternak spoke to:

• the challenges faced in Special Education • the role of the Schools Safety Advisory Panel • new pressures on handling expulsions and suggestions that those affected be placed in a cultural setting that could help in the educational process • frustrations expressed by parents who do not understand the process

He reported that trustees will examine the 2008-09 budget at a seminar on November 22, 2007. 12. New Business (a) Letter of Resignation Christina Buczek received a letter from Trustee Scott Harrison in which he tendered his resignation from SEAC. (b) Election of Chair and Vice-Chair or Co-Chairs 2008 The guidelines for the election of Chair and Vice-Chair of SEAC for the year 2008 were circulated. The floor will be opened at the meeting on December 10, 2007 to receive nominations for the position.

At the December 10 meeting, presentations will be made by Bruce Drewitt and Carla Kisko.

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1175 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 8, November 12, 2007

13. Adjournment

At 9:30 p.m., Ann Szabo, seconded by Richard Carter moved: That the meeting be adjourned. The motion was carried.

Christina Buczek Chair of the Committee

Adopted, as amended, November 28 and 30, 2007

1176 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Human Resources Committee, Report No. 8, November 7, 2007

Human Resources Committee

Report No. 8

November 7, 2007

A meeting of the Human Resources Committee convened on Wednesday, November 7, 2007, from 4:05 to 5:30 p.m. in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Trus- tee Howard Goodman presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Howard Goodman (Chair), Nadia Bello, Gary Crawford and Gerri Gershon. Regrets were received from Trustee Stephnie Payne. Also present were Trustees Sheila Cary-Meagher and James Pasternak.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

1. Learning Opportunities Index Review [1176] The Committee considered a staff report (see page 1179) presenting recommendations in response to the external review of the Learning Opportunities Index (LOI).

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

On a motion of Trustee Bello, the Human Resources Committee RECOMMENDS that staff present a report in the spring of 2008, including:

(i) recommendations for components to be used in a revised Learning Opportunities In- dex based on staff recommendations in response to the external review;

(ii) an analysis of how the revised index compares to the current index in relation to measures of student success;

(iii) a policy for the appropriate use of the index and reporting of the index’s use.

After the meetings of the Audit Committee and the Human Resources Committee, staff submitted additional information (1185) which includes a memorandum from the Inner City Advisory Committee.

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1177 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Human Resources Committee, Report No. 8, November 7, 2007

Part B: Information Only

2. Delegations The following delegations were heard in accordance with the Board’s procedure for hearing delegations. re Domestic Violence

• Robert Samery and Dr. Marty McKay

Part C: Ongoing Matters

3. Staff Development On a motion of Trustee Gershon, the Committee decided to defer consideration of a motion of Trustee Hastings re staff development to the next meeting.

Howard Goodman Chair of the Committee

Adopted November 28 and 30, 2007

1178 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Human Resources Committee, Report No. 8, November 7, 2007 Learning Opportunities Index Review [1176]

Learning Opportunities Index Review [1176]

As presented to the Human Resources Committee on November 7, 2007 (see page 1177).

In September 2006, the Board requested a review of the Learning Opportunities Index and its use. The review was conducted by an external consultant, Enid Slack.

The scope of the review included an analysis of the components and statistical methods used to construct the index, the utilization of the index, and communication about the index.

The review:

• Recommends retaining, removing and adding specific measures of external challenges to student success; • Endorses the statistical methods used to construct the index; • Recommends that the Board set a policy to guide the use of index, and monitor how the index is being used; and • Recommends that communication about the index be improved.

The specific recommendation of the consultant and staff’s response to the recommendations are set out below.

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1179 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Human Resources Committee, Report No. 8, November 7, 2007 Learning Opportunities Index Review [1176]

Staff Recommendations in Response to External Review

Recommendation by consultant Staff Response Measure of External Challenges to Student Achievement 1. Retain the income variables. Supported. In addition to the current income variables, staff will explore low income measures including Low Income Cut Off (LICO) and Low Income Measures (LIM) as part of the income calculation since none is presently included. These statistical measures are produced by Statistics Canada based on family expenditure and tax return data, and may be more readily available now than they have been in the past.

2. Retain the proportion of lone-parent Supported. families variable.

3. Retain the education variable (although Supported. The cost of data from Statistics Canada about better information that reflects mother’s the education levels, by sex, will be explored by staff. While education would be preferable). this data would not measure the education level of the parents of our students, it would measure the education level of men and women who live in the communities where our students live.

4. The housing variable should be dropped. Supported. The current measure for housing is not a good measure of external challenge, because it includes both rental apartments and condominiums and does not include crowding. Staff agrees that effective measures of housing type and/or crowding are not available, and that income variables would capture most of this factor.

5. The immigration variable should be re- Supported, in part. The immigration variable, as it stands placed with a measure of race and ethnic- now, is too blunt a measurement for use in the index. ity (which includes Aboriginal origin) if data are available. The variables of immigration, racialized characteristics, and ethnicity and the interplay among them warrant further study. Staff will explore the possibility of refocusing the immigration variable on countries of origin where there are high levels of conflict, social disruption, and poverty. Students ar- riving from such countries are likely to face a higher level of external challenges to success in school than students arriv- ing from other countries. Refocusing the variable will require both an assessment of available data, and a method to identify jurisdictions to be included. The support provided by TDSB for English Language learners should be addressed in the allocation process not using the LOI but rather by using student data concerning a student’s date of arrival in Canada and other data, which is collected by schools to determine eligibility for the Ministry’s ESL allocation. The allocation for ESL is the appropriate

1180 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Human Resources Committee, Report No. 8, November 7, 2007 Learning Opportunities Index Review [1176]

Recommendation by consultant Staff Response source of funding to address the specific needs of English Language Learners. Other resources for similar supports for new immigrants should also be allocated using a more direct immigration measure. Staff further recommends that factors addressing racialized groups and ethnicity (including Aboriginal origin) should not be added to the LOI at this time. The links among racialized characteristics and ethnicity and student success are complex. Other factors (such as income, family education, and parental expectations) may also be variable among racialized groups. In-depth analysis concerning the findings of TDSB’s student census may help to assess the appropriate- ness of using such factors in the future. Staff recommends that this issue be revisited when relevant analysis of the student census has been completed. The student census may also provide a richer source of data about Aboriginal students. While there is a large number of Aboriginals in Toronto, they represent a very small proportion of the population. The numbers in each census area is very low and as a result, census information provided by Statistics Canada is of limited use. Staff recommends that this issue be revisited when relevant analysis of the student census has been completed.

6. Student mobility should be dropped. Supported, but further analysis is advisable. Students change schools and residences for a variety of reasons – some of them are positive and some are negative. For example, students may change schools because their families have improved their economic position or the students have chosen to go to a specialized school outside or their area. Negative reasons for mobility may include family instability or difficult financial situation, safe school transfers, poor academic performance, and dissatisfaction with current school. This is true for both in-year and between years mobility. It is difficult to distinguish between “positive” and “negative” mobility.

Further, mobility in some schools is likely affected by ready access to transit, skewing this factor for reasons unrelated to external challenges to achievement.

In evaluating factors to be used in a revised index, staff will explore available data to determine whether in-year mobility is correlated with challenges to student success, and whether this correlation is different in the elementary and secondary panels. Staff will also assess the availability of data concern-

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1181 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Human Resources Committee, Report No. 8, November 7, 2007 Learning Opportunities Index Review [1176]

Recommendation by consultant Staff Response ing the level of mobility at the neighbourhood level, and its correlation with student success.

7. The TDSB should consider using a crime Not supported. American data was cited in the report. rate variable if an appropriate measure can There are significant differences between the American ur- be determined and if reliable data are ban context and Toronto and it is not clear that American available at the postal code level. research can be applied to Toronto.

The Inner City Advisory Committee recommended that this factor not be included, because using crime rates would further stigmatize some of our schools and surrounding neighbourhoods.

There are several practical reasons for not pursuing this option:

• Judgments would be required, unsupported by evidence, concerning what crimes would be included. • Preliminary inquiries by staff indicate that data will not be available at the level of disaggregation required for the LOI (the neighbourhood level). • There is no ability to measure unreported criminal activity. • Given that Toronto’s crime rate is relatively low compared to another city its size (especially when compared to large US cities); inclusion of incidents of crime could cause large year-over-year fluctua- tions in statistics about individual school communities, with consequent year-over-year shifts in school rankings on the LOI.

8. The crowding variable should not be Supported. There is no consensus in the literature that added. crowding negatively impacts achievement, especially in Can- ada. Also, the definition of crowding is variable by culture. No appropriate measure of crowding currently exists (per- sons per bedroom is available).

9. Mental health is too difficult to measure in Supported. a standardized way.

10. [Not addressed by external review.] Staff recommends that a review of the components used in the LOI occur every five years. The next review should be completed in time for the development of the 2014 LOI.

At that time, consideration should be given to the use of results from application of the Early Development Instru- ment (EDI). The EDI is intended to assess students’ readi- ness to learn when they arrive at school, so results could be used as a factor to measure external challenge. This would

1182 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Human Resources Committee, Report No. 8, November 7, 2007 Learning Opportunities Index Review [1176]

Recommendation by consultant Staff Response require stable funding for consistent, boardwide, ongoing implementation of the EDI.

Statistical Methods 11. The Board should continue to use princi- Supported. While a simpler method would be easier for pal components analysis to derive the users to understand, the most appropriate and available sta- LOI. tistical method should be used. Principal components analysis is the standard statistical method used to determine the relationship among variables and to explain variance in complex sets of data.

Principal component analysis provides scores for each individual school. Simpler methods would provide only a ranking of schools. Both scores and ranking are valuable in ex- plaining results. It is expected that a policy concerning the appropriate use of the LOI (see recommendation #15 below) will recommend the use of scores in some instances.

Application of the LOI

The recommendations below concern the use of the LOI rather than its formulation.

12. For some programs, the Board should Supported. Tapering is possible in some situations but not consider tapering resources so that the in others. Whether resources are allocated in a tapered difference in the resources received among manner or using a cut-off depends on the resource. For schools in the ranking is reduced. The example, it is easier to taper dollars to the smallest unit of cut-off could also be different for different allocation (cents) than it is to taper the distribution of teach- programs. ers or tangible items such as musical instruments.

Staff supports the development of a policy that will guide the most appropriate use of the LOI. Please see staff response to recommendation #15.

13. To address the problem of anomalies that Supported, in part. There may be some instances when it arise from the LOI, the Board should allo- may be appropriate for a Superintendent of Education to cate LOI funds to families of schools so make adjustments, and some instances when it is not appro- that the final determination of which priate. schools receive LOI funds and how much they receive will be made at the local level. As the organization moves towards more decentralized decision making, Superintendents of Education will make more local decisions about the allocation of resources. A Board policy (see recommendation #15) should set some principles or guidelines concerning when Superintendents of Educa- tion should have discretion.

The policy should also address accountability, communication, and transparency in how local discretion is used in allocations.

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1183 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Human Resources Committee, Report No. 8, November 7, 2007 Learning Opportunities Index Review [1176]

Recommendation by consultant Staff Response

14. If the Board feels that schools with pock- Not supported. The recommendation could be imple- ets of poverty should receive more LOI mented only by introducing arbitrary factors to “weigh” funds, a heavier weighting could be placed some students differently. It is likely that a “weighting” ap- on the students with high LOI scores in proach could shift scores away from the schools with the each school. This higher weighting would most concentrated population of students living in poverty. increase the overall score and ranking of schools with pockets of poverty. Although staff recognizes pockets of poverty exist within many schools, staff did not feel that this warranted a different calculation of the index. Income data should be used to address this issue. It is possible that the use of different or additional income measures could capture poverty data more effectively; these income measures will be explored (see recommendation #1).

15. The Board needs to articulate a clear pol- Supported. A policy should be developed to set out princi- icy and to set guidelines on the use of the ples and directions to help staff make good judgments about LOI. the use of the LOI. The policy should be in the nature of guidelines rather than prescriptive rules.

The policy should:

• Address the use of the LOI by staff to allocate resources. • Provide criteria or guidelines to determine the appropriate use of the LOI in the allocation of resources. • Require the use of the most recent version of the LOI. • Provide guidance concerning the use of cut-offs or tapering for the allocation of resources. • Require the use of scores rather than rankings when resources are being tapered. • Provide guidelines for transparency concerning how the LOI is used in allocations. • Provide reporting and accountability guidelines.

Staff has made a commitment to involve the Inner City Ad- visory Committee – to seek early advice, and to review a draft before presentation to the Board.

In developing the policy, staff will look at what other school boards do and how the antecedents to the LOI were utilized in legacy boards to allocate resources.

16. The Board should have a way to determine Supported, in part. This recommendation is too broad given who is using the LOI, the purposes for that the LOI is an accessible, public document. The scope which they are using it, and the amount of of monitoring and reporting should be narrowed to include

1184 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Human Resources Committee, Report No. 8, November 7, 2007 Learning Opportunities Index Review [1176]

Recommendation by consultant Staff Response funding that is being allocated on the basis only the internal allocation of significant financial and hu- of the LOI. man resources.

The purposes of tracking the internal use of the LOI would be to monitor the cumulative impact of the use of the LOI in resource allocation across the organization, and to provide data to inform future reviews of the index and the policy concerning its use.

Tracking would not entail approval of allocations or vetting of the use of the index.

17. The Board should also be aware of how Not supported. This is not practical given that the LOI is a the LOI is being used for non-financial public document that is posted on our website. Its use by purposes such as research and advocacy. individual staff across the organization and by external organizations or individuals cannot be monitored practicably. Communications 18. A communications strategy needs to be Supported. The finding of the review made it clear that we developed to provide clear and accessible need clear communications to avoid misconceptions about information on the purpose of the LOI the data used to calculate the LOI and the significance of the and the calculation of the index. Board results. policy on the use of the LOI (as suggested above in recommendation #15) should To improve the understanding of the LOI, staff will develop also be part of the information. a communications strategy that may include information sessions for new Trustees and information to new Superin- tendents of Education and to new Principals.

The accessibility of the LOI document on the TDSB website will also be improved.

Additional Information Presented by Starr

The ICAC decided to make the following recommendations regarding the LOI (Learning Oppor- tunities Index) Review Report:

• Some factors may change, but income must be the major criterion in this index; • Phase II School Visit Groups found LOI to be a strong predictor of external challenges in those schools (i.e. LOI as a tool was working well) • Most important? To focus on use of LOI, not specifics of index – defeats idea of equity; review must address how Board should use LOI • The higher the school on the LOI, the distinctly greater the needs– LOI should not be applied generally, but focused on the neediest schools • Application of LOI is too limited currently

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1185 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Human Resources Committee, Report No. 8, November 7, 2007 Learning Opportunities Index Review [1176]

• LOG is critical in this discussion, can’t ‘unweave’ it from LOI- ICAC should take a stand that LOG must support the application of the LOI • Suggestion that LOI be defined as measuring external challenges to students (not to student achievement) • LOI is about the “gap” – what constitutes a real barrier to these kids achieving what others achieve – goal is to close this gap of opportunities • Pockets of Poverty issue might be addressed within LOI by weighting certain factors differently • Historically principals and vice-principals had strong voice in advocating for poverty and in allocation of some resources, especially VPs and extra staff • Suggestion that possible new criteria raised by consultant’s report (e.g., race/ethnicity, crime, mental health etc.) should be considered by researchers, but outside framework of LOI • Need to look also at other indices that are currently available (e.g., LICO, Index of Well- being etc.) to add more context to information TDSB references • Model Schools project provides key opportunity for ‘mini’ research projects to be run and other indices and/or research used • Opportunity to communicate with inner city schools regarding the LOI and its applications through MSIC (Model Schools for Inner-Cities) project

For the Board’s decision see page 1177.

1186 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee

Report No. 10 (Part 1)

November 7, 2007

A regular meeting of the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee convened on Wednesday, November 7, 2007, from 7:05 to 9:36 p.m., in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Trustee John Campbell presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees John Campbell (Chair), Irene Atkinson, Shaun Chen, John Hastings and James Pasternak. Also present were Trustees Howard Goodman and Soo Wong. Trustee Atkinson participated by electronic means.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

1. Contract Awards [1179]

The Committee considered a staff report (see page 1190) presenting contracts for products and/or services used by schools and administrative departments.

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

On a motion of Trustee Atkinson, the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee RECOMMENDS that the contracts in Chart C be approved.

2. English as a Second Language Increased Expenditures [1177] The Committee considered a staff report (see page 1194) presenting a proposal for increased expenditure on supports for English-language learners. Staff distributed additional information at the Committee meeting (see page 1224).

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

On a motion of Trustee Chen, amended by Trustee Atkinson, the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee RECOMMENDS:

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1187 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007

(a) That a proposal for an increased expenditure of $14.3 million for supports for English- language learners be referred to the 2008-09 budget process;

(b) That staff present a report including:

(i) information on the advisability of employing multicultural liaison workers who are professionally trained in cultural integration and communication and who would support students new to the school system and enhance communication among the home, school and a variety of linguistic and ethnic communities;

(ii) recommendations on the amount of funds and workers that would be required.

Part (b) was added on amendment of Trustee Atkinson.

Note: The staff recommendation (which is Part (a) above) is Model B in the staff report. Staff undertook to prepare a Model C as discussed at the Committee meeting for consideration in the development of the 2008-09 budget.

3. Musical Instrument Inventory Update [1166] The Committee considered a staff report (see page 1212) providing an update on steps taken to collect musical inventories from schools. The staff report noted that 360 schools have responded to the survey and provided an inventory, including a listing of unplayable instruments.

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

On a motion of Trustee Hastings, the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee RECOMMENDS that a strategy to flow funds to the three hundred and sixty schools that have unplayable instruments be developed.

An amendment of Trustee Hastings that schools that have not filled out inventory requirements be denied funding for 2008-09 was defeated.

Staff undertook to advise trustees which schools have not yet responded to the survey.

4. Revision of Purchasing Policy (P. 017) to Include Green and Eco-friendly Con- siderations On a motion of Trustee Hastings (on behalf of Trustee Matlow), the Administration, Fi- nance and Accountability Committee RECOMMENDS:

Whereas, environmental responsibility is a trademark of good community citizenship; and

1188 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007

Whereas, Board policy P.028: Environment Foundation, in effect since 2000, adopted the concept of sustainable development as defined by the United Nations World Commission on Envi- ronment and Development as “meeting the needs of the present generation without compromis- ing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”; and Whereas, the Board, as a significant community stakeholder, has the opportunity, by virtue of its business practices and standards, to bring significant influence to the way commercial enterprises do business with the Board; and; Whereas, the possibility of paying a higher cost for a safer and more environmentally preferred product requires political will and commitment; and Whereas, there is ample evidence that demonstrates that the cost of doing business through a Green lens continues to become more competitive from a cost perspective; and Whereas, it is exceedingly important that the Board act in an intentional manner, through its policies and practices to do its part in fostering a healthy and clean environment; Therefore, be it resolved that staff present a briefing note on eco-friendly considerations as guid- ing principles in the way contracts are awarded and business partners selected. 5. Communications and Public Affairs Plan

The Board postponed consideration of the matter to December 12, 2007.

Part B: Information Only

6. Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, 2007-08 Membership Fee [1163]

On a motion of Trustee Pasternak, the Committee received a staff report (see page 1214) outlining the role of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association and membership fee for 2007-08.

7. Collaborative Ventures, 2006-07 [1181] On a motion of Trustee Hastings, the Committee received a staff report (see page 1216) presenting the collaborative ventures entered into for the 2006-07 fiscal year. 8. 2007-08 Special Education Funding [1167] On a motion of Trustee Atkinson, the Committee received a staff report (see page 1221) outlining a presentation made to the Special Education Advisory Committee on September 17, 2007 regarding the 2007-08 budget. At the Committee meeting staff distributed additional information (see page 1224). Part C: Ongoing Matters No matters to report John Campbell Chair of the Committee Adopted November 28 and 30, 2007

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1189 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007

Contract Awards [1179]

As presented to the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee on November 7, 2007 (see page 1187).

In accordance with the Board's policy P.017: Purchasing, contracts are presented for receipt or approval, as appropriate.

Contracts related to the Board’s Facility Services function are presented separately to the Operations and Facilities Management Committee.

The recommended suppliers and the term of each contract are shown in charts. Chart 1 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.

The Process

Purchasing and Distribution Services, where possible, invited bids from a minimum of three firms. Requirements expected to exceed $100,000 were also posted on two electronic bulletin boards (MERX and BidNavigator) 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.

1190 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 Contract Awards [1179]

Chart 1: Contracts Requiring Board Approval (contracts over $250,000 and Consulting Services over $50,000)

User/Budget Recom- No. of Estimated Projected Holder Low Objec- Customer In- Products/Services Details Ward mended Sup- Bids Annual Start/End Date of School/Departme Bid tions volvement plier Rec’d Amount Contract nt Central Printing Services High Speed Equipment – December 1, 2007/ 1 Business Services N/A Xerox Canada N/A N/A N/A $1,088,562 N/A Contract Extension November, 2011 1 See Appendix D Beck Taxi Co-Op Taxi Dignity Kingsboro East End Arrow Cab Crown Choice $2,000,000 Student Trans- All Schools and Toronto Para Vendors of Record for Taxi (for all ven- December 2007 / portation and 2 Administrative N/A Transit N/A No 13 Services – LG07-310P dors of re- November 2010 Purchasing Areas Wheelchair cord) Services Staff Accessible Transit AAA Best Choice Burt Trans- portation City Taxi Royal Taxi

1 Current contract ends September 2009; proposed 2 –year extension to 2011

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1191 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 Contract Awards [1179]

Xerox Contract Extension

The Board’s approval is being sought to extend the lease contract with Xerox Canada to Novem- ber 2011 from the current expiry date of September 2009. This two-year extension will allow Printing Services to expand its capabilities to meet the needs of its customers by replacing aging equipment with state-of-the-art high speed commercial networked digital duplicators. The replacement equipment will improve service levels to schools and central departments through reduced downtime and increased production engine speeds. The extension will also provide additional savings to the Board of approximately $183,000.

Xerox Canada, considered to be the industry leader in high-speed commercial digital duplicator technology, have provided the TDSB with its requirements since 1999. Given the lack of com- petition, negotiation is the preferred contract tool.

Business Services provides a central printing service for schools and administrative departments through four centres. The hub of operations is located at Tippet Centre with satellite locations at 5050 Yonge Street, 1 Civic Centre Court and 140 Borough Drive.

The Printing Services department operates as a cost recovery centre by charging users for the services provided. The costs related to the operation are mainly comprised of leases of seven high speed black & white duplicators and one high speed colour duplicator; supplies, and; costs related to the staff who operate the equipment at the four sites.

The financial position of Printing Services has steadily improved. In 2006/07, Printing Services operated at a $128,000 deficit. This compares to a $362,000 loss in 2005/06 and a $515,905 deficit in 2004/05.

To move forward towards a full cost recovery operation, staff have been:

• pursuing increased revenues by expanding the functionality and capability of the equipment in order to meet the needs of customers; • pursuing increased business from internal and external customers by actively marketing our services (e.g. providing CUPE with their printing requirements and printing more year- books for schools); and, • negotiating with Xerox to extend the contract in return for equipment upgrades and a reduction in operational costs.

The majority of costs are attributable to the existing equipment lease with Xerox Canada. The contract expires September 2009 and carries a monthly commitment of $82,100 and an annual volume commitment of 28 million impressions.

The proposed contract extension will provide for equipment upgrades that will provide Printing Services with faster, more flexible and efficient equipment to reduce down time, improved turn- around times and improved quality levels. The upgraded Energy Star compliant equipment will replace several high speed duplicators that are approximately 10-years-old. Additional savings of $2700 per year will be realized through reduced energy costs.

1192 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 Contract Awards [1179]

Monthly expenditures will be reduced by $3,593 or $172,464 over the life of the extended agreement. Total savings over the 48 month term will be $183,264.

Xerox Agreement Current Contract Proposed Contract Difference Term Expires September, 2009 Expires November, 2011 26 month extension Annual Volume Commit- ment (Black & White im- 28,140,000 impressions 30,300,000 impressions 2,160,000 additional impressions) pressions included in base rate Annual Volume Commit- ment (Colour Impressions) 60,000 impressions 60,000 impressions NIL Monthly Lease Commit- ment (exclusive of taxes) $82,100.00 $82,100.00 NIL Annual Lease Commit- ment (exclusive of taxes) $985,200.00 $985,200.00 NIL

Overage Charge per Im- $0.007 $0.0065 $0.0005 pression (Black & White) $4837.00 per month based $3321.50 per month based $1516.00 per month sav- on actual volume on actual volume ings

Overage Charge per Im- $0.11 $0.079 $0.031 pression (Colour) $7370.00 based on actual $5293.00 based on actual $2077.00 per month sav- volume volume ings Net Savings $3593.00 per month or $172,464.00 over 48 months Energy Savings $2700.00 per year or $10,800 over 48 months Total Savings 183,264.00 Equipment 7 Black & White and 1 -replace 2 model 6180’s to Ability to produce longer colour high-speed copiers Nuvera 288 and Nuvera runs of colour materials 144. currently being produced -replace 2045 colour to by external printers. DC5000 Reduction in service calls -replace DT-90 at 5050 to (downtime) Nuvera 144 Replacement equipment is -provide FreeFlow Scan- Energy Star compliant ner 665 Colour Scanner

For the Board’s decision see page 1187.

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1193 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 English as a Second Language Increased Expenditures [1177]

English as a Second Language Increased Expenditures [1177]

As presented to the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee on November 7, 2007 (see page 1187). The measures of student success continue to show that English Language Learners require increased supports in classrooms to reach their potential, and to reach the Ministry’s expected standards of achievement. In June 2007 the Board decided that staff present a report for consideration in the 2008-09 budget process concerning increased expenditures for English as a Second Language (ESL), to reduce the extent to which the ESL allocations from the Ministry of Education are used to meet cost pressures in other operational expenditures. Staff is proposing consideration of increased expenditures on supports for English Language Learners by $14.3 million in 2008-09. This proposal is based on a comprehensive assessment of the needs of students across Board who have entered Canada from non-English-speaking countries over the past 4 years. This proposal, if approved, would:

• result in an equitable distribution of ESL supports across the city; • provide an array of supports that meets best practice; • increase the number of ESL classroom teachers by 142 teachers to ensure the availability of ESL/ELD supports for all English Language Learners in all schools; • increase staffing by 13 in four Reception Centres to improve service in the areas of assessment and guidance for new students; • improve staff development for ESL teachers, classroom teachers and support staff; and • ensure compliance with the Ministry of Education’s 2007 policy entitled English Language Learners, ESL and ELD Programs and Services. Current and Proposed ESL Expenditures (below) sets out the details of the current ESL expenditures and provides two alternative proposed expenditure models for consideration. Model A would bring expenditures to 62% of the current ESL allocation. Model B (recommended) would bring expenditures to 69% of the current ESL allocation. The model recommended for consideration would be a comprehensive and appropriate response to the needs of ESL students. The Board’s projected overall operational costs in 2008-09 (based on current expenditures) will exceed anticipated revenue. As a result, this staff proposal, if approved, would require an equivalent reduction in other expenditures, higher than anticipated increases in ESL funding from the Ministry, or a combination of both. Current and Proposed ESL Expenditures (below) sets out the financial and human resource impacts of the staff proposal. Almost all of the proposed increase would support increased staffing. If the proposal is approved, changes will be implemented through changes in staffing allocation and budget for 2008-09. Impacts of program changes will be monitored through EQAO and other measures of student success, and, if the proposal is approved, through research on outcomes.

1194 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 English as a Second Language Increased Expenditures [1177]

ESL System Allocation History

2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008

ESL Grants 77.9 M 77.9 M 75.0 M 88.0 M 83.9 M 84.1 M 81.5 M Elementary 24,473 25,339 22,890 26,354 23,401 20,985 Approx 21,000 Funded Students Secondary 12,731 13,201 12,184 14,758 13,348 12,781 Approx 13,000 Funded Students Total Number Funded Students 37,204 38,540 35,074 41,112 36,749 33,766 Approx 33,000 Elementary Teachers Allocated 419 393 337 245 245 245 245

Secondary Teachers Allocated 258 292 245 200 200 200 200

Central Support: Program Coordinator 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Instructional Leaders 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 First Language Assessors 9 9 4 4 4 4 4 Secondary English/Math Assess- 10 10 4 4 4 4 4 ment Teachers

Intake Workers 6 6 2 2 2 2 2

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1195 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 English as a Second Language Increased Expenditures [1177]

Current and Proposed ESL Expenditures

Current ESL Model A Model B ESL Program With $14.3M In- Current ESL Program (2007 – 2008) ESL Program With $8.8M Increase crease(Recommended)

Expenditure 2007/08 ESL Grant $ 81,506,783 2007/08 ESL Grant $ 81,506,783 2007/08 ESL Grant $81,506,783 Overview Teacher Allocation 37,489,295 Teacher Allocation 44,963,949 Teacher Allocation 48,800,157 Supply Teachers 1,499,572 Supply Teachers 1, 873,305 Supply Teachers 2,065,115 EA Allocation 818,730 EA Reallocation 818,730 EA Reallocation 818,730 ESL Program Department ESL Program ESL Program (incl. (incl Reception Centre Staff) 1,888,185 (incl Reception Centre staff) 2,260,657 Reception Centre Staff) 2,882,033 Central Program Funding 500,000 Central Program Funding 1,000,000 ______ESL AQ courses 100,000 ESL AQ Courses 200,000

ESL Superintendent 200,000 Total Direct Expenditure 41,695,781 Total Direct Expenditure 50,516,734 Total Direct Expenditure 55,966,176

Net Grants used for Net Grants used for Net Grants used for Other cost pressures $ 39,811,002 Other cost pressures $30,990,049 Other cost pressures $25,540,607

% of Grant used for ESL: 51% % of grant used for ESL: 62% % of grant used for ESL: 69%

1196 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 English as a Second Language Increased Expenditures [1177]

Current ESL Model A Model B ESL Program With $14.3M In- Current ESL Program (2007 – 2008) ESL Program With $8.8M Increase crease(Recommended)

School-based Elementary--245 FTE ESL/ELD teachers Elementary--Model A reflects the addi- Elementary--Model B reflects the Staffing are allocated to 265 elementary schools. tion of 63 FTE elementary ESL/ELD addition of 87 FTE elementary Of these 245 teachers, 37 are dedicated to teachers bringing the total to 308 FTE. ESL/ELD teachers bringing the total

LEAP programming, 30 to self contained The suggested deployment would be: to 332 FTE. The suggested deploy- class settings and 178 to Resource Pro- ment would be: Raise all ESL/ELD teacher alloca- gramming. tions currently between 0.25 to 0.49 Raise all ESL/ELD teacher allo- to an even 0.50 allocation and re- cations currently between 0.25 to

quire the 0.50 allocation be dedi- 0.49 to an even 0.50 allocation

cated to ESL/ELD Resource Pro- and require the 0.50 allocation gramming (25 teachers) be dedicated to ESL/ELD Re-

source Programming (25 teach- Any middle school, senior public ers) school or junior high below the 0.25

threshold receive a 0.50 ESL/ELD Any middle school, senior public teacher allocation dedicated to school or junior high below the

ESL/ELD Resource Programming 0.25 threshold receive a 0.50

(12 teachers) ESL/ELD teacher allocation dedicated to ESL/ELD Resource ESL/ELD teachers to be shared Programming (12 teachers) among elementary schools with high numbers of elementary International 2 FTE ESL/ELD teachers to be

Students (2 teachers) shared among elementary schools with high numbers of ESL/ELD itinerant teacher to serve elementary International Stu- the unique ESL/ELD needs of each dents (2 teachers) Family of Schools (24 teachers)

• 2.0 ESL/ELD itinerant teachers

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1197 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 English as a Second Language Increased Expenditures [1177]

Current ESL Model A Model B ESL Program With $14.3M In- Current ESL Program (2007 – 2008) ESL Program With $8.8M Increase crease(Recommended)

to serve the unique ESL/ELD

needs of each Family of Schools

(48 teachers)

Impact: The TDSB would move from Impact: The TDSB would move Impact: Of the 265 schools that do re- serving 265 elementary schools to ap- from serving 265 elementary schools ceive fractional ESL/ELD staff, there are proximately 365 elementary schools. to all 472 elementary schools. Eng- hundreds of students that do not receive English language learners would also lish language learners would also ESL/ELD Resource Programming. spend more instructional time with an spend more instructional time with Of the 207 elementary schools that do ESL/ELD teacher. ESL/ELD fractional an ESL/ELD teacher. not receive any ESL/ELD staffing, there staffing allocations would be eliminated.

are 2,447 ESL/ELD funded elementary students who are not receiving any ESL/ELD Resource Programming. Of

these 2,447 students, 552 are in 23 middle or senior public schools.

Secondary--Model B reflects the ad- Secondary--200 ESL/ELD teachers are Secondary--Model A reflects the addi- dition of 55 secondary ESL/ELD allocated to 67 secondary schools. Of the tion of 31 secondary ESL/ELD teachers teachers bringing the total to 255 200, 19 are dedicated to LEAP Pro- bringing the total to 231 FTE. The sug- FTE. The suggested deployment gramming and 181 to ESL/ELD credit gested deployment would be: would be: programming. As of October 2007,

ESL/ELD Programs support the learning of approximately 13,000 secondary ESL/ELD funded students 1 ESL/ELD teacher to each of 1 ESL/ELD teacher to each of the 25 the 31 secondary schools with

1198 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 English as a Second Language Increased Expenditures [1177]

Current ESL Model A Model B ESL Program With $14.3M In- Current ESL Program (2007 – 2008) ESL Program With $8.8M Increase crease(Recommended)

secondary schools with the highest the highest ESL/ELD enrolment ESL/ELD student enrolment dedi- and 0.50 ESL/ELD teacher to cated to expand ESL/ELD credit next 36 secondary schools with and adapted course support (25 the next highest ESL/ELD stu- teachers) dent enrolment dedicated to expand ESL/ELD credit and

adapted course support (49 teachers)

Impact: ESL/ELD secondary stu- Impact: There is not a wide enough range dents would have access to a wider of ESL/ELD credit courses or ESL/ELD Impact: ESL/ELD secondary students would have access to a wider range of range of ESL/ELD credit courses adapted secondary courses for our 13,000 and adapted course support therefore newcomer students. Lack of guidance ESL/ELD credit courses therefore supporting credit accumulation and gradua- supporting credit accumulation and counsellors in the newcomer reception graduation rates. centres and class caps make it difficult to tion rates. New comer students who ar- place and schedule students at various rive at various points during the school Newcomer students who arrive at points during the year. year will have increased access to ap- various points during the school year propriate credited program. will have increased access to appro-

priate credited programs. Newcomer students over age 17 and newcomers with special education needs will

receive appropriate service.

6 FTE ESL/ELD teachers to be allo- 6 FTE ESL/ELD teachers to be allocated to secondary schools with high cated to secondary schools with high numbers of International fee paying numbers of International fee paying Stu- Students (6 teachers)

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1199 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 English as a Second Language Increased Expenditures [1177]

Current ESL Model A Model B ESL Program With $14.3M In- Current ESL Program (2007 – 2008) ESL Program With $8.8M Increase crease(Recommended)

dents (6 teachers) Impact: We ensure TDSB is a pro- Impact: We ensure TDSB is a provider vider of choice for international stu- of choice for international students. dents. Central staff 5 Instructional Leaders Model A reflects the addition of 5 staff: Model B reflects the addition 13 staff to support the creation two ad- 1 Program Co-ordinator ditional Newcomer Reception Cen- 4 First Language Assessment Staff (2 tres: east, 2 west)

4 Secondary English and Math Assess- 2 First Language Assessment Staff (1 2 First Language Assessment Staff ment Teachers (2 at each of the existing east, 1 west) (1 east, 1 west) Newcomer Reception Centres- Green- wood & West End) 2 intake workers (1 at each Reception Impact: Costs of the two full time staff Impact: Costs of the two full time Centre) would be partially offset by a reduction staff would be partially offset by a in per diem rates for temporary peak reduction in per diem rates for tem-

load support porary peak load support

2 FTE teachers to be allocated to the 4 FTE teachers to be allocated to Greenwood and West End New- the each of the four quadrant comer Reception Centres in the role centers, in the role of guidance

of guidance counsellors for new- counsellor for newcomer stu- comer students (2 teachers) dents (4 teachers) 4 FTE teachers to be allocated to

1200 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 English as a Second Language Increased Expenditures [1177]

Current ESL Model A Model B ESL Program With $14.3M In- Current ESL Program (2007 – 2008) ESL Program With $8.8M Increase crease(Recommended)

each of the two new quadrant centres to perform English and mathematics assessments for newcomer students (4 teachers) 2 additional intake workers at each of the two new quadrant Newcomer Reception Centres

Impact: Equal geographical access Impact: Geographical access to the New- Impact: Secondary ESL/ELD students to the services of a Newcomer Re- comer Reception Centres is challenging will have a smoother transition and in- ception Centre will be achieved. for many students. Lack of guidance creased access to appropriate secondary counsellors at the two centres make ac- programs. cess to appropriate secondary programs

challenging.

1 full-time researcher 1 full-time researcher

Impact: The TDSB can ensure effec- Impact: The TDSB can ensure effective tive tracking, monitoring and report-

tracking, monitoring and reporting of ing of services for English language services for English language learners. learners. Supply teach- The provision for supply teacher usage Status Quo Status Quo ers: for those ESL/ESD teachers that would require supplied teacher coverage.

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1201 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 English as a Second Language Increased Expenditures [1177]

Current ESL Model A Model B ESL Program With $14.3M In- Current ESL Program (2007 – 2008) ESL Program With $8.8M Increase crease(Recommended)

Educational Provided to elementary schools that have Status Quo Status Quo Assistants significant numbers of ESL students Additional The TDSB provides a tuition subsidy of Provide a tuition subsidy for 150 ele- Provide a tuition subsidy for 300 Support $650 for 40 teachers to take the ESL Part mentary and secondary teachers to ac- elementary and secondary teachers 1 Additional Qualification course. ESL quire ESL Part 1. ESL Part 1 is re- to acquire ESL Part 1. ESL Part 1 Part 1 is required by the Ministry of edu- quired by the Ministry of Education to is required by the Ministry of Educa- cation to teach ESL/ELD programs (On- teach ESL/ELD programs (Ontario tion to teach ESL/ELD programs tario Regulation 184/97) Regulation 184/97). (Ontario Regulation 184/97).

Impact: Over 100 teachers are on waiting Impact: Current TDSB waiting list for Impact: Further increases capacity of list this year to take the subsidized AQ teachers wishing to take the course is TDSB qualified ESL teachers. Course eliminated. Increases the capacity of

TDSB qualified ESL teachers.

Centrally allocated funds- $100,000 for Provide an increase in centrally allo- Provide an increase in centrally allo- school-based ESL/ELD support, cated funding to support school based cated funding to support school $150,000 for temporary peak period sup- ESL/ELD programming. based ESL/ELD programming. port at the Reception Centres, $75,000 for per diem support for first language assessment Hire a superintendent to be assigned to oversee ESL/ELD programs.

Impact: Allows the TDSB to signifi- Impact: Additional programming to fo- cantly focus on ESL/ELD program-

1202 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 English as a Second Language Increased Expenditures [1177]

Current ESL Model A Model B ESL Program With $14.3M In- Current ESL Program (2007 – 2008) ESL Program With $8.8M Increase crease(Recommended) cus on 18-year-old newcomer students ming. Ensures the required time to and newcomer students with special develop and nurture the creation of education can be explored. the ESL/ELD Community Advisory Committee

Evidence of As per the new 2007 English Language As per the 2007 English Language effectiveness Learners ESL/ELD Ministry of Educa- Learners ESL/ELD Ministry of Edu- tion Policy document, all English lan- cation Policy document, all English guage learners are required to have an language learners are required to assessment of their English language have an assessment of their English proficiency (page 17, 2.3.1). language proficiency (page 17, 2.3.1).

Impact: Most English language Learners Impact: Compliant with Ministry will have an assessment of their English Policy language proficiency, but not all—not in

compliance with Ministry Policy

Improve student achievement as meas- Improve student achievement as ured by EQAO data, credit accumula- measured by EQAO data, credit action, graduation rates. cumulation, graduation rates. Summary of Approximately 33,000 students Status Quo Status Quo Resources 245 FTE Elementary teachers Additional 63 FTE Elementary teachers Additional 87 FTE Elementary teachers 200 FTE Secondary teachers Additional 31 FTE Secondary teachers Additional 55 FTE Secondary teach-

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1203 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 English as a Second Language Increased Expenditures [1177]

Current ESL Model A Model B ESL Program With $14.3M In- Current ESL Program (2007 – 2008) ESL Program With $8.8M Increase crease(Recommended) ers 16 Central Staff Additional 5 Central Staff Additional 13 Central Staff Central Budget $340,000 Additional Central Budget $600,000 Add’l Central Budget $1,400,000

1204 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 English as a Second Language Increased Expenditures [1177]

Descriptions of ESL/ELD Programs

(a) Elementary ESL/ELD Programming

LEAP (Literacy Enrichment Academic Programs)

LEAP is a program designed for students with significant gaps in their schooling due to limited access to educational opportunities in their home countries. Programs are offered in congregated settings in 41 elementary schools from grades 4 to 8. Students receive intensive literacy and numeracy instruction for half the day; students are integrated into mainstream classes with their English-speaking peers for the remainder of the day.

The goal of the LEAP program is to close existing academic gaps and accelerate learning so that students can be successfully integrated with their grade level peers.

Self-contained Classroom Settings

Self-contained classes are half-day ESL programs providing intensive language support for students in the early stages of learning English as a second language. Forty elementary schools with the highest numbers of English language learners have self-contained classes.

Resource Programming

Designated ESL/ELD resource teachers provide programs to English language learners through withdrawal and in-class support.

(b) Secondary ESL/ELD Programming

LEAP (Literacy Enriched Academic Programs)

LEAP is a program designed for students with significant gaps in their schooling due to limited access to educational opportunities in their home countries. Students are admitted into LEAP through a central admission process. There are 15 secondary LEAP programs throughout the TDSB, serving students ages 14 – 17. There are also two LEAP programs that serve students ages 18 and older.

ESL/ELD Credit Programs

Credit courses in ESL (English as a Second Language) and ELD (English Literacy Develop- ment) are offered at 67 secondary schools in the TDSB. Some schools also offer a variety of content credit courses which are adapted to the needs of English language learners and support their language development and credit accumulation (i.e., Canadian history, geography and sci- ence).

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1205 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 English as a Second Language Increased Expenditures [1177]

Multilingual Education Services

The TDSB provides assessments of first language literacy and numeracy skills to support elementary and secondary newcomer English language learners who are at risk or may have special needs. Background information on the student’s educational history is also gathered to inform decisions for programming purposes.

In 2006/2007 over 1,000 students were assessed in 41 different languages. Currently, 4 full-time staff carry out first language assessments assisted by a cadre of hourly paid Trained Assessment Translators. These assessments take place at each student’s home school.

Newcomer Reception Centres

Two Newcomer Reception Centres assist secondary school students new to Canada. All newcomer students of secondary school age visit one of the centres to have an assessment of their English proficiency and mathematics skills before proceeding to their local secondary school. In partnership with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, settlement workers are also on the prem- ises to assist newcomer families with many settlement issues. In 2006/2007, the Greenwood and West End Reception Centres welcomed and assessed over 4,500 secondary school students. Cur- rently there are 2 secondary assessment teachers and 1 intake worker at each Newcomer Recep- tion Centre. During peak periods per diem teachers and intake workers are employed.

Research Findings on the Achievement Levels of ESL Students

The tables below show the % of students who performed at or above the provincial standard.

Grade 3 Reading Grade 3 Writing Grade 3 Mathematics All ESL All ESL All ESL EQAO students students students students students students 2002-03 48% 20% 58% 32% 60% 40% 2006-07 57% 29% 64% 38% 66% 47% Change 9% 9% 6% 6% 6% 7%

Grade 6 Reading Grade 6 Writing Grade 6 Mathematics All ESL All ESL All ESL EQAO students students students students students students 2002-03 56% 23% 56% 22% 55% 38% 2006-07 61% 20% 61% 24% 59% 40% Change 5% -3% 5% 2% 4% 2%

1206 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 English as a Second Language Increased Expenditures [1177]

Grade 9 Grade 9 Academic Applied Mathematics Mathematics All ESL All ESL EQAO students students students students 2002-03 57% 43% 11% 9% 2006-07 66% 59% 17% 15% Change 9% 16% 6% 6%

Fully participating Fully participating OSSLT first time eligible first time eligible students ESL/ELD students 2002-03 66% 36% 2006-07 81% 47% Change 15% 11%

ESL Program Comparison of Large Urban Boards

(a) Peel District School Board

Integrative/Collaborative ESL Resource Support – ESL/ELD teachers provide both integrated classroom language resource support and withdrawal support in elementary schools. Almost all Peel District schools have either an on-site ESL/ELD teacher or an itinerant ESL/ELD teacher. ESL/ELD teachers are allocated as a group to each superintendency. School Superintendents then allocate the teachers to schools based on numbers of English language learners in each school in the family.

Secondary Credit Programs – ESL and ELD secondary credit courses are offered at more than 50% of Peel’s secondary schools. There are also two newcomer reception centres which assess the language and mathematics proficiency of newly arrived secondary students.

(b) Vancouver School Board

The Vancouver School Board provides the following programs for English language learners:

All Day Kindergarten - British Columbia Ministry of Education policy states that Kindergarten students who meet the ESL funding criteria are eligible for a full day kindergarten program.

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1207 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 English as a Second Language Increased Expenditures [1177]

Elementary ESL Resource Support - Small groups of students are pulled out of grade level classrooms several times a week for language learning support with a specialist teacher. Alterna- tively, in-class support of the curriculum and language learning is provided by a specialist teacher working in collaboration with the classroom teacher.

Secondary credit courses: At the beginning stages of English language development, students will usually have four ESL courses of study. They will be in classes with others of similar ages and language needs. As the student’s English ability increases, the number of ESL courses decreases. They will also move into transitional ESL courses which prepare students for the more academic language demands of grade-level content courses. In these courses, the grade level content is taught but with language adaptations.

Multicultural Liaison Workers-Are active members of their ethnic community who are professionally trained in cultural integration and communication. They support elementary and secondary students new to the school system and enhance communication between the home, school and a variety of linguistic and ethnic communities. This cadre of 24 support the following languages: Chinese, Vietnamese, Spanish, Korean, Khmer and a variety of Pilipino and Indian languages.

In New York City, all schools are required to hold orientations for parents or guardians of new English language learners to inform them of the different programs that are available. New York City offers the following 3 programs for English language learners at both the elementary and secondary level:

Transitional Bilingual Education- Includes language arts and subject matter instruction in the students’ native language and English, as well as intensive instruction in English as a Second Language. As students develop their English proficiency, instruction in English increases and instruction in the native language decreases.

Dual Language Programs- Provide half of the instruction in English and half in the native language (e.g., Spanish, Chinese, and Haitian Creole). Students of the native language are taught alongside English-speaking students so that all students become bicultural and fluent in both languages.

Freestanding ESL Programs- Provide all language arts and subject matter instruction in English through the use of specific instructional strategies. Support in the native language may be available.

(d) Chicago Public Schools

The state of Illinois mandates all public schools to identify students who come from a non- English-speaking language background as part of their enrolment process. All such students are then administered a statewide English language proficiency test; all those who score below a cer-

1208 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 English as a Second Language Increased Expenditures [1177]

tain level are designated as English language learners and placed in the appropriate support program.

Chicago Public Schools offer a number of programs for English language learners in both elementary and secondary schools.

Transitional Bilingual Education -This model is used in schools where there are 20 or more Eng- lish language learners of the same language background. The student’s first language is used as the medium of instruction as a bridge to academic success in the English core curriculum. ESL instruction is also an essential component of instruction. In the 2nd year of the program, some subjects in the core curriculum are introduced in English. The amount of time used for instruction in the native language varies according to the program year of the student.

Transitional Program of Instruction (TPI)/English as a Second Language (ESL)-

This model is used in schools where there are 19 or fewer English language learners of the same language background. Students receive ESL instruction in a withdrawal model. Wherever possible, the students’ first language is used for clarification in the classroom when aides or volun- teers who speak students’ languages are available.

Dual Language Immersion -This is an optional bilingual education program where students participate for at least 4 to 6 years. English-speaking students are placed in the same classroom as students who have another first language (most often Spanish). There are separate times for each language as the medium of instruction. All students are expected to develop age-appropriate flu- ency in both English and the other language.

Newcomer Centers -These centers provide assistance in the first language and ESL for older immigrant and refugee students aged 14 to 17 who are at risk. Programs offered at these centers assist students in adjusting to their language and school environment by offering a wide range of specialized classes and orientation services to students and their families. Students at these centers have academic skills at least three or more years below grade level. There are currently three such centers in Chicago.

(e) New South Wales Department of Education and Training (Sydney and region)

Students who have recently arrived in Australia and who are in the early stages of learning Eng- lish are eligible for intensive English language support. Eligible students range from those newly arrived in Australia, to Australian-born students from a non-English-speaking background. New South Wales provides several programs for English language learners from Kindergarten through Grade 12.

ESL Targeted Support Program -This program provides specialist ESL teachers, in addition to the school’s normal staffing allocation, to primary and high schools which have sufficient numbers of identified ESL students.

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1209 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 English as a Second Language Increased Expenditures [1177]

Intensive English Centres and the Intensive English High School -These centres provide intensive ESL instruction to recently arrived high school students. They offer English language, orientation, settlement and welfare programs to prepare students for a successful transition to their designated New South Wales high school.

ESL New Arrivals Program -This program provides short-term ESL teacher support for eligible newly arrived students in primary and high schools which do not have an ESL Targeted Support Program. It allows the principal to hire a casual New Arrivals teacher to provide intensive ESL instruction for 3 hours per week for each eligible student.

Additional Information

Staff provided the following information at the meeting of the Administration, Finance and Ac- countability Committee.

At the Trustee Seminar on November 22nd, information was shared with Trustees about the grant impact in 2007-08 and future years due to a significant decrease in ESL enrolment. The details of the change in enrolment are shown in the following table:

ESL Enrolment Changes

Projected Actual FTE FTE Projected Total FTE Change Change in Change Change FTE 2009- 2006-07 (Original) FTE 2007- 2008-09 2009-10 10 2007-08 08 Elementary Year 1 6,046 (563) (1,171) (717) (426) 3,732 Year 2 5,523 (576) (783) (986) (552) 3,202 Year 3 5,117 30 26 (740) (916) 3,487 Year 4 4,385 182 191 6 (659) 3,923 Total Elem 21,071 (927) (1,737) (2,437) (2,553) 14,344

Secondary Year 1 3,619 (159) (685) (237) (268) 2,429 Year 2 3,530 (139) (267) (622) (214) 2,427 Year 3 3,077 228 96 (269) (554) 2,350 Year 4 2,539 191 171 38 (233) 2,515 Total Sec 12,765 121 (685) (1,090) (1,269) 9,721

Total 33,836 (806) (2,422) (3,527) (3,822) 24,065

The impact of the revised enrolment for ESL in the current year will affect the Board’s ESL grant by approximately $5M. Similarly, the projected further decrease in ESL enrolment for 2008-09 will result in a further drop in ESL grants of $8.9M. The total change in ESL grants over the next two years is nearly $13.9.

1210 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 English as a Second Language Increased Expenditures [1177]

At the November 22 seminar, Trustees asked why this information had not been shared with Pro- gram and School Services Committee earlier this month when it considered the report about ESL programs and expenditures. This information was not shared because it was not available. ESL enrolment information is confirmed as part of the enrolment verification process that occurs annually in early November following the Ministry’s October 31st count date. The enrolment information, therefore, was not available at the time Program Department was developing a revised ESL support model.

Planning staff are undertaking a review of ESL enrolment to determine the cause for this significant change in the reported number of ESL-eligible students. The review will examine possible factors to explain the change in the number of ESL-eligible students reported by schools, including changing immigration patterns, migration patterns (students moving to neighbouring boards in the GTA), and possible changes in TDSB school registration practices which may have arisen as a result of changes in board policy to support registration of students without legal immigration status.

It is anticipated that the ESL grant will continue to fall with decreases in ESL enrolment in 2009- 10 and beyond. ESL grant losses are not protected by the declining enrolment grant.

As a result, it is critical that the future ESL program model be tied directly to the number of ESL students (and, as a result, our annual ESL grant allocation) so that the model is responsive to annual changes in need.

For the Board’s decision see page 1187.

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1211 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 Musical Instrument Inventory Update [1166]

Musical Instrument Inventory Update [1166]

As presented to the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee on November 7, 2007 (see page 1188).

The report provides an update on the steps taken today to collect the musical instrument inventory from schools.

February, 2007 – May, 2007

• Development of forms for manual inventory collection process • Development of on-line tool for electronic collection of inventory data based on criteria developed by Music Committee • Instructions communicated to IMIs regarding the process, through regular staff meetings

May 14, 2007

• Direct Line to all staff with instructions for the manual collection process

June 4, 2007

• Direct Line to all staff announcing the go-live of the on-line data collection tool • Target deadline was indicated as June 29, 2007

June 25, 2007

• Reminder put in Direct Line that the on-line tool would be available throughout July

September 3, 2007

• Another reminder went out in Direct Line asking schools who had not completed the process to do so.

Summary of Data Collected (as at October 10, 2007)

• Of 601 schools, 360 have recorded data • Total instruments recorded – 31,709 • Total unplayable instruments – 1,821

Go-forward Plan

• Another reminder will be issued in October 15 Direct Line issue • Staff will be available to provide a demo of the tool at their next in-service, scheduled for mid-November • Music Dept is launching a new website in the very near future. Inventory requirement will be showcased on their home page with a link to the on-line web tool

1212 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 Musical Instrument Inventory Update [1166]

• Secondary PD November 30 – staff will provide an in-service to this group as well, demon- strating the tool and outlining possibilities re the data that can be extracted • Will require a decision re issue of non-compliance, after the steps outlined above are complete • Next phase of project is to develop capital replacement plan and instrument allocation for schools based on the data in the inventory.

For the Board’s decision see page 1188,

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1213 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, 2007-08 Membership Fee [1163]

Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, 2007-08 Membership Fee [1163]

As received by the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee on November 7, 2007 (see page 1189).

OPSBA is the provincewide umbrella association for public school trustees in Ontario. Trustees participate through their local board. The Toronto District School Board’s representation as elected by trustees is as follows:

• Trustees Campbell and Goodman, Directors • Trustee Goodman, Vice-president of Enrolment • Trustee Davis, Alternate Vice-president of Enrolment • Trustee Crawford, Voting Delegate • Trustee Goodman, Alternate Voting Delegate

In addition, Trustee Gershon is a member of OPSBA’s Executive Council.

OPSBA has contributed significantly in defending and representing the need for increased funding for all public school boards since the new funding model was put in place in 1998. Given the issues that continue to be faced by boards and the plans for funding model changes by the Minis- try, they will continue to provide a strong voice with the Minister.

The Board has benefited from the work of OPSBA and will continue to do so in the future.

About OPSBA

Funds for the membership fee were included in the Board’s approved 2007 – 2008 budget plan.

OPSBA is a unique association whose members are affiliated for the sole purpose of giving strength to the voice of public education in Ontario. OPSBA, being governed and controlled by its member Boards is a leader for excellence in funding, education policy, governance and labour relations.

Being at the very centre of the discussion on public education, OPSBA is influentially placed. As emerging issues demand attention, as change creates uncertainty, OPSBA’s access to legal experts, influential legislators and politicians from all parties, as well as senior Ministry staff and Federation leaders, is indispensable. We are an organization where trustees have first-hand in- sights into the implications of new legislation and policies and can connect with each other – ef- ficiently and consistently. Member Board trustees see this as contributing to their expertise in their education leadership and governance role.

OPSBA has a well-earned history of speaking in a clear, unified voice. As a non-profit, non- partisan, and democratically run organization, OPSBA provides a forum for connection and action that render the non-monetary benefits of membership invaluable.

The annual Public Education Symposium, Labour Relations Symposium and Annual General Meeting as well as the regularly scheduled Provincial Labour Relations Network, Program and

1214 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, 2007-08 Membership Fee [1163]

Policy Committees, Executive Council and Board of Directors meetings provide numerous opportunities for trustees to have access to vital and timely information as well as to meet infor- mally with their provincial counterparts. In addition, ad hoc committees are convened to address emerging and important issues which require a provincial perspective and an OPSBA public response OPSBA’s Public Education Symposium’s offerings for newly-elected Trustees are considered a valuable introduction to the role of trustee, as are the Trustee Handbook and Training Programs we have developed. Trustees and school boards find many avenues within OPSBA to participate in governance and influence decision-making. Through the conduits of Regional Committees, Standing Commit- tees, Ad Hoc and Special Purpose Work Groups, all trustees are able to contribute to the policy development and education positions taken at Executive Council and the Board of Directors where all member boards are represented. Our members have ensured that the OPSBA Constitu- tion is a living governance mechanism that is open to democratic amendment annually as the provincial environment and the needs of boards change. Through the Association, OPSBA member boards have worked respectfully together, shared expertise and have been leaders together in identifying and standing up for the issues that support students in classrooms, honour the work of teachers and school administrators, engage parents and safeguard the democratic processes that support trustees in engaging communities in sub- stantive and meaningful ways. School board members also bring their expertise to OPSBA initiatives that have broad provincial implications. This past year, staff members of Toronto DSB participated on and made significant contributions to a variety of OPSBA work teams and committees. As a provincial organization OPSBA is recognized as a strong and effective voice for public education. With the passage of, Education Statute Law Amendment Act (Bill 78) in 2006, OPSBA’s role was embodied in legislation. The Association has excellent everyday working relationships with the Minister of Education Kathleen Wynne and her parliamentary assistant, former OPSBA president Liz Sandals, their political staff, the Premier’s office, and the Senior Staff at the Ministry of Education, who rely on OPSBA to speak for all Public School Boards on the diverse range of issues that affect the education experience of students and the operation of our schools. Beyond this, we ensure there is continuing dialogue with politicians from all parties and we work to build partnership with the many education-based organizations in the province and beyond. OPSBA offers programs and services that are highly cost effective and the monetary benefits of membership far outstrip, not only the membership fee itself but the outcomes that can be achieved by individual Boards seeking action alone. In this regard, the attached document outlines the range of benefits and services OPSBA offers its members. We are an issues-driven, problem solving organization dedicated to serving our members and we represent an influential force in the shaping of education policy and school board governance in the province. We invite you to review the specific information relevant to OPSBA’s services to the Toronto DSB and welcome your membership and participation in OPSBA in the coming year.

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1215 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 Collaborative Ventures, 2006-07 [1181]

Collaborative Ventures, 2006-07 [1181]

As received by the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee on November 7, 2007 (see page 1189).

(a) Exchange of Information

Purchasing & Distribution Services (PDS) is seen as a leader in collaborative purchasing practices and its efforts have been recognized in the Education Improvement Commission (EIC) report “Collaboration Among School Boards”, posted on the EIC website. Numerous calls from school boards across Canada and the USA requesting information about many aspects of purchasing have been received.

Purchasing staff belong to a number of associations including: Ontario Association of School Business Officials (OASBO), Purchasing Management Association of Canada (PMAC), Na- tional Institute of Government Purchasing (NIGP), Ontario Public Buyers Association (OPBA), and the Canadian Public Procurement Council (CPPC), and routinely exchange information about commodities, supplier performance, tender documents, policies and practices.

This exchange of information results in the building of a broader knowledge base for all parties, efficiencies by not ‘reinventing the wheel’ and risk management by learning from each other’s experiences.

(b) Access to Other Public Organizations’ Contracts

As part of the Municipalities, Universities, School Boards and Hospitals (MUSH) sector, the Board has access to contracts that are established by the provincial government. PDS staff moni- tors the Province of Ontario’s Shared Services website for available contracts and where benefi- cial, takes advantage of them. In most cases, TDSB contracts are more attractive than the provincial contracts for various valid reasons. One exception is the Province’s courier contract with Purolator for next day delivery anywhere in Ontario, with extremely competitive rates, that the TDSB has been using. PDS staff participated with Shared Services staff in the evaluation of the Courier Services Request for Proposal process.

PDS staff works with their counterparts at the City of Toronto, other school boards and municipalities to tender jointly for commonly used commodities. In the majority of cases, the benefit to the TDSB is through efficiencies (when another partner undertakes to issue the tender) and cost reductions.

(d) Fee for Service Ventures

PDS sells goods from the Distribution Centre to private schools, daycare centres and the City of Toronto Parks & Recreation Department, saving them money and bringing in revenue. In 2006/07, revenue was approximately $150,000, representing an increase of approximately $20,000 over the previous year.

1216 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, 2007-08 Membership Fee [1163]

(e) Ontario Education Collaborative Marketplace (OECM)

The Province announced this initiative to promote efficiencies by implementing Supply Chain Management best practices across the broader based public sector including school boards, colleges, universities and hospitals.

TDSB has been involved in Phase 1 and 2 of this initiative and a separate report will be forth- coming regarding TDSB involvement in Phase 3 (implementation). It is anticipated that the go- live date will be May, 2008.

(f) Catholic School Boards Services Association

TDSB participates in a consortium with 46 other school districts to procure its electricity needs. In addition, actuarial services requirements are pooled with members of the consortium.

(g) Toronto Catholic District School Board

The TDSB is working closely with the TCDSB in the area of Student Transportation Services.

The two boards jointly participated in the Request for Proposal process for student transportation services. Contracts were awarded for a five year term commencing September 1, 2007 with the option of two one year extensions.

All transportation staff of both Boards are currently located at 2 Trethewey Drive. The integration between the boards is achieved mainly by utilizing staff of both boards in the route planning operations. The two boards phased in shared busing from 1996-97 to full integration in 2003- 04.

The two boards have also been working together on a consortium submission to the Ministry of Education Transportation and Co-operative Services Unit, in order that an Effectiveness and Ef- ficiency Review can be conducted. The E & E review will evaluate management, policies and practices, routing and technology, and contracts. A funding adjustment may then be made to those Boards with a transportation expenditure-allocation gap i.e. a deficit in transportation operations. The TDSB has a surplus in its transportation operation; accordingly, no funding adjustment would be made. The TCDSB could benefit due to the current deficit in its transportation operation. The Ministry will schedule the next E&E reviews between March 2008 to Au- gust 2008.

(h) Universities Purchasing Group

TDSB is participating with a purchasing group that includes University of Toronto, Ryerson Uni- versity, York University, McMaster University, Trent University and the City of Toronto to review areas of potential collaboration.

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1217 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 Collaborative Ventures, 2006-07 [1181]

(i) Governments Incorporating Procurement Policies to Eliminate Refuse (GIPPER)

TDSB has been a long-standing member of the GIPPER Committee, including representatives from municipal, provincial and federal agencies and has been instrumental in helping to promote environmentally responsible procurement.

(j) Capital Assets Project

Ministry of Education mandated that all school boards (under PSAB) introduce capitalization of assets on their financial statements, effective September 2008.

Staff has determined that in order to comply with this directive, we will modify our business processes, by implementing the asset management functionality on SAP. TCDSB & YCDSB also use SAP for their financial and reporting requirements. This presented an opportunity for the three boards to collaborate and determine if there are efficiencies in proceeding as a group rather than each board replicating the effort and resources individually.

In order to assess the functional and system needs, meetings were held to identify our collective and individual needs. The three boards subsequently met with SAP to validate the proposed concept and assessment of the effort and resources required, collectively and/or individually. Presently we are waiting for SAP to respond with their analysis. Once received, we will determine the next steps for the project partnership between the Boards.

If successful in this collaborative effort, it could set the stage for many other projects governed by the same sets of guidelines, rules, etc, using the same systems.

1218 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, 2007-08 Membership Fee [1163]

Type of Collaboration Other Participants Lead Agency Benefits for the Board Comments

Exchange of Information Currently working on a number of projects which include: Establish- ing policies/procedures for consideration by other boards to promote the purchase of environ- OASBO Purchasing Committee Increased knowledge base Purchasing Issues Rotating Chair mentally responsible products; Members Reduced Administrative Costs Standard Tender Terms and Con- ditions that all Boards could use; PD sessions on Tax and Legal Issues; Expanded use of technology Across Ontario, Canada and the Increased knowledge base In most cases the Board is provid- Purchasing Issues Reciprocal exchange USA Reduced Administrative Costs ing the information to others Access to Other Public Organizations' Contracts City of Toronto, University of Used only as needed. Majority of Province of Ontario, Man- Lowest available next-day courier Next-day Courier Service Toronto, York University, various internal courier service is pro- agement Board Secretariat cost anywhere in Ontario hospitals vided by Board staff Co-operative Tendering Reduced Cost Better Accessibility to products City's volumes are much higher Bulk Winter Salt and Sand City of Toronto City of Toronto (yard pick-ups) than the Board's resulting in sav- Reduced Tender Administration ings for the Board Costs Reduced Cost City's volumes are much higher Gasoline and Diesel Fuel City of Toronto City of Toronto Reduced Tender Administration than the Board's resulting in sav- Tender Costs ings for the Board Pooling of requirements resulted City of Toronto, University of Reduced product and administra- Grass Seed and Fertilizer City of Toronto in cost reductions for participating Toronto tive costs members. Pooling of requirements resulted Reduced Costs Catholic School Boards Services in cost reductions for all mem- Electricity CSBSA Reduced Tender Administration Association (CSBSA) bers. Sharing of legal/consulting Costs costs by all participants. Fee for Service Private schools Revenue from sales (approx. Sale of Warehoused Products TDSB (Distribution Centre) Sale of stock items Daycare Centres $150,000)

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1219 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 Collaborative Ventures, 2006-07 [1181]

Type of Collaboration Other Participants Lead Agency Benefits for the Board Comments City of Toronto Parks and Recrea- Supporting daycare centres with tion cost effective supplies Other Ventures Development of a common mar- Based on the outcome of a feasi- University of Toronto ketplace for broader public sector bility study, the Ministry of Fi- University of Ottawa organizations, funded by the Min- nance has agreed to finance the Ontario Educational Collabo- York University istry of Finance and supported by Board of Directors com- creation of an electronic market- rative Marketplace (OECM) Trent University the Ministry of Education, will: prised of representatives place which will improve the www.oecm.ca University of Western Ontario Provide an efficient internet based from the organizations efficiency of the purchasing proc- Ryerson University ordering tool for our users ess and result in additional proc- Humber College Cost savings for all members from ess and cost savings for the par- Seneca College volume consolidation & increased ticipating organizations. standardization Pooling of requirements such as grass seed and fertilizer resulted in University of Toronto lower Tender Administration Costs McMaster University and Prices Universities' Purchasing Ryerson University Review of all common interest Rotating Chair Piggy-back provisions included in Group Trent University areas TDSB tenders for chalk, A/V York University lamps and bulbs resulted in lower City of Toronto costs for participating member agencies. City of Toronto Canadian Standards Association City of Mississauga PDS is a member of Gov- Keep abreast of environmental Region of York Board staff is also the OASBO ernments Incorporating Pro- issues and influence environmen- Toronto Public Library Region of York (Chair) Purchasing Committee represen- curement Policies to Elimi- tally responsible procurement pol- Terrachoice tative at GIPPER nate Refuse (GIPPER) icy development Ontario Ministry of the Environ- ment Public Works and Shared Services

1220 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 2007-08 Special Education Funding [1167]

2007-08 Special Education Funding [1167]

As received by the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee on November 7, 2007 (see page 1189).

(a) Financial Position

In June 2007 TDSB had projected an operating deficit of $25.4M for 2007-08. As a result of enhanced funding announced by the Ministry on August 14, 2007 the board received an additional $20.8M.

Most of these funds will be used to offset cost overruns and bring the board closer to a balanced budget position. The only exception is in the area of primary class size. The Province requires boards to hire additional teachers with these funds in order to meet the provincial class size initiative of 20:1 in JK to Grade 3.

The Board is now projecting a 2007-08 operating deficit of $7.3M

(b) Declining Enrolment

In 2007-08 the board is projecting enrolment decline of 3,900 students. In the past 5 years the board has experienced enrolment decline of over 16,700 students.

Much of the funding received from the Ministry is enrolment driven –hence the board is con- stantly challenged to align programs and services with diminishing funding resources.

Enrolment 2006-07 2007-08 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 (ADE) Projected Projected

Elementary 175,043.0 170,739.3 167,445.4 163,814.5 160,031.5

Secondary 87,379.9 86,540.8 86,369.1 85,778.0 85,689.6

Total 262.422.9 257,280.1 253,814.5 249,592.5 245,721.0

The Ministry released the GSN grant regulation on March 19, 2007 which provided:

• $25M in special education funding to boards -allocated to: • High-Needs Amount –for TDSB and other declining enrolment boards this meant funding held at 2006-07 levels • Address increases in Special Incident Portion (SIP) & Special Education Amount (SEA) claims

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1221 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 2007-08 Special Education Funding [1167]

• 3% salary increase for teaching and non teaching staff salary – reflected in the Special Edu- cation per Pupil Amount (SEPPA).

As a result of the above, TDSB received $7.9M (approx.) increase in special education funding

Enhanced 2007-08 GSN funding was announced on August 14, 2007 which provided:

• $20M in special education funding -allocated to adjust the salary benchmark for educational assistants – through increases in SEPPA per-pupil amounts. • $21M allocated to adjust the professional and paraprofessional salary benchmarks, these staff provide support to special education and staffing benchmarks were increased through increases in SEPPA per pupil amounts.

As a result of the above, TDSB received an additional $3.5M (approx.) in special education funding

The 2007-08 special education allocation is made up of 5 components:

• SEPPA based upon the boards total enrolment $121. 7M • $669 per JK to Grade 3 student, • $515 per Grade 4 to 8 student, • $340 per Grade 9 to 12 student • High Needs Amount – essentially a transition grant to replace the intensive support amount (ISA) student based claims process. New policy & funding approach –yet to be determined. $130.0M • SEA based upon approved claims for individual student equipment needs in excess of $800. $ 7.6M

SIP based upon approved claims to supports pupils who have extraordinary high needs and require additional staff resources to address their exceptionalities. $ 5.1M

Section 23 based upon approval process to provide education programs at care and treatment, custody and correctional facilities. $ 13.1M

Total $277.5M

2006-07 2007-08 Esti- Revised Esti- Variance Variance mates** mates

(in $ millions) SEPPA 131.7 113.4 8.3 High-needs 130.0 130.0 0 Amount SIP 5.1 4.8 0.3

1222 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 2007-08 Special Education Funding [1167]

Section 23 13.1 12.2 0.9 269.9 260.4 9.5 3.6 % Special Equip- 7.6 5.7 1.9 ment Amount Total 277.5 266.1 11.4 4.3 % ** Includes March 19 and August 14 Ministry funding announcements.

(d) Special Education –Expenditure

• In 2007-08 the board is planning special education expenditures of $351.0M an increase of $9.7M over last year. • These expenditures support such programs and services as: • All teaching; administrative/support and classroom materials at congregated sites • All teaching and support staff for self-contained classes (ISP) • Home school program teaching and support staff (HSP) • Kindergarten Early Language Intervention (KELI) • Special diagnostic classes for struggling primary students • Low incidence Co-op and summer programs • Education programs at Care & Treatment facilities (Section 23) • Safe intervention programs • Aquatics staff for low incidence swimming programs • Professional & Paraprofessional services (such as child & youth workers; technicians; and psychologists) • Research, assessments and professional development

Special education related expenditures funded from other areas include:

• Transportation • Arbitration, tribunal and legal costs • Capital and facility expenditures for special education classrooms • Administrative costs for central special education staff • Information costs for computer networks and records management • Some secondary teacher costs to accommodate timetable glitches and coverage

2007-08 Esti- 2006-07 Variance mates** Revised Estimates (in $ millions) Elementary 260.5 254.4 2.4 % Secondary 90.5 86.9 4.1 % Total 351.0 341.0 2.9 % Labour Costs 93.0 % 93.5 % -0.5 % Other Expenditures 7.0 % 6.5 % 0.5 % Total 100.0% 100.0% 0.0 %

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1223 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 2007-08 Special Education Funding [1167]

(e) Special Education –Enveloping

The Ministry requires the Special Education Allocation to be only used for providing special education programs and services.

Boards are required to follow special education reporting instructions issued by the Ministry and demonstrate that the Special Education Allocation is being used for the intended purpose by completing the Ministry enveloping schedule.

As a result of resource and needs planning by the special education department and with increased benchmark funding from the Ministry – the board’s special education enveloping is projected to improve from -$11.4M to -$7.4M in 2007-08.

2007-08 Esti- 2006-07 Variance mates** Revised Estimates

(in $ millions) Total Expenditures 351.0 341.3 9.7 Less Other Revenue 0.4 0.4 0.0 NET Expenditures 350.6 340.9 9.7 Less Self-contained 65.7 63.4 2.4 Special Ed. Incre- 284.9 277.5 7.4 mental Expenditure Special Ed. Alloca- 277.5 266.1 11.4 tion NET Expenditure -7.4 -11.4 4.0

Additional Information Presented by Staff

The grant impacted in 2007-08 and future years due to a significant decrease in ESL enrolment. The details of the change in enrolment are shown in the following table:

Projected Actual Change Change FTE FTE Projected ESL Enrolment Total FTE (Original) in FTE Change Change FTE 2009- Changes 2006-07 2007-08 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 10

Elementary Year 1 6,046 (563) (1,171) (717) (426) 3,732 Year 2 5,523 (576) (783) (986) (552) 3,202 Year 3 5,117 30 26 (740) (916) 3,487 Year 4 4,385 182 191 6 (659) 3,923 Total Elem 21,071 (927) (1,737) (2,437) (2,553) 14,344

1224 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 10, November 7, 2007 2007-08 Special Education Funding [1167]

Projected Actual Change Change FTE FTE Projected ESL Enrolment Total FTE (Original) in FTE Change Change FTE 2009- Changes 2006-07 2007-08 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 10 Secondary Year 1 3,619 (159) (685) (237) (268) 2,429 Year 2 3,530 (139) (267) (622) (214) 2,427 Year 3 3,077 228 96 (269) (554) 2,350 Year 4 2,539 191 171 38 (233) 2,515 Total Sec 12,765 121 (685) (1,090) (1,269) 9,721

Total 33,836 (806) (2,422) (3,527) (3,822) 24,065

At the November 22nd seminar, Trustees asked why this information had not been shared with Program and School Services Committee earlier this month when it considered the report about ESL programs and expenditures. This information was not shared because it was not available. ESL enrolment information is confirmed as part of the enrolment verification process that occurs annually in early November following the Ministry’s October 31st count date. The enrolment information, therefore, was not available at the time Program Department was developing a revised ESL support model.

It is anticipated that the ESL grant will continue to fall with decreases in ESL enrolment in 2009- 10 and beyond. ESL grant losses are not protected by the declining enrolment grant.

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1225 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 8 (Part 1), November 14, 2007

Program and School Services Committee

Report No. 8 (Part 1)

November 14, 2007

A meeting of the Program and School Services Committee convened on Wednesday, November 14, 2007, from 6:45 to 10 p.m., in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Chris Tonks, Vice-Chair, presiding.

Committee members present: Trustees Michael Coteau (Chair), Maria Rodrigues and Chris Tonks. Regrets were received from Trustees Bruce Davis and Josh Matlow. Also present were Trustees Nadia Bello, Chris Bolton, John Campbell, Sheila Cary-Meagher, Shaun Chen, Howard Goodman, John Hastings and Soo Wong.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

1. System Review: Continuing Education [1178]

The Board postponed consideration of the matter to December 12, 2007.

2. Placement in Senior Kindergarten French Immersion [1182]

The Board postponed consideration of the matter to December 12, 2007.

3. Program Area Review Team (PART): Timothy Eaton BTI [1183]

The Committee considered a staff report (see page 1230) seeking approval to establish a Program Area Review Team to address the under-enrolment at Timothy Eaton BTI.

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

On a motion of Trustee Tonks, the Program and School Services Committee RECOMMENDS that a Program Area Review Team be established for Timothy Eaton Business and Technical In- stitute.

4. Program Area Review Team (PART): Samuel Hearne Senior Public School [1184]

The Committee considered a staff report (see page 1231) seeking approval to establish a Program Area Review Team to address overcrowding at Samuel Hearne Senior Public School and Oak- ridge Junior Public School.

1226 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 8 (Part 1), November 14, 2007

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

On a motion of Trustee Tonks, the Program and School Services Committee RECOMMENDS that a Program Area Review Team be established for Samuel Hearne Senior Public School.

5. Program Area Review Team (PART): Seneca School [1187]

The Committee considered a staff (see page 1232)) seeking approval to establish a Program Area Review Team to address the pathway for Seneca School graduates and other students with high needs in the northwest quadrant. Seneca School provides programming for students aged four to 12 who have developmental challenges.

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

On a motion of Trustee Tonks, the Program and School Services Committee RECOMMENDS that a Program Area Review Team be established for Seneca School.

6. French Immersion and Extended French Annual Reports

On a motion of Trustee Tonks (on behalf of Trustee Campbell), the Program and School Services Committee RECOMMENDS:

Whereas, the Board now has over eighteen thousand students enrolled in a combination of 41 early French Immersion schools, 9 middle French Immersion schools, 27 Grade 4 Extended French, and 16 Grade 7 Extended French schools; and

Whereas, the spending to support these programs totals nearly $6 million; and

Whereas, the Board has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to broadening the opportunity to the learning of French in its schools;

Therefore, be it resolved that staff present, beginning in the fall of 2008, an annual report providing details and insight, including comparatives with other school boards on the following:

(i) Enrolment by grade and by program (French Immersion and Extended French);

(ii) Attrition rate by grade and by program;

(iii) Efforts to collect data on the reasons for attrition, including exit surveys;

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1227 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 8 (Part 1), November 14, 2007

(iv) Data on the number of Grade 8 transfers into secondary of potentially at-risk students;

(v) Plans to ensure programs and supports in secondary schools are in place to improve the outcomes for those students at risk of failing and dropping the program;

(vi) Instructional leader staffing levels;

(vii) Data on the number of non-certified French-language teachers and the number of non-qualified French-language teachers employed who are serving on letters of recommendation;

(viii) Efforts to improve retention and recruitment of French teachers;

(ix) Professional development and French Immersion qualification efforts’

(x) Ongoing challenges;

(xi) Academic success comparisons, where possible.

Part B: Information Only

7. Updates From Community Advisory Committees and Delegations

(a) The following oral delegations were heard in accordance with the Board’s procedure for hearing delegations.

re Item 6. System Review: Continuing Education

1. Terri Preston, CUPE, Local 4400 2. Sean Usher and Elizabeth Hill, Canadian Education and Adult Community Alliance 3. Rosario Marchese, MPP, Trinity-Spadina 4. Ilda Januario, Portuguese-Canadian Education Network, Ethnocultural Community Network 5. Carmen Romero 6. Elena Ikonomou 7. Lisa Skeete 8. Vicki McPhee 9. Anne Marie Roberts 10. Kevin Barrett and Caleb Woolcott, Parents, Kensington Community School 11. Anne Fleming, School Council Chair, King Edward P.S. 12. Yolisa Dalamba 13. Gerry Lang

re Africentric Alternative School Proposal

14. Angela Wilson and Donna Harrow

1228 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 8 (Part 1), November 14, 2007

(b) An opportunity was provided for oral or written updates from co-chairs of advisory committees.

Lisa Snelgrove and Catherine Vivash provided an oral update on behalf of the French as a Second Language Advisory Committee. A written submission was also received.

Michael Kerr provided an oral update on behalf of the Equity Policy Advisory Committee.

re Considerations for Placement of SK Immersion Students under Registration Process Adopted by the Board October 30, 2007

1. Mary Cruden, Chair, French as a Second Language Advisory Committee

re System Review: Continuing Education

2. Canadian Adult and Community Education Alliance 3. Edward Chin, Jr., former student 4. Neil Donaldson, Co-founder, Stolen From Africa 5. Teresa Catellucci Former ILBC Student, ESL Instructor, Supply Teacher and Publi- cist 6. Peter Gazzelloni 7. Ethnocultural Community Network 8. Campaign for Public Education 9. The Colour of Poverty Campaign (Fact Sheets) 10. Terri Preston, CUPE, Local 4400

8. English As A Second Language: Increased Expenditures [1177]

The Committee considered a staff presenting a proposal for increased expenditure of $14.3 million for supports for English-as-a-Second-Language learners. The report was also presented to the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee.

On a motion of Trustee Rodrigues, the Program and School Services Committee concurred with the recommendations of the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, as presented in Report No. 10 (Part 1), November 7, 2007 (see page 1187).

Part C: Ongoing Matters

No matters to report

Chris Tonks Vice-Chair of the Committee Adopted November 28 and 30, 2007

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1229 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 8 (Part 1), November 14, 2007 Program Area Review Team (PART): Timothy Eaton BTI [1183]

Program Area Review Team (PART): Timothy Eaton BTI [1183]

As presented to the Program and School Services Committee on November 14, 2007 (see page 1226).

An urgent accommodation issue is being addressed through the Central Feasibility Team process and is not part of the program revitalization process. The enrolment at Timothy Eaton BTI is significantly under the capacity of the facility. The Grade 9 enrolment is approximately 35 students and the overall enrolment is approximately 300. Last year’s Grade 9 enrolment was 85 students. The enrolment projections predict that in the next five years, the school enrolment will continue to decline in a very significant way. By 2012, the school enrolment at Timothy Eaton BTI is predicted to be approximately 100 students. The school program is struggling to offer students a complete program of compulsory subjects. This issue will be magnified as enrolment declines.

A Local Feasibility Team meeting was held on October 24, 2007 to review enrolment data and to discuss the significant under-enrolment patterns. The meeting was attended by the school Principal, the Superintendent of Education, the Trustee responsible for Timothy Eaton BTI and staff from Planning, Special Education and Facilities. Also in attendance were Principals from other impacted secondary schools in the area (L’Amoreaux CI, Agincourt CI, Stephen Leacock CI, Lester B. Pearson CI, Albert Campbell CI, and Sir John A. MacDonald CI).

The Local Feasibility Team determined that the program at Timothy Eaton BTI is not serving the needs of the majority of students enrolled at this school. Approximately 70% of the students at Timothy Eaton BTI have special needs requiring Special Education support. Seventy per cent of the student population is male. The school has received 15 safe school transfers. There are issues of violent incidents, lack of positive role models and low student achievement in spite of the many supports available. The Local Feasibility Team has recognized that not only are concerns about program viability at this school, but also real issues around the school culture. As a result, the school environment for student learning has become problematic. Few students are choosing to attend this school.

The Central Feasibility Team has considered the findings of the Local Feasibility Team and recommends that a Program Area

It is estimated that the cost to conduct the Program Area Review will be approximately $500 to be covered by the Superintendent of Education.

The Program Area Review Team will be required to meet, review data, develop options and come up with recommendations through consensus to address the situation at Timothy Eaton BTI.

For the Board’s decision see page 1226.

1230 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 8 (Part 1), November 14, 2007 Program Area Review Team (PART): Samuel Hearne Senior Public School [1184]

Program Area Review Team (PART): Samuel Hearne Senior Public School [1184]

As presented to the Program and School Services Committee on November 14, 2007 (see page 1226). A Program Area Review Team is needed to address the over-crowding occurring at the Samuel Hearne Sr. P.S (Grades 7-8) and Oakridge Jr. P.S. (JK-6). This is an urgent accommodation issue that is being addressed through the Central Feasibility Team process. It is not part of the Pro- gram Revitalization process. Samuel Hearne Sr. P.S. and Oakridge Jr. P.S. share a common school site. There are currently six portables on site, housing Oakridge Jr. P.S. students. Due to space limitations in Oakridge Jr. P.S., the Grade 6 students are housed in Samuel Hearne Sr. P.S. and are taught by Oakridge Jr. P.S. teachers. There is very little play area for the students at the two schools. The site has two parking lots. One is shared by Oakridge Jr. P.S. and Samuel Hearne Sr. P. S. The other is shared by Samuel Hearne Sr. P.S. and the community centre attached to it. Between the two schools, there are 1,223 students on the site. Oakridge Jr. P.S. is projected to grow over the next five years to 900+ students. Samuel Hearne Sr. P.S. is projected to grow to 377 students in that same period of time. Regent Heights Jr. P.S. and Warden Avenue Jr. P.S. are also feeder schools to Samuel Hearne Sr. P.S. The student enrolment in the area will continue to grow, particularly at Warden Avenue Jr. P.S., where there are housing developments in process that could yield up to an estimated 323 additional students. The increases in the elementary school population also have an impact on the receiving secondary schools in the area, which are Birchmount Park C.I. and [email protected] C.I. A PART to address the over-crowding at Birchmount Park C.I. has previously been approved. A preliminary discussion of the area involving the four schools took place in January, 2007. A Local Feasibility meeting was held on October 24, 2000, including the Principals, Vice Princi- pals, Superintendent of Education and Planning staff. The Trustee has been apprised of all discussions surrounding the issues and approves of the direction of seeking approval for a PART. The Central Feasibility Team has considered the findings of the Local Feasibility Team and recommends that a Program Area Review Team be established. It is recommended that the cost to conduct the program area Review Team may be $500. This estimated cost includes printing and meeting expenses. This cost will be covered by the host Su- perintendent of Education. The Program Area Review Team will require the participation of the Principals and the Superin- tendent of Education for the Samuel Hearne Sr. P.S. area, as well as the Trustee and staff from Program and School Services, Facilities and Planning. The Program Area Review Team will be required to meet, review data, develop options and arrive at a recommendation through consensus to address the over-crowding at the Samuel Hearne Sr. P.S. site. For the Board’s decision see page 1226.

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1231 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 8 (Part 1), November 14, 2007 Program Area Review Team (PART): Seneca School [1187]

Program Area Review Team (PART): Seneca School [1187]

As presented to the Program and School Services Committee on November 14, 2007 (see page 1227).

A Program Area Review Team is needed to address the pathway for Seneca School graduates and other students with high needs in the North West quadrant. This is an urgent accommodation issue that is being addressed through the Central Feasibility Team process.

Currently, Seneca School has an enrolment of 60 students with special needs between the ages of 4 and 12 years. Eleven students are expected to graduate at the end of June 2008. In addition to this there is no clear pathway for students with high needs in the North West quadrant to attend beyond graduating from the elementary panel.

Seneca School has retained many students who are eligible to graduate due to the lack of specific accommodations required at the secondary level and the inability of providing parents/ guardians with exact information pertaining to their child’s transition.

There is difficulty in supporting students newly enrolled at Seneca School as a result of space limitations as students who are eligible to graduate are remaining longer than required.

The funds needed to conduct the Program Area Review Team will be minimal and would cover basic meeting costs. These funds would be covered through Program Revitalization/Student Success.

The Program Area Review Team will require the participation of Principals, Superintendents in the North West quadrant, as well as the Trustee and staff from School Services, Facilities and Planning staff.

The Program Area Review Team will be required to meet, review data, develop options and arrive at a recommendation through consensus to address the pathway for graduates from Seneca School and other students with high needs in the North West quadrant.

For the Board’s decision see page 1227.

1232 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Audit Committee, Report No. 6, November 7, 2007

Audit Committee

Report No. 6

November 7, 2007

A meeting of the Audit Committee convened on Wednesday, November 7, 2007, 3:05 to 3:55 p.m., in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Trustee Scott Harrison, Chair, presiding.

The following committee members were present: Trustees Scott Harrison, Howard Goodman and Soo Wong. Also present were Trustee Cary-Meagher and Student Trustee Gerald Mak.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

No matters to report

Part B: Information Only

1. Learning Opportunities Index Review [1176]

On a motion of Trustee Wong, the Committee received a staff report presenting recommendations in response to the external review of the Learning Opportunities Index (LOI).

Note: The matter was also considered by the Human Resources Committee on this same date. See page 1177 for the HRC’s recommendation and the Board’s decision.

2. System Review: Continuing Education [1178]

On a motion of Trustee Wong, the Committee received a staff report presenting a report on the system review of Continuing Education.

Note: The matter was also considered by the Program and School Services Committee on No- vember 14, 2007. The Audit Committee acknowledged that any substantial recommendations would be made by the Program and School Services Committee. It is anticipated that the PSSC recommendation will be considered by the Board at the regular meeting scheduled for December 12, 2007.

Part C: Ongoing Matters

No matters to report

Scott Harrison Chair of the Committee Received November 28 and 30, 2007

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1233 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 8, November 21, 2007

Operations and Facilities Management Committee

Report No. 8

November 21, 2007

A regular meeting of the Operations and Facilities Management Committee convened on Wednesday, November 21, 2007, from 4:40 to 5:55 p.m., in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Trustee Mari Rutka presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Mari Rutka (Chair), Cathy Dandy, Scott Harri- son, and Soo Wong. Regrets were received from Trustee Sheila Cary-Meagher. Also present were Trustee James Pasternak and Student Trustee Gerald Mak. Trustee Harrison participated by electronic means.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

1. Facilities Contract Awards [1185]

The Committee considered a staff report (see page 1237) presenting facilities contract awards. The Committee received the contracts on Chart A and approved the contracts on Chart B.

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

On a motion of Trustee Harrison, the Operations and Facilities Management Committee REC- OMMENDS that the contracts on Chart A be received and the contracts on Chart B be approved.

2. William Lyon Mackenzie C. I., Renewable Energy Project [1186] The Committee considered a staff report (see page 1242) presenting information about a proposed agreement with Toronto Hydro to develop a renewable energy project at William Lyon Mackenzie C.I.

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

On a motion of Trustee Harrison, the Operations and Facilities Management Committee REC- OMMENDS that negotiations continue with Toronto Hydro Energy Services to finalize an agreement to develop a renewable energy project at Wm. Lyon Mackenzie Collegiate Institute.

1234 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 8, November 21, 2007

Staff undertook to provide quarterly reports informing the trustees of environmental initiatives.

Staff undertook to create an audio-visual record of the installation at William Lyon Mackenzie C.I.

3. Pupil Accommodation Review Process: Bendale BTI-David and Mary Thom- son CI [1197] The Committee considered a staff report (see page 1244) seeking approval for a pupil accommodation review of Bendale BTI and David and Mary Thomson C.I.

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

On a motion of Trustee Harrison, the Operations and Facilities Management Committee REC- OMMENDS that a process that meets the Ministry of Education’s Pupil Accommodation Re- view Guidelines be approved for a pupil accommodation review affecting Bendale Business and Technical Institute, David and Mary Thomson Collegiate Institute, and other affected schools.

Note: At the Committee meeting, staff indicated that the review would begin in December 2007.

4. Architect Selection: Kennedy Public School and Highfield Junior School Addi- tions [1190] The Committee considered a staff report (see page 1247) recommending the hiring of architects for the Kennedy P.S. and Highfield J.S. additions.

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

On a motion of Trustee Wong, the Operations and Facilities Management Committee REC- OMMENDS:

(a) That Kearns Mancini Architects Inc. be appointed for the addition to Kennedy Public School;

(b) That Taylor Smyth Architects be appointed for the addition to Highfield Junior School.

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1235 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 8, November 21, 2007

5. Boyne River Outdoor Education Centre Feasibility Study, R.R. 4, Shelbourne [1171] The Committee considered a staff report (see page 1249) seeking approval to undertake a feasibility study for the Boyne River Outdoor Education Centre and retain to Artscape and the Ever- green Foundation.

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

On a motion of Trustee Dandy, the Operations and Facilities Management Committee REC- OMMENDS:

(a) That Artscape and the Evergreen Foundation be retained for the development of a feasibility study and business plan for the Boyne River Outdoor Education Centre which will be operationally sustainable;

(b) That two trustees be appointed to work with staff and Artscape through the feasibility process;

6. Community and Organic Gardens On a motion of Trustee Rutka, the Operations and Facilities Management Committee REC- OMMENDS that staff present a report by June 2008 that explores possibilities, and potential partners to support establishing community gardens, an organic farm, or other similar ventures on school sites that could provide financial and programming opportunities.

Part B: Information Only

7. Delegation The following oral delegation was heard in accordance with the Board’s procedure for hearing delegations. re William Lyon Mackenzie C. I., Renewable Energy Project

• Julia Chernushevich, Tanya Mondkovich, and other Mackenzie C.I. students

Part C: Ongoing Matters

No matters to report Mari Rutka Chair of the Committee Adopted November 28 and 30, 2007

1236 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 8, November 21, 2007 Facilities Contract Awards [1185]

Facilities Contract Awards [1185]

As presented to the Operations and Facilities Management Committee on November 21, 2007 (see page 1234).

In accordance with the Board's policy P.017: Purchasing, the attached appendices present contracts for receipt or approval, as appropriate.

The recommended suppliers and the term of each contract are shown in the attached appendices. Chart 1 outlines contract awards provided for information and Chart 2 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 3 is a summary of contract awards for selected Facility Service projects for the period Sep- tember 2006 to date.

The Process

Contractors bidding on Board construction/maintenance projects must be pre-qualified. Consid- eration 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 $1M 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 BidNavigator) 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 De- partment.

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1237 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 8, November 21, 2007 Facilities Contract Awards [1185]

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

Site Improvement Asphalt Re- November 2007/ placement at John McCrae P.S. C. Perrotta & Facility Ser- 4 Facility Services 19 Yes No 2 $151,169 May 30, 2008 GPL RB08-034TAsphalt in need of Sons vices

repair Bulk Salt and Sand for pick up as Facility Ser- October 2007/ 5 Facility Services required through the 07/08 snow N/A City of Toronto N/A No N/A $240,000 vices and City Operations April 2008 season of Toronto

1238 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 8, November 21, 2007 Facilities Contract Awards [1185]

User/Budget No. of Estimated Projected Holder Recommended Low Objec- Customer In- Funding Products/Services Details Ward Bids Annual Start/End Date School/Departme Supplier Bid tions volvement Source Rec’d Amount of Contract nt Asbestos Removal around Fire Alarm Installation System at Abbot Environ- June 2007/ Facility Ser- 6 Facility Services Timothy Eaton B &TI To remove 20 Yes No 4 $187,500 GPL mental August 2007 vices asbestos in order to replace new fire alarm Supply of Switchgear to be in- stalled by TDSB in-house trades December 15, at Northview S.S.. Existing Powertrade Facility Ser- 7 Facility Services 5 Yes No 2 $80,400 2007/ GPL switchgear has reached life expec- Electric Ltd. vices March 25, 2008 tancy and is in need of replacement. Air Handling Unit & CU Re- placement at Dixon Grove JMS CN08-038T. The AHU equipment November 2007/ Facility Ser- 8 Facility Services is obsolete and malfunctioning. 2 Ram Mechanical Yes No 4 $164,600 GPL May 1, 2008 vices Replacement is required to restore comfort temperatures in the Li- brary. August 20, Stair Replacement at Forest Hill M.J. Dixon Con- 2007/ Facility Ser- 9 Facility Services P.S. RB07-289Q Exterior Stairs 11 No No 4 $230,000 GPL struction December 20, vices need replacement. 2007 Inspection of Electrical Devices, Sole January 1, 2008/ Annual inspection of electrical Electrical Safety Facility Ser- Ministry 10 Facility Services N/A Sourc No 12 $225,267 December 31, systems and equipment in TDSB Authority vices Grant e 2008 facilities

1Sole source as mandated under Electricity Act, 1998 (Ontario Regulation 164-99)

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1239 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 8, November 21, 2007 Facilities Contract Awards [1185]

Chart 2: Facilities Contracts Requiring Board Approval (over $500,000 and Consulting Services over $50,000)

User/Budget No. of Estimated Projected Holder Recommended Low Objec- Customer In- Funding Products/Services Details Ward Bids Annual Start/End Date of School/Departmen Supplier Bid tions volvement Source Rec’d Amount Contract t BOILERS Nil Items ROOFING Nil Items BUILDING AUTOMATION SYSTEMS Nil Items HVAC Nil Items SWIMMING POOLS Nil Items MINISTRY GRANT – PRIMARY CLASS SIZE CAP Nil Items OTHER Aluminum Window Extru- sions STM08-015T for Can Art Alu- December 2007/ Facility Ser- 1 Facility Services Shorting Glass Shop – mate- n/a minum Extru- Yes No 3 $500,000 1 GPL October 2009 vices rial required to process win- sion Inc. dows

Adonis Enter- prises Brick by Brick Clean Cut $436,000 2 D. I. Bros. (in total November 29, Snow Clearing Services– Four Seasons Facility Ser- 2 Facility Services n/a Yes No 24 split be- 2007/ Operations Various Sites DW07-370T IDG vices tween shown April 30, 2009 James Graham suppliers) Jim Rick’s Manning Municipal Maintenance North Shore

1240 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 8, November 21, 2007 Facilities Contract Awards [1185]

User/Budget No. of Estimated Projected Holder Recommended Low Objec- Customer In- Funding Products/Services Details Ward Bids Annual Start/End Date of School/Departmen Supplier Bid tions volvement Source Rec’d Amount Contract t Park Avenue Ranger Road Savers Stoneworks Terzo Fialho The Beach Gardener Today’s 1 Proposed prices represent 8% savings compared to previous contract period. 2 Approximate savings of 11% over last contract

Chart 3: Summary of Select Facilities Contracts: (September 1, 2007 to Present)

Total Num- Total 2007/08 Total Expendi- Total Number of Total Number Total 2006/07 ber of Pro- Contract Project Classification tures Projects for this of Projects Contract jects 2007/08 Awards Re- For this Report Report 2006/07 Awards to date ported to Date Boilers 0 0 0 0 9 $3,035,840 Roofing $110,000 1 1 $110,000 57 $5,962,417 Building Automation Sys- 0 0 0 0 31 $4,856,354 tems (BAS) Heating Ventilation Air 0 0 0 0 30 $12,388,275 Conditioning (HVAC) Swimming Pools 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ministry Grant – Primary 0 0 2 $541,923 22 $10,116,738 Class Size Cap TOTAL $110,000 1 3 $651,923 149 $36,359,624 For the Board’s decision see page 1234.

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1241 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 8, November 21, 2007 William Lyon Mackenzie C.I., Renewable Energy Project [1186]

William Lyon Mackenzie C. I., Renewable Energy Project [1186]

As presented to the Operations and Facilities Management Committee on November 21, 2007 (see page 1234).

This report seeks the Board’s approval to enter into negotiations with Toronto Hydro Energy Services to finalize an agreement to develop a renewable energy project at Wm. Lyon Mackenzie CI.

A Request for Proposal CF07-280P was issued and received submissions August 1, 2007 from Arise Technologies, Carmanah Technologies Corp, Menova Energy Inc, Direct Energy, TH En- ergy and Johnson Controls Inc.

Proponents identified a range of potential technologies for the project, including wind and solar (PV) electrical generation and solar-thermal and geo-thermal water heating.

• A team consisting of William Lyon Mackenzie CI students (SWITCH), staff from Facility Services, Business Services (Purchasing), School Services and MCW Consulting evaluated proposals according to the following criteria: • Provides educational component; • Incorporates renewable technology; • Sets out a viable work plan; • Facilitates a financially responsible solution for Board including options for minimizing Board risk; • Demonstrates maintainability and long-term operating effectiveness; • Illustrates proponent track record of implementing projects of similar size; • Provides for adequate liability insurance.

Staff from Facility Services and School Services, in addition to staff and students at Wm. Lyon Mackenzie CI, agree that TH Energy’s proposal is the strongest, but requires further negotiations to narrow down – and come to agreement on - the wide range of technical and financial options outlined in the proposal.

Staff and students agree:

• that the Board should negotiate a third-party ownership arrangement with TH Energy to supply, install and maintain, at their expense, a renewable energy project at Wm. Lyon Mackenzie CI. As owners of the system, TH Energy would provide all of the capital costs and assume the financial risk of the project. In return, the Board would receive roof rental revenue of $0.02 per kWh for 20 years. At the termination of the contract, the Board would have the opportunity to purchase the equipment from TH Energy for $100. • that TH Energy would have to incorporate the costs of any feasibility studies required into the project construction budget that is paid for by TH Energy. • that the technologies included in the final agreement would include a photovoltaic system, but that additional technologies may be added to the project scope as long as TH Energy

1242 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 8, November 21, 2007 William Lyon Mackenzie C.I., Renewable Energy Project [1186]

agrees to third-party ownership (as outlined above) and the costs of any further feasibility studies required would be paid for by TH Energy.

The staff and students at Wm. Lyon Mackenzie CI would work alongside staff in Facility Ser- vices in the negotiations with TH Energy.

There will be no cost to the Board for the recommendation.

Existing staffing levels in Facility Services, Business Services and School Services are adequate for this project.

Facility Services, Business Services and School Services staff and Wm. Lyon Mackenzie CI staff and students will work with TH Energy to negotiate an agreement and provide an update to Trus- tees in January, 2008. Project completion is anticipated by December, 2008.

For the Board’s decision see page 1234.

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1243 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 8, November 21, 2007 Pupil Accommodation Review Process: Bendale BTI-David and Mary Thomson CI [1197]

Pupil Accommodation Review Process: Bendale BTI-David and Mary Thomson CI [1197]

As presented to the Operations and Facilities Management Committee on November 21, 2007 (see page 1235).

On April 18, 2007, the Board approved staff to proceed with consideration of options for Pro- gram Revitalization affecting Bendale BTI, David and Mary Thomson CI, adjacent elementary schools, and other buildings on the Bendale-Thomson site.

As directed by the Board, staff has been working with staff of Bendale BTI and David and Mary Thomson CI, and with parents and community members to build a vision for possible changes to improve the schools and optimize the value of the site. There is a strong willingness in the schools and the community to proceed to a formal process to consider consolidation of schools, revitalization of their programs, and redevelopment of the site. As a result, staff is recommending that the pupil accommodation review process continue at Bendale-Thomson.

On October 31, 2006, the Ministry of Education issued new guidelines to direct the process to be followed where school boards undertake a review of their pupil accommodation to determine the future of a school or a group of schools. At this time the Ministry also issued an appeal process for individuals to follow to have an accommodation decision made by a board reviewed by a Ministry appointed facilitator. The Ministry’s Pupil Accommodation Review Guidelines and Administrative Review of Accommodation Review Process (see Accommodation Review Com- mittee Process (ARC) below).

The Board has an existing policy on accommodation review policy, P.007, FAC Pupil Accom- modation Review: School Closure, (see Appendix C). This policy does not meet the requirements of the Ministry guidelines.

The key differences between the Ministry’s guidelines and the Board’s current policy are:

• The Ministry’s policy requires a “School Valuation Framework” that must be used in consultation with the community, and allows consideration of the value of the affected schools for the students, the local community, the local economy, and the school board; • The Ministry’s policy sets out a specific timeline, establishing a minimum number of days between various stages of the review to allow opportunity for the public to respond to recommendations; and • The Ministry’s policy sets out specific requirements for publication of information relevant to the pupil accommodation review and the consultation process.

A trustee working group is meeting with Elaine Todres to develop an integrated approach for Program Revitalization, capital planning and asset management. The working group is considering, among other matters, options for how best to conduct local processes for pupil accommodation reviews. Staff recognizes that the trustee working group may develop recommendations to Board concerning the establishment of a new policy to direct local pupil accommodation review processes.

1244 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 8, November 21, 2007 Pupil Accommodation Review Process: Bendale BTI-David and Mary Thomson CI [1197]

Staff also recognizes that there is local momentum for highly positive changes for Bendale- Thomson. It will take many months to move from vision to specific proposals for the site. To maintain that local momentum (while the Board develops options for a new pupil accommodation review policy), staff is recommending, as an interim measure, a specific process for Ben- dale-Thomson. If approved, experience at Bendale-Thomson will inform the development of the Board’s new policy for pupil accommodation review.

Staff is seeking approval to follow a process for consideration of program and accommodation options for Bendale-Thomson that is consistent with the Board’s approved policy, and also meets the Ministry’s new guidelines. The recommended process is set out below.

No additional resources are required for implementation of this recommendation.

Pupil Accommodation Review process will begin in December 2007.

Accommodation Review Committee Process (ARC)

The proposed Accommodation Review Committee (ARC) process for Bendale BTI – David and Mary Thomson CI will be fully consistent with the intent and effect of the Board’s current approved Pupil Accommodation Review policy. The proposed process will adapt the approved policy to meet specific requirements of new guidelines from the Ministry of Education.

(a) Key differences between the new Ministry Guidelines and the Board’s current policy

The Ministry’s policy requires a “School Valuation Framework” that must be used in consultation with the community, and allows consideration of the value of the affected schools for the students, the local community, the local economy, and the school board;

The Ministry’s policy sets out a specific timeline, establishing a minimum number of days between various stages of the review to allow opportunity for the public to respond to recommendations; and

The Ministry’s policy sets out specific requirements for publication of information relevant to the pupil accommodation review and the consultation process.

(b) School Valuation Framework

The School Valuation Framework is a tool to be developed by a board that is used during the accommodation review process to assess the value of the schools being reviewed. The School Valuation Framework must include the following four considerations:

• value to the Student; • value to the Community; • value to the Board; and • value to the Local Economy.

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1245 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 8, November 21, 2007 Pupil Accommodation Review Process: Bendale BTI-David and Mary Thomson CI [1197]

The Ministry’s guideline provides some examples of matters to be considered in the School Valuation Framework (the guideline is attached as Appendix B of this report). The ARC for Bendale-Thomson will develop a School Valuation Framework that meets these guidelines, to support public consultation.

After the intention to conduct an accommodation review of a school or schools has been announced by the school board, there must be no less than 60 days notice prior to the first of four (minimum) public meetings.

Beginning with the first public meeting, the public consultation period must be no less than 90 days.

After the ARC completes its School Valuation Report, there must be no less than 60 days notice prior to the meeting where the trustees will vote on the recommendations.

(d) Public Information and Access

ARCs are to ensure that all information relevant to the accommodation review is to be made public by posting in a prominent location on the school board’s website or making it available in print upon request. All information that is used to determine the value of a school must be publicly available.

The following page sets out a flow chart that shows the main steps that will be followed in the Bendale-Thomson pupil accommodation review.

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

For the Board’s decision see page 1235.

1246 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 8, November 21, 2007 Architect Selection: Kennedy Public School and Highfield Junior School Additions [1190]

Architect Selection: Kennedy Public School and Highfield Junior School Additions [1190]

As presented to the Operations and Facilities Management Committee on November 21, 2007 (see page 1235).

The purpose for this report is to seek the Board’s approval to appoint Kearns Mancini Architects Inc. (KMA) and Taylor Smyth Architects (TSA) to design additions at Kennedy PS and High- field JS, respectively.

On June 27, 2007, the Board approved School Facilities Revitalization Master Plan 2007-2009 that included an allocation of $6.6M for the additions Kennedy PS and Highfield JS.

Construction of the addition to Kennedy PS will replace nine existing portables with an addition consisting of nine classrooms and one kindergarten, with a Ministry rated capacity of 227 pupil places. In addition, two school age Child Care rooms will be constructed.

Construction of the addition to Highfield will replace 12 existing portables at with an addition consisting of 12 classrooms, with a Ministry rated capacity of 276 pupil places. In addition, two school age Child Care rooms will be constructed.

Thirty-two (32) firms responded to Board’s RFP for architectural services. The Executive Offi- cer of Facility Services recommended four firms for interview to the Architect Selection Com- mittee, consisting of the Trustees, Superintendents of Education (SOE) and Principals for Ken- nedy PS and Highfield JS, the Executive Officer of Facility Services and the Manager of Design, Standards, Compliance and Environment. On November 7, 2007, the committee interviewed Susan Friedrich Architect, Kingsland + Architects, KMA and TSA and unanimously decided to recommend KMA and TSA for the additions at Kennedy PS and Highfield JS, respectively. Both firms have demonstrated design excellence, proven technical ability and past performance of close adherence to project budgets and schedules. They demonstrated a thorough understanding of the projects and an ability to work with the Board and Local School Community Design Team to evolve a visionary project which meets the needs of stakeholders.

Design Fees are estimated to be $197,000 for KMA, and $259,000 for TSA, to be funded from Ministry of Education Primary Class Size Reduction; and

Child Care program spaces will be funded by City of Toronto.

The Local School Community Design Team for each school, consisting of Trustee, SOE, Princi- pal, school staff, parents, representatives from local community and Facility Services staff, will be formed to guide the work of the architectural consultant and review the architect’s proposed schematic design options.

Preliminary Project Budgets

Kennedy PS Highfield JS Construction $2,623,000 $2,885,000 Fees (KMA @ 7.5%) 197,000 (TSA @ 8.98%) 259,000

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1247 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 8, November 21, 2007 Architect Selection: Kennedy Public School and Highfield Junior School Additions [1190]

GST @ 1.92% 54,000 60,000 Subtotal 2,874,000 3,204,000 Contingency @ 10% 287,000 320,000 Total Project costs $3,161,000 * $3,524,000*

*Preliminary estimate only at this time. Project budgets are subject to Board approval when Pro- gram and Sketch Plans are submitted to Operation and Facilities Management Committee.

For the Board’s decision see page 1235.

1248 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 8, November 21, 2007 Boyne River Outdoor Education Centre Feasibility Study, R. R. 4, Shelbourne [1171]

Boyne River Outdoor Education Centre Feasibility Study, R.R. 4, Shelbourne [1171]

As presented to the Operations and Facilities Management Committee on November 21, 2007 (see page 1236).

In June 2006 the Board decided (in part):

(a) That the feasibility of a multi-sector partnership for the management and operation of the Boyne River Outdoor Education Centre, and other closed outdoor education centres, be investigated

(b) That opportunities with the Bruce Trail Association for management of approximately 380 acres of the Boyne’s natural lands and secured access to TDSB students for educational and recreational use be investigated

On September 25, 2007, the Board approved in principle the Shareholders’ Direction for the To- ronto Lands Corporation (TLC).

During the start-up of the TLC there are ongoing property management matters that require decisions from the Board.

Board staff will work jointly with the TLC to ensure an orderly transition.

on October 30, 2007, the Board assigned properties, except as otherwise approved by the Board as being for sale, to the Toronto Lands Corporation, effective January 1, 2008, to manage…with a view to optimizing the net income…

Nevertheless, the matter has been reviewed with the Interim CEO of the Toronto Lands Corpora- tion and he supports the recommendations contained in this report.

Property Profile

The Boyne River Outdoor Education Centre (OEC) is a 402 acre property located in the Town- ship of Mulmur along the Niagara Escarpment. The property is environmentally sensitive due to its location along side the Bruce Trail and the Niagara Escarpment. The property was closed in 2003 and has remained vacant. A map an description of the property, and a profile of the Bruce Trail Association, were presented in June 2006 when the Board decided that the feasibility study be undertaken.

The consulting firm of NES Design & Development (NES) were retained and prepared an a initial program plan which engaged the local community and a spectrum of potential partners will- ing to explore and participate in the advancement of an imaginative, collaborative and viable concept and operating model for the future reuse of the Boyne River OEC, was identified.

The NES’s body of work identified a network of organizations interested in working with the Board to evolve new models for governance, operations, program delivery and community use at

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1249 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 8, November 21, 2007 Boyne River Outdoor Education Centre Feasibility Study, R. R. 4, Shelbourne [1171]

the Boyne River OEC. This body of work has set the foundation for which the next steps in this project will evolve.

What Artscape and Evergreen will do

Artscape, in collaboration with Evergreen, will undertake a focused planning and engagement process to:

• Develop a vision that brings together nature, creativity and community in a dynamic educational experience • Develop a sustainable financial and operating model; • Identify partners, test the market; and • Identify opportunities for investment.

The objective will be to develop a multi-sector governance model which is operationally sustainable while balancing the Centre’s core mission to provide students with critical outdoor learning opportunities.

Profiles for Artscape and Evergreen are provided below.

Next Steps

The next stages in this project involve evolving a vision and identifying partners in the development of a sustainable financial model for the Boyne River Project OEC. Is proposed that this next stage of the project be undertaken in four phases as outlined below:

Phase 1: Project Initiation and Community Leader Engagement

Phase 2: Visioning Charette and Development Options

Phase 3: Facility Feasibility Assessment

Phase 4: Business Plan – Recommendations and Report Submission

A detailed work plan is attached (see Appendix B).

As the Boyne River OEC has no local Trustee representation, it is recommended that two Trustee representing the Board work with staff during the next phase of the project.

Conclusion

A new concept and operating model for the Boyne River OEC provides an opportunity:

• to keep the property in the Board’s ownership; • to investigate and evolve a sustainable financial and operating model that would see the re- opening of the Boyne River OEC; • to seek partners and identify opportunities for investment;

1250 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 8, November 21, 2007 Boyne River Outdoor Education Centre Feasibility Study, R. R. 4, Shelbourne [1171]

• to rethink the intersection of nature, creativity and community in a dynamic education experience; • to provide students with critical outdoor learning opportunities at the Boyne River; • to defer ongoing operating costs currently incurred by the Board for a vacant building; and • to potentially generate an annual revenue stream to support the Board capital program.

Resources

$76,000 Professional fees

Leased Revenue Funding Source

Implementation And Review

October 2007 Board Approval Nov 2007–May 2008 Work Plan Nov - Dec 2007 Phase 1: Project Initiation and Community Leader Engagement Jan – March 2008 Phase 2: Visioning Charette and Development Options April – May 2008 Business Plan Sept 2008 Report Findings to Board

Artscape: Building Creative Spaces

Artscape draws on 20 years of development experience to generate innovative approaches to building and programming creative spaces that respond to the challenges and opportunities within each community.

In Toronto Artscape has developed and managed six self-sustaining multi-tenant arts centers providing work, programming, retail and live works space to hundreds of artists, de- signer/makers, and non-profit organizations.

Each building in Artscape’s portfolio represents a unique assembly of local partners, funding mechanisms and programming activity that has transformed underutilized assets into vital hubs of creative energy and output.

In their latest multi-tenant creative centers such as the Green/Arts Barns and IDEA village projects in Toronto, Artscape is developing multi-dimensional environments incorporating the arts, environment, affordable housing, food security, education, community development, recreation, heritage preservation and public transit.

A list of Artscape projects include:

• The Green Arts/Barns • The Distillery District – Cityscape • Idea Village • Liberty Village

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1251 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 8, November 21, 2007 Boyne River Outdoor Education Centre Feasibility Study, R. R. 4, Shelbourne [1171]

The Evergreen Foundation

Evergreen is a registered national charity founded in 1991. They are a national non-profit environmental organization with a mandate to bring nature to our cities through naturalization projects. Evergreen motivates people to create and sustain healthy, natural outdoor spaces and gives them the practical tools to be successful through its three core programs:

• Learning Grounds - transforming school grounds • Common Grounds - conserving publicly accessible land • Home Grounds - for the home landscape

Evergreen's Mission

Evergreen’s mission is to bring communities and nature together for the benefit of both. Ever- green engages people in creating and sustaining healthy, dynamic outdoor spaces - in our schools, our communities and our homes. Evergreen believes that local stewardship creates vi- brant neighbourhoods, a healthy natural environment and a sustainable society for all.

Evergreen's Vision

Evergreen envisions a sustainable society where individuals live in harmony with and contribute meaningfully to their local environment. Evergreen will be at the forefront of the movement to create this society, by empowering communities, by creating innovative resources and by transforming educational values.

Community naturalization is a collective effort that includes people from all walks of life in the revitalization of their schools, homes or community and, ultimately, in the environmental, social and economic functioning of their cities

Project: Don Valley Brick Works

Evergreen is transforming Toronto’s historic Don Valley Brick Works factory from an underused, deteriorating collection of buildings into a thriving environmentally-based community centre that engages visitors in diverse experiences connected to nature.

For the Board’s decision see page 1236.

1252 G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board November 28 and 30, 2007

G04(H:\search\71128_30.doc)sec.1530 1253